In French, we have this saying: 'qui veux tuer son chien l’accuse d’avoir la rage." which could very roughly read as ‘when one wishes to kill their dog, they say it’s rabid.’
Labour is already saying anyone with a VPN is probably a nonce, so yeah that tracks
Don’t you want to protect children? Very suspicious!
“Alas, every citizen must have microchips surgically inserted into their brains at birth, with all sensory perception backed up to government servers — for your protection — otherwise how do we know you’re not diddling kids while un-surveilled?”
— the pedos who visited Epstein Island
It’s disgusting that their argument is that if you are not in favor of their draconian war on civil liberties then you are a pedophile. That’s what they are saying, and I hate that it works so well on the general public.
I’ve been expecting it for a few years: VPNs will be outlawed for average users (aka, us) and only journalists, NGO, lawyers, govs and so on, will be allowed to use one.
The same way our wonderful elected democratic leaders want to pass laws that will break encryption for everyone save themselves and their friends.
Edit: For context, I’m from France which, exactly like the UK, is another of those perfectly working democracy that has not forgotten who the real boss of the Nation is supposed to be. We’re ruled by the most competent an honest leaders, quite obviously. Edit: helped in their task by incredibly efficient and competent journalists, like this Guardian paper demonstrates (/s ?)
Here we go again. The second anyone mentions pedos it’s going to be used as an argument against civil rights, unless it’s about the Epstein files in which case it gets buried.
It’s so blatant.
Privacy and encryption always goes both ways.
Police actions have taken down many of these CSAM forums already.
Stop trying to undermine the freedom of others and instead put more focus into these police actions.
Ok, arrest children abusers then. Problem solved!
Or, hear me out here, do something about the conditions that cause children to be vulnerable to sexual exploitation? Crazy, i know.
And what are those conditions? And what can we do with them? Is it even possible?
Just investigating situations with paedophiles looks like rather effective but very simple and straightforward way to improve the situation.
One condition would be making it so poverty doesn’t exist by redistributing wealth of the ultra-wealthy. Less people in need of money, less reason to traffic and sell children.
Correct. Also, in developed countries, most child abuse happens within families. This is something where good social services help. The kind of services that always get cut to finance tax cuts for the rich.
and proper sexual education that includes the importance of consent.
Which is why “conservatives” are so opposed to it.
Yet the clear web’s main browser helps legitimate pedophile networks like Meta, YouTube, Discord, and Roblox flourish.
I’m sure Lloyd Richardson has these child accessible websites banned in Canada… /s
Dan Sexton lives in nonce central, his digressive victimhood can be read instantly.
Gretchen Peters works for nonces in the House; something something Epstein’s list.Yes of course anyone who values privacy must be a pedo. It’s not like their are totalitarian regimes popping up around the world that the average citizen needs to be protected from or anything.
Love and praise the Orphan crushing machine lest you be thrown into it in order to protect said crushed orphans.
Seems like the easiest argument for any group wanting to destroy privacy. But destroy one method and they move to the next. Gotta get the offenders, not just nuke privacy for all just on the off chance you slow the perverts down a little bit.
Almost as if the point isn’t to go after pedos at all!
Think of the children!
Not like that you fucking pervert!Rip whistleblowers.
Could there be collaborative moderation where node admins volontarily block other nodes or onion services that host CSAM?
I wonder if that’s technically possible for a hidden service directory or rendez-vous point to do that. It wouldn’t completely kill those services, but may at least make less Tor resources available to them.
The trickiest question may not be technical but organisational. The Tor project probably doesn’t want to be in a position to validate/decide block requests. Different entities all over the world would ask for blocks, for many different kind of contents.
I think the problem is that if there is any org able to enforce a ban, then it can and will be compelled to do so on not just CSAM.
In the network formerly known as freenet, forgetting the current name, traffic to and from the node, and the data at rest is all encrypted, only referenced by keys so nobody has a real influence on what they store or transmit. Plus, they only know the peer that made a request, not a source or a destination, so just ‘pass this key back to me if you have it, otherwise ask the next person’, so routing is just as opaque.
In cases like that there’s not much to be done, as it well should be because as soon as control can be performed it’ll be demanded or liability placed on those who don’t comply.
