hoshikarakitaridia

hoshikarakitaridia , vor einem Tag

Imo this is the most dangerous part rn. War is bad and everyone can see that, but propaganda on a global scale is very opaque and those who are targeted will usually not know, as it employs various forms of subtlety.

hoshikarakitaridia , vor 17 Tagen

I already commented this on another post about chat control but I still stand by what I said before so imma be a dick and put the original comment here as well:

Imagine there's one phone type with one security level. And now they introduce a second phone. It has less security. Now everyone has to switch to the weaker phone.

Soooo, now who gets the stronger phones? Government employees? The military? Politicians? Agencies?

The less the strong phones you give out, the more authoritarian the measure. But the more the strong phones you give out, the higher the chance of misuse or mishandling. You will now have a black market for secure phones, giving them out to criminals. You will now have people with strong phones having a higher right of privacy, giving them more protection against the state itself.

Now let's add more factors. Someone loses their stronger phone. We now have a potentially untraceable strong phone. The government is losing control over those. Now you have 5 different tiers of secure phones. But people are people and the more complicated, the more things can go wrong. Now let's add in slightly more authoritarian states like Hungary. There's a good chance they will instantly start spying on journalists. Or give opposition parties the weaker phones by accident.

Now add in foreign agencies. China's digital government agencies are very efficient. Imagine they get the keys to the weaker phones. Great, now China can effectively monitor 99% of the EU. And now even if an EU member has a strong phone, they just listen in his wife's phone, and they get the information anyway. Now what about if a spy from North Korea gets the keys and starts finding bank information on the stronger phones? They now have new super annoying ways of stealing billions of dollars from the EU and covertly as well if they do it right.

As you can see, making some people's security weaker on purpose is a lose lose game. It never works. There's way too many cooks in the kitchen in the EU for this kind of stuff to stay in line, and there WILL be misuse, one way or the other.

hoshikarakitaridia , vor 18 Tagen

Imagine there's one phone type with one security level. And now they introduce a second phone. It has less security. Now everyone has to switch to the weaker phone.

Soooo, now who gets the stronger phones? Government employees? The military? Politicians? Agencies?

The less the strong phones you give out, the more authoritarian the measure. But the more the strong phones you give out, the higher the chance of misuse or mishandling. You will now have a black market for secure phones, giving them out to criminals. You will now have people with strong phones having a higher right of privacy, giving them more protection against the state itself.

Now let's add more factors. Someone loses their stronger phone. We now have a potentially untraceable strong phone. The government is losing control over those. Now you have 5 different tiers of secure phones. But people are people and the more complicated, the more things can go wrong. Now let's add in slightly more authoritarian states like Hungary. There's a good chance they will instantly start spying on journalists. Or give opposition parties the weaker phones by accident.

Now add in foreign agencies. China's digital government agencies are very efficient. Imagine they get the keys to the weaker phones. Great, now China can effectively monitor 99% of the EU. And now even if an EU member has a strong phone, they just listen in his wife's phone, and they get the information anyway. Now what about if a spy from North Korea gets the keys and starts finding bank information on the stronger phones? They now have new super annoying ways of stealing billions of dollars from the EU and covertly as well if they do it right.

As you can see, making some people's security weaker on purpose is a lose lose game. It never works. There's way too many cooks in the kitchen in the EU for this kind of stuff to stay in line, and there WILL be misuse, one way or the other.

hoshikarakitaridia , vor einem Monat

No clue where the down votes are from.

hoshikarakitaridia , vor 2 Monaten

You know what, considering the other dumb things that have surfaced, sure. I'll be believe it.

hoshikarakitaridia , vor 2 Monaten

Ok so I've looked into various sources, and it looks like the police is concerned for the safety of ppl at the DiEM as well as civilians around it.

Because of that, they prohibited specific inflammatory and incendiary words and language as to prevent the discussion from escalating into violence in Berlin.

Listening to some of the things that were said before they issued the ban, it is clear that some of the speeches were radical or very much pushing the envelope.

Now there is some confusion about where the ban on specific language came from - police refers to the Senate, Senate refers to other parties (and that's not great), but it's not as if the police just felt like it or as if there was some shady stuff going on behind the scenes.

I am a German from Berlin, so I am very concerned when I hear stuff like this, and that's why I had to look it up and dig into it to some degree. I wish the international press did a more thorough job, because if it didn't take me that long to find a different account, that means they didn't do their job and I don't like that.