zlacker

I'm really curious what you think evil is since you keep capitalizing and speaking of it as some spiritual essence that can be eradicated.

You have not established the slightest bit of an operational definition, and resort to pathologizing neutral transmission channels as hosts of "Evil". This is a complete non-starter and not worthwhile to deliberate. "Evil uses Tor" is as useful as "Evil uses paper".

>>vezzy-+(OP)
Maybe not worthwhile for you, but there's a set of people out there who all agree on what Evil actually is (generally, obviously it's difficult to be exact), and we'd like to try and figure out how to limit its ability to act, while maintaining the shield of protection for the persecuted.

>>vezzy-+(OP)
But evil uses paper is probably going to do less harm than evil uses Tor or a gun or a nuke. Societal control must adapt to the medium on a regularly adjusting basis depending on the perceived level of evil.

>>tdyen+d8
Do not underestimate the power of paper. Because with the right amount of legal framework (on paper) I can evict people from their houses, sell these of for a nice profit and not have to care for the fate of said people.

I could rob whole countries of their future (say Greece) with paper treaties.

I can rob people of most of their democratic power (see lots of tries at treaties like TTIP or some things like this).

All on paper and in my eyes tending to the evil side.

The problem with evil though is, that it isn't an objective term, it is not empirically measurable and it has so many definitions and perspectives, that it has none.

Evil is a weasle-word, is propaganda, nothing more. So we really need a better word, a better definition. And breaking the law or something like that does not work either, as for example the laws in Germany, the US or Saudi Arabia or China tend to differ massively. They are ideologically tainted and do not provide an objective framework/reference either.

So we should work on a actionable and helpful definition first and not go partisan on the medium to be controlled.

>>Laaw+W1
Many groups agree within themselves. But they disagree with other groups. Who can judge which group it right? What are the odds that it happens to be the group you're in, not all the others that previous generations were in or people in other cultures are in.

Quick test - is looking at a photo of a naked child evil?

>>sdoeri+79
The issue here is more or less. A kitchen knife is bound to cause less casualty than a machine gun in the hand of a psycho, hence we require licenses for gun. It's not to eliminate death through violence, it's to reduce and deter it. We don't want people to reach for the nearest machine gun whenever they have a domestic quarrel (obviously we don't want people to reach for a knife either, but I hope you get my point) or when their neighbor's dog poops in their yard.

>>Nutmog+pk
Quicker test - do you have a point, or are you just trying to bog down this conversation about privacy with a defeatist "we have to let murders/rapists get away with it" argument?

>>Laaw+Yp1
I'm concerned that you seem to have made a clear distinction between good and evil when really there is none. Certainly we can apply our own society's general ideas, but it's not black and white in any way. Even murder is acceptable in many cultures. For example killing of soldiers during a war.

>>Nutmog+mG6
It's a placeholder, and talking about it is distracting from the point (the "point" being maybe we can have both privacy and safety, and that the dichotomy is false). There is undeniably some activity that we can both agree is evil, and therefore we can talk about Evil without having to figure out exactly what that activity is.

Or rather, we could if you were being intellectually honest.

Most people, if given the choice, will nearly always pick safety over privacy. It's simply not enough to say you can't have both, because privacy will eventually get thrown out by the electorate, of any country.