This isn’t a new concept by any means. The argument of crime prevention has been used since governments existed
Comment on Creating apps like Signal or WhatsApp could be 'hostile activity,' claims UK watchdog
Ulrich@feddit.org 1 day agoI’m not disagreeing with you but what would happen back then is that they simply wouldn’t stop the crime.
At some point we need to decide if giving up all of our personal freedoms is with stopping some of that. I vote no enthusiastically. We just have to accept that some of that crime won’t be stopped and law enforcement will have to work harder.
arrow74@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
Ulrich@feddit.org 1 day ago
Sure, and we’ve always compromised on the 2 as a society. But we continually trend more and more towards prevention rather than privacy and sovereignty.
JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl 1 day ago
They don’t even stop significantly more crime now… They simply invent new “crimes” and jerk each other off for keeping the streets safe from that minority eating their lunch or going for a walk.
hayvan@piefed.world 1 day ago
I would give up privacy only under one condition: everyone gives up all privacy. No exceptions.
4am@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
If our countries could stop doing things that give people a reason to commit terroristic acts, Maybe that would solve some of it and we could be more secure in our papers and possessions without unlawful interference and undue search and seizures but that’s apparently none of my business
WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 1 day ago
The elite know what’s coming. There isn’t enough to keep economic growth going and sacrifices will have to be made, and that’s not going to be the top. That means something is needed to detect and remove “problems” before they get big.
Ulrich@feddit.org 1 day ago
Ok but that is a separate discussion.