It's impossible to stop all crime without an all-encompassing surveillance state. At some point you have to set boundaries for what the state is allowed to do in the name of safety.
It's impossible to stop all crime without an all-encompassing surveillance state. At some point you have to set boundaries for what the state is allowed to do in the name of safety.
Agreed. But then you have to explain how you set your boundary. You can't just say that the right boundary is yours.
ChatControl will protect some kids. If your argument is "yeah, shit happens", you won't convince anyone. If your argument is "yes, but at a great cost for society", then you need to explain what the cost is.
Saying "your freedom" is worth exactly as much as "but CSAM" when said from the other side. It's not enough. What is the tangible risk of ChatControl?
>You can't just say that the right boundary is yours.
Constitution says I can. The country is governed by people.