Given the choice of trust between, lets say Amazon/Meta/Google and the EU (or some European government), 9 times out of 10, the EU is the lesser evil.

▲

Cider9986 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You don't have to use Amazon/Meta/Google. You have to use the government.

Let's not forget that these are the people and laws that are supposed to represent and help you, not the other way around. While private companies have no such obligation.

	▲	sscaryterry 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Amazon/Meta/Google is sometimes required, nobody in the real world can get away from that. > supposed to represent and help you, not the other way around. While private companies have no such obligation. Exactly my point.
	▲	vrganj 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I've moved countries 5 times in my life. I still haven't been able to fully degoogle.

▲

liveoneggs 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

For now none of Amazon, Meta, or Google can jail you or legally do violence on you, separate you from your family, etc. Your sense of threat is extremely miscalibrated.

	▲	sscaryterry 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Not really. I know what you are playing at. The probability of the government being vindictive towards a single family, whilst not truly zero, is for almost all practical purposes zero. The probability of a (my or your) child enduring harmful content, perpetuated and enabled by Meta/Google (in particular) is almost a certainty.

▲

JoshTriplett 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

We are not required to pick amongst evils. We could, in fact, say private chats are private and end to end encryption is sacrosanct.

▲

sscaryterry 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If you are purist and you don't live in the real world with real evils. I don't want pedophiles to have privacy.

▲

john_strinlai 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>I don't want pedophiles to have privacy.

that is why police already have access to mechanisms to remove privacy from people suspected of being a pedophile.

▲

sscaryterry 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The existing mechanisms are inadequate or not fit for 2026. Hence this discussion.

You are agreeing with me :)

▲

john_strinlai 3 hours ago | parent [-]

>You are agreeing with me :)

i am absolutely not :)

you want to provide unfettered warrantless access to all of your communications. ive been fighting against that sort of thing for approaching 40 years now.

▲

sscaryterry 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> have access to mechanisms to remove privacy from people suspected of being a pedophile

I don't understand that part then. You can't break open E2EE by willing it open.

Right now, if I wanted a new account, I walk into any supermarket, spend a quid, and I've got a burner, with WhatsApp.

	▲	john_strinlai 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>I don't understand that part then. You can't break open E2EE by willing it open. the mechanism to remove privacy from suspects is typically called a warrant. (end-to-end encryption does not matter if you possess one of the ends)

▲

BoingBoomTschak 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

After Epstein, Hollywood and decades earlier Dutroux, you'd think people like you would have wizened.

For fuck's sake, my country's entire media/intellectual class protected an avowed and even boasting pedophile during his entire life! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Matzneff

▲

john_strinlai 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

what a crazy turning of the tides to see this comment in the gray.

i suppose the times have changed from when most people on the internet were cypherphunk. now it's common to see people say "i have nothing to hide, please scan all of my communications", unironically invoking "please think of the children".