>you will gradually lose control of your government much like how the people of the UK already lost control of theirs.
As a UK citizen, can you explain your reasoning here? We haven't implemented anything like the chat control proposal and while a few politicians have brought up similar ideas, there is a lot of pushback against it.
Two obvious ones come to mind, the UK age verification system laid the groundwork for internet IDs + ~12,000 people per year being arrested for online speech (a number that's grown exponentially) [1]. There's many other examples.
[1] https://factually.co/fact-checks/justice/uk-social-media-arr...
The UK doesn't have the exact equivalent of chat control yet, but it already arrests people for politically incorrect posts. They're doing things in smaller steps, which is more likely to succeed.
[dead]
You’re just proving his point.
Lazy.
The US believes the right of the individual to harass others based on their immutable characteristics is more important than the right of the individual to be free of harassment based on their immutable characteristics.
The UK doesn't, and that very much reflects UK vs US culture (US culture as we know being racist and divisive).
Meanwhile, the US seems to be flirting with a central idea of communism and fascism - that political criticism of the dear leader is off limits. Thus protecting the right of the (future) authoritarian (dictator) to be free of criticism.
I know which one of two actually reflects an important aspect of freedom of speech.
Rabble rousers will tell you otherwise, but the trick is to recognise they are rabble rousers.
If chat control gets passed it will also be a law, passed by legislation.
The point is that laws can be unjust.
Britain isn't in the EU - so, it won't. I'm responding to a point that was made.
"The point is that laws can be unjust."
That's not exactly profound.
Are you certain the person you just replied to is not in a marginalised group? If that person is, would you be running afoul of that law with "Don't be a moron."?
I'm going to say yes, and no.
Mens rea underpins the British legal system.
[flagged]
Age verification, while trivial to bypass (for now), has brought you closer to further privacy-invading restrictions. Next, VPNs will be attacked. Then it will be unsigned apps on "untrusted" operating systems.
Anonymity is not privacy.
The mechanisms that attack one attack the other as well. The apparatuses which exist to de-anonymize communication also remove the ability to definitively keep the content of the communication private, and no government (UK or EU or US, etc) that has proposed a ChatControl-like scheme has ever used a method that did not allow them to do both.
If a porn site checks my ID against a gov database, the gov now knows I went to that porn site. That is a loss of both anonymity and privacy.
I'm completely against all infringements of privacy, but,
>If a porn site checks my ID against a gov database, the gov now knows I went to that porn site. That is a loss of both anonymity and privacy.
This is not necessarily true. It is possible to design systems much more like CRL than OCSP, including identity or even just age verification systems. Consider the FedGov sharing a list of public keys tied to identities of people over the age of 18, updated daily, while issuing corresponding private keys to citizens. The citizens could use their private key to sign a challenge issued by the adult media website, who would simply verify that the public key tied to the signed challenge response exists on the list of all public keys tied to identities of people over 18 issued by the fedgov.
With this system, adult websites would not need to send any identifying information to FedGov, nor would private citizens be disclosing any identifying information to the adult website - not their name, not their address, not even their date of birth, just cryptographic proof that they're in possession of a private key that corresponds to the identity of an adult.
Sure, kids could still conceivably obtain cryptographic private keys, just as they can obtain photographs of state-issued government ID that are currently used for age verification.
The real problem with schemes like these isn't the technical feasibility, but rather the capacity of the citizenry to understand and perform their own cryptographic key management.
Anonymity is eroding our democracies far faster than our privacy.
VPN is not only for anonymity
I'm not sure what point you are making, but isn't the one I was responding to.
How many surveillance cameras does your government operate again?
How much do you trust your current government with the extensive surveillance apparatus they have created?
How much do you trust the next government?
What about the government after that?
This is a very naive view of surveillance and government trust.