this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2025
49 points (100.0% liked)

Privacy

7438 readers
33 users here now

A community for Lemmy users interested in privacy

Rules:

  1. Be civil
  2. No spam posting
  3. Keep posts on-topic
  4. No trolling

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] MotoAsh@piefed.social 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

That won't protect shit. You need laws that actually protect and preserve privacy. Otherwise they'll just find some loophole. Like the NSA in the US. Not supposed to get searched without a warrant to the point where evidence gathered in such ways is supposed to be inadmissable in court... But your data isn't your property.

Even if it were your property, you'd have to add protections so that just because a company handles your data doesn't magically make it their data to sell for profit so it ends up spread far and wide and hackable in dozens of databases around the world.

If you don't protect PRIVACY and your right to control your own data, they'll just say they can force companies to use more hackable methodologies instead of an outright back door. They'll just force government ID to get on the web so even just your comms patterns without the content can be very telling. They could even simply force companies to forward the data some other way after the data legally becomes the company's data...

If you try to protect "from mass surveilance" without understanding the legal avenues in which your data is extracted... you'll just end up making room some other way while innoculating the tech illiterate public from how vulnerable their data still is.

Remember, nobody thought there was mass surveilance in the US until Snowden leaked it... Even then, the tech illiterate do not understand how it is EXACTLY a runaround of the fourth amendment.

[โ€“] solrize@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

California's state constitution lists a right to privacy but afaict it makes no difference.