So much for free markets, democracy and freedom of speech.
I don’t know whether Spain cares a lot about “free market” at the moment.
Even if I get your point and would even make a similiar point in a privat conversation, there is still a problem. The problem, if and how the Freedom of Speech implies that you can use a certain service you choice. If this implication were true, would it not mean that the provider of the named service has a duty to provide you a access, too?
Yes, they blocked it because of copyright infringement but let’s face it, piracy should be viewed as a market option for people to get their content,
There are messenger out there, which are more privacy as Telegram. Eg. Signal, Threemea, mostly services based on XMPP and Matrix.
If you believe my statement to be implausible without video evidence
Sorry, I missed it. I thought you speak about some correspondence between a company and authorities.
Nebenbei, dass die Regierung diese Anschauung vertritt glaube ich dir gern. Darüber müsste man eigentlich einen längeren Text schreiben, aber den liest am Ende eh niemand.
i’d like to invite you to meet our former minister of defence in the current government, Lambrecht, who resigned after referring to the war in Ukraine as an opportunity to have met many nice people in a social media video.
I remember that part a bit different. The speech or address was poorly orated but, as far as I remember, his was a usual rhetorical technice to bring something positive after a negative part. The speech as a whole was a kind of summary of the year.
After all we are not like Russia, China or Saudi Arabia, so those people have nothing to fear…
Oh sure. Your anecode is a very impressive symbol for the state of some discussions here. Maybe, even a bit too good to be strict true.
Could I ask, where and how do you communicate with the German gouverment?
I’m a bit pessimistic about that point. It seems that the main reason why the Internet was less regulated than, lets say, the TV market was the lack of awareness of the old authorities and policymakers. At the latest with the victory of Donald Trump, things have changed. Now the ruling class is beginning to believe in the world-changing power of the flow of (mis)information on the Internet.
Its important to note that it doesn’t matter how you think about this changes in terms of ethics or politics. The mayor event was the change of mind in regards to the internet as such. Before, the internet was seen as something new, yet not understond and/or a place were young people does childish pranks. The innocence is over, at least in their eyes.Unimportant is the question whether you believe the the world-changing power of the internet yourself. Maybe, the idea is even false and the internet isn’t that important. But you have the regulation of it on the political agenda. It takes years to come to a better knowleade. Sometimes, even ages.
I wonder how long this ruling will hold if the EU commision comes around with their own chat control. Before somebody write it: I know that the EU and the Human Rights Court are different institution and doesn’t have much to do with each another.
The Russian state has already left the European agreement, which was the frame in which the court works.
At least, it should be interesting to check the judgment out. Some aspects are really interesting. As it seems, the european court may development a ruling like Bernstein v. United States. That could be interesting since the european continent lackes such a regulation as far as I know.
“I do this for good reasons, trust me” is not a valid argument.
Yes. The problem is, when one country has had a intelligence agency and the other has not, the one with the agency has a advantage. At least, under the same conditions.
I see the tension between a republican (res publica, “thing of the public”) State and the existence of such secrets. The question is if a state without this could exist under the current circumstances. There are a lot room for doubts here, I fear.
Thank you for your long answer. Even if it doesn’t contain the answer I looking for.
nd even if your mixmaster or tor traffic is really anonymized (which is dubious), the fact you are using such services at all probably flags you for attention.
I think so, too. But in my imagination, one who uses tor or a remailer is just a short flash on the radar. If it doesn’t follow more, they would not investigate further. Since 90% or so of all tor users doesn’t do anything bad. Even agencies doesn’t like wasting of time and resources.
If you just want to exchange email with your friend when you are both on the down low, you might be best off just both enrolling gmail accounts.
With Google, I think, it will nearly 100% sure that it is tracked somehow. If both sides have no problem with this, its fine.
Plus, a lot of attention in the crypto nerd world shifted over to things like bitcoin.
Never considered this angle. Thanks for this.
I have heard there was a recent development in single server PIR (private information retrieval).
I remember, I have read, over 5 years ago, a PDF-File from a German university about this. It was a so called “blinded read”-method.
I have a vagly idea how this can work but I lack the mathematical knowleade to explain it further.
There is Tor but that seems to overreach enough that I can’t really believe in it.
You mention tor. I don’t thing its an accident. tor and the mixmaster has a lot in common in my eyes. Both use a model of 3 levels at the default (entry, mid and exit), both use a similiar principle to avoid tracking by the time when informations floud throught the system.
They all want real time video and active web pages. It is unfortunate.
You can have both. Anonym communication and social media with posting pictures of your food. But with things like mixmasters, it’s remains your choice which level of privacy you need.
P.S.: Maybe, I should ask on reddit or in a technical forum about it?
Yeah, I wouldn’t be too confident in Facebook’s implementation, and I certainly don’t believe that their interests are aligned with their users’.
I’m quite sure, they arn’t. This statement doesn’t mean that I think they have bad intention or something. It’s just, at least for me, obivious that the interest of the users and these of the companies are highly different. This is also the case with other companies and their customers.
Having access to the data means that they will be required by law to provide that data to governments in various circumstances.
A more paranoid person than myself would suspect that any big enough gouverment world simply force the companies to collect and share data.
The metadata problem is common to a lot of platforms.
From the viewpoint of the cooperations, this is a good deal. Enough privacy to keep people on the plattform and still enough data for advertisment.
Companies exist to make money.
Therfor, it isn’t a great problem, tbh.
The gouverment my spyy on us just to have as much information as possible to get profiles but companies need you as possible customer. If you never use the side againt, they would not find any use of the data and to store it makes costs. So, they probable delete them after a certain time.
That are good reasons.