Tell them she doesn't own any devices that could connect to the internet. I'm sure they'll figure something out. They have to have procedures for this sort of thing.

▲

ceejayoz 21 hours ago | parent [-]

> They have to have procedures for this sort of thing.

"Sorry, try somewhere else" is the procedure.

▲

iamnothere 19 hours ago | parent [-]

Exactly. Rather than passing laws to require a non-digital option for these things, we should make sure that devices are locked down and controlled against users (aka hapless idiots).

▲

ceejayoz 17 hours ago | parent [-]

> Rather than passing laws to require a non-digital option for these things...

Do you think I oppose this?

▲

iamnothere 16 hours ago | parent [-]

Seems like you’re pushing for control over user tech here over any sort of other regulation. Other regulation which would be much simpler to coordinate and which wouldn’t infringe on end user freedoms!

Removing end user control, repairability, and hackability/repurposing (all related) should be the very last resort, not the first!

▲

ceejayoz 14 hours ago | parent [-]

> Seems like you’re pushing for control over user tech here over any sort of other regulation.

That fits your pattern elsewhere in this thread of not actually engaging with what others are saying to slay strawmen.

Over? No. Regulation and some controls work hand in hand as mitigations.

	▲	iamnothere 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		While we’re at it, let’s stop crime by adding more officers, reforming the bail system, oh and also installing cameras in everyone’s bedroom. Last resorts are last resorts because they infringe on core freedoms. And your “controls” are equivalent to removing individual ownership of devices. This is a step too far towards a post-ownership society and joint corporate-state control of the individual’s means of communication and participation in society.