“WhAt HaVe YoU gOt To HiDe?”
For fuck sake, I keep my curtains closed if I want to. The only creepy thing about it are the ones insisting I keep them open so they can peer inside.
But they pinky promise not to look!
They just want to be able to look!
See, it’s totally different.
… Do I need this? ->/s
I’d trust more these two kids https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl0812k0yNw
(They’re adorable btw)
I just keep them open for natural light, if I could keep the view out but block the view in, I’d be in heaven.
Talk to some tinting companies. People only think of tinting for cars, but some places will do houses as well. I did reflective tinting on my entire house to block UV to prevent fade, and also help reduce heat a bit, but during the day it reflects sunlight and makes it near impossible to see inside.
Just be very careful what kind of tint. Tinting double pane windows wrong can crack them.
I remember seeing translucent window curtains which could work as well unless you want to block the sunlight for something.
Weird too.
Lol if Trump wins you’ll need a license to not be pregnant. Dont really think theres any mold on these freeze peaches.
I was with you in the first half…
You can literally say whatever you want. Watch:
Fuck Israel
The government said not to say that its antisemitic. I could be a dick bag too. The most I’d be risking is getting banned here, not any legal trouble.
Idk what their intention was but I simply didn’t understand what the second sentence meant. Is that a popular saying?
Until you say it at New York University and get kicked out.
Is that a legal repercussion? Or just getting thrown out of private property?
Who throws you off the private property?
Security, who are other private entities fucking up society, separate from the government. They can be police officers, but are not always unless your University is some massive endowment holder.
A security officer can’t touch you.
Windows 11 joins the chat.
“Hey Microsuck we need access to your Rewind “feature” so we can
spy on what every windows using American is doing on their PCstop terrorism!! Oh and children, yeah, it’s for the children!”Is this even about anything specific?
It’s referencing the surveillance state, and how, especially more recently, the government (I’m talking about the US, but this does happen with governments in other countries as well) has been attempting to pass more and more bills to give themselves more surveillance power over the internet.
For instance, KOSA, disguised as a bill “protecting kids,” would give the government extreme content censorship powers, which could only be enforced with broken encryption schemes, surveillance of private messages, and government software sometimes running on social media network servers if pushed far enough.
Additionally, the STOP CSAM act, which likely wouldn’t end up stopping CSAM, would effectively make encrypted messaging illegal, and could possibly break the very encryption standards that power the internet, like HTTPS.
This isn’t necessarily a new thing, but governments continue to try and surveil their citizens, and want to make it practically illegal to engage in a conversation (primarily digitally) that isn’t visible to the government at every moment.
Look up Europe Chat Control for example.
Or the crypto wars of the '90s.
Big, if true.
Europol’s fighting for that right now. They’re not only trying to functuonally outlaw encrypted messaging, but they plan to be able to hold onto said messages (everything) foe as long as they want.
To be fair, he was talking about anarchy.
One reason more not to let the government know about it!
This is an unfair characterization of the issue. It’s more like the government asking to enter your home because they have evidence that you’ve been hosting known murderers for their “We love to murder people” social club. And when asked for permission to enter your response was, “these people have every right to talk about all the murders they’ve committed.”
Well not quite that either. I don’t know how to pack this up into a tidy analogy, but the issue is that some of these communication platforms have been designed in such a way that no record of the content can be accessed by a third party.
So maybe it’s more like, “Please give me a transcript of the keynote speech at your murderer’s convention,” and replying, “Sorry I don’t have a transcript.” And then the government further saying, “Well then you need to let us install bugs in all your rooms,” and you, the host of many different conventions reply, “No. Privacy is part of the service.” I have now belabored this analogy to death. You’re welcome.
It’s a twofold issue. One is that Telegram is operating an encrypted messaging platform that violates French law. That’s where I disagree with French law, messages should be allowed to be encrypted and the government shouldn’t be allowed to interfere with it.
The other issue is the public communications that take place on Telegram that are facilitating horrible stuff like CSAM, animal abuse, and terrorism. This is well documented and I’ve seen two articles about Telegram’s horrible uses just today (see my comment for the other): https://dubvee.org/post/1782604
Telegram could provide a large majority of the communications. There are public channels and groups that anyone can view, a Telegram account isn’t needed. Even Telegram calls itself a “social media app” so it’s disingenuous to describe all of its communications as private. The issue is that they choose not to cooperate with governments, which violates the law. This is where I have a problem with Telegram. They should help law enforcement if they have access to the messages.
I say all this as an avid Telegram user. I really wish they would just encrypt all communications and force people to seek things out instead of allowing the horrible stuff to be publicly broadcast. That’s what Signal does. The real question is, why doesn’t Telegram?
It’d be like that if they actually bothered getting a warrant for any of this shit, but if you refuse to unlock a phone for them using biometrics they can charge you with blocking an investigation and then force you to do it anyways, so no.
It also gets much worse than that. Law Enforcement routinely treats “Get A Warrant” as less of a necessary step to preserve our liberties and require them to actually prove this use of investigative resources isn’t being wasteful or unnecessarily abridging people’s rights, and more as an annoyance that can and should be gotten around by any means necessary, rights of the public be damned, if they’re saying no they must be guilty!
