this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2025
837 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

63614 readers
2797 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
837
France is about to pass the worst surveillance law in the EU. (tuta.com)
submitted 4 days ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/technology@lemmy.world
98 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/56769139

cross-posted from: https://sopuli.xyz/post/23170564

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Wow indeed. We're only a few comments deep, so you can see the comment. This one:

Continuing the analogy, government agencies can absolutely eavesdrop on in-person conversations unless you expend significant resources to prevent it. This is exactly what I believe will happen - organized crime will develop alternate methods the government can't access while these backdoors are used to monitor less advanced criminals and normal people.

I challenge you to show where it suggests a "want for uncompromising privacy is a US only thing." Then point out where they show support for government access to communications.

[–] stevedice@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The literal first comment.

[–] StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

You're responding to a follow-up comment from a different user who is disagreeing with the first comment as if they're the author of the original comment and their clear dissent is actually them agreeing with themselves somehow. Of course, you're arguing with anyone who points out you're confused.

Literal fucking insanity, mate.

[–] stevedice@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago

Oh, I didn't see they were different users. Live and learn.