> But there are a few people asking who is pushing for this legislation so hard. That's mostly police forces who are pointing out that they're unable to track the activities of criminal organisations. For example, in the UK sophisticated gangs steal cars and phones and ship them around the world where they're resold.

If that is really such a big problem, then why don't the politicians say so instead of saying that this law is for protection children?

▲

testdelacc1 2 days ago | parent [-]

That's a fair point, but different arguments work with different audiences.

For what it's worth, they're not making up the CSAM thing. It has never been easier to disseminate/acquire CSAM in a way that you're never caught. That wasn't really possible before, which means there's a larger market for the production of such material.

I didn't bring up CSAM here because HN is militantly against think-of-the-children arguments.

▲

pydry 2 days ago | parent [-]

The UK Labour government is one government particularly in favor of tapping all communications "for the sake of the children".

It turned out this week that they knowingly hired the "best friend" of famous pedophile as ambassador to the US.

>I didn't bring up CSAM here because HN is militantly against think-of-the-children arguments.

All consent manufacturing arguments promoting mass surveillance and backdoors are disingenuous to the very core.

Im surprised you dont see it.

	▲	tremon 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		they knowingly hired the "best friend" of famous pedophile as ambassador to the US I don't see the problem. Being well-connected in the proper networks is a major benefit for embassy work.