zlacker

>>donoho+(OP)
> He warns that developers of apps like Signal and WhatsApp could technically fall within the legal definition of "hostile activity" simply because their technology "make[s] it more difficult for UK security and intelligence agencies to monitor communications.

Sounds like Let's Encrypt would also fall under that.

This has got to stop. If you want to stop criminals, then focus on their illegal activites, not the streets they walk on. I walk on them too. And don't use CP as a catch-all argument to insert backdoors.

Their big problem here is that previously, it was hard to find people with the same opinion as you. If you couldn't find someone in the same village who wanted to start a rebellion, it probably wouldn't happen. Today, someone can post a Telegram group message and make thousands of people rally to a town square. I see the dangers, and I see why governments think they are doing this to protect the people. No one wants civil war. That is still not a strong enough reason to call road construction a hostile activity.

I'm back in Sweden after 12 years abroad. Time to read up on which parties are sane and which aren't when it comes to technical infrastructure.

>>flower+x6
> This has got to stop. If you want to stop criminals, then focus on their illegal activites, not the streets they walk on.

That would be against everything european governments stand for.

>>mosura+R7
I don't understand why you got heavily downvoted.

Yes, there are governments that are worse than European, but the decline of European government is the fastest.

You may be surprised that the UK is the world leader in the number of people arrested because of internet posts. And that Germany, which is still way behind the UK, has more people arrested for the same reason than Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Belarus, Saudi Arabia, and a few others combined.

And many people still believe that those countries are beacons of democracy while the others are backward dictatorships.

>>mirolj+Pb
Indeed: https://metro.co.uk/2025/12/17/man-jailed-burning-migrant-ho...

“An X user who posted two anti-immigration tweets been handed a 18-month jail sentence.”

Edit to point out 1. That is a quote and 2. The UK considers this Ok though https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjeykklwn7vo

>>mosura+ad
Not that I believe people should be jailed for speech, but merely referring to what he said as “anti-immigration” is very much burying the lede

>>_bohm+jh
For people too lazy to click, the second post was:

> I think it’s time for the British to gang together, hit the streets and start the slaughter.

> Violence and murder is the only way now. Start off burning every migrant hotel then head off to MPs’ houses and Parliament, we need to take over by FORCE.

I'm not sure what the punishment for such a clear but ineffective incitement to violence should be, but it shouldn't be nothing.

>>creata+2l
This is an convictable crime in the US. Inciting violence is emphatically not protected speech.

>>MangoT+jl
This is definitely not a crime in the US per the US Supreme Court. Several additional conditions not in evidence are required for speech of this type to fall outside of First Amendment protections.

>>jandre+DB
The Something Awful Forums got investigated by the FBI after one or two people posted threats about the current president.

So, uh, yes. It's definitely something that the federal authorities take a dim view on.

>>fao_+QO
You're mixing up "take a dim view" on and investigation, with charging and conviction.

>>brigan+VP2
Inciting violence is certainly an arrestable offence, and likely convictable. What hill are you trying to die on?