> We, collectively, only have ourselves to blame, and now it's too late.

Why would we have to be blamed for a law written by some lobbyists? That makes no sense at all. There are of course some folks that are in favour of this because "of the children" but their rationale does not apply to me nor to many other people. Why should they be able to force people to surrender their data, with the operating system becoming a sniffer giving out private data to everyone else? That makes no sense.

▲

pear01 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The invocation of "lobbyists" in this context is meaningless. People lobby for all kinds of things. Doesn't really matter once it becomes a law anyway.

If people could just say I don't agree with this law, it "makes no sense" and it's written by "lobbyists" and the government should not "be able to force" me to comply then we don't have a society anymore.

You had better come up with some better arguments otherwise it just seems like the typical sad case of the losing side suddenly griping about the referee's monopoly of force when it's no longer going their way...

The comment you replied to rightly pointed out one way of getting ahead of said monopoly of force is addressing problems with the status quo before the state takes an interest. It didn't happen, and now you will probably get some heavy handed intervention. But ignoring this basic point to ask why oh why suggests an ignorance of the very nature of the society that is and has been constantly regulating you.

If you only happened to notice now you should consider yourself a rather lucky specimen in the long line of human history, full of those remarking "this makes no sense" as they are nonetheless compelled to comply.

▲

rudhdb773b 16 hours ago | parent [-]

The fact that lobbyists push the law is in fact very meaningful. It means that a minority with power is trying to tip the scales in their favor against the otherwised unbiased will of the majority.

To extend your analogy, it's not one side complaining after a fair match, it's them complaining that refs have been paid off.

	▲	pear01 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		There is no such thing as an "unbiased will of the majority". That sort of terminology might have flown back in the 18th century with Rousseau and the like speaking of a "general will" but in today's era of social science, it has about as much force as invoking divinity. Everyone has bias. The idea of a general will is largely fiction and was discredited at the time. Our system is based on coercion, costs and trade-offs and nothing more. That is human history. You may have some rights (perhaps a right to privacy, it is debatable) but this is really just the three core components dressed up in reverse. The freedom of speech for instance is simply to codify the idea that the state silencing you is intolerable. Intolerable is eventually meaningless unless it is backed up by costs and coercion against the state which they will seek to avoid. When the state violates such "rights" flagrantly sometimes the people are called to manifest this aspect of "intolerable". That's what a revolution is. Failing that you need to convince people. And in so doing if you aim to find some "unbiased will of the majority" you are wasting your time. You would be better off with a lobbyist. Surely such a person would not so readily engage in such fiction regarding how democracy actually works, and would thus be more effective in achieving your goals.
	▲	mlrtime 14 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Lobbyists do not always mean minority. I'm sure it looks like that from the outside. There are all kinds of laws that people don't like, me included. With every law there will be some winner/loser trade-off (for lack of better word). As OP said, that is society. If the people here were so passionate about it, they would help come up with a better solution, not a "f* off" comment.

▲

hananova an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Because the government has a monopoly on violence and enforcement of the law. That’s why they can force you. If you don’t like it, move somewhere else.

Also, the uproar here is hilarious, because many people here literally get paid to work on privacy-destruction-machines. But now that the government is the one doing it, it’s suddenly bad. Give me a break.

And yes, I can say that my conscience is clear. I may not be rich, I may have had to quit two jobs and spend two years homeless because I did not want to implement immoral or unethical code. But my conscience is clear.