The laws get _weird_ if you have "resident" status in more than one country.
Just to make the rules easier to enforce, it's sometimes easier to show you have resident status somewhere else. I had much bigger issues with the fact that land ownership / house ownership / bank account laws care a lot about non-resident-ownership.
Singapore would be a toss up in terms of privacy, but it is excellent and friendly for work-focused, law-abiding, norm-conforming kind of people. I don't mean it in a bad way.
Yeah, I found that pretty questionable of a move as well.
On the opposite side of the political isle, you could observe the same thing, with a bunch of republicans loudly proclaiming on the internet their "plans" to move to Canada whenever Obama implemented Obamacare or tried to raise taxes on anything. Given that Canada has socialized healthcare and higher taxes, they looked just as ridiculous as people in this thread "planning" a move to Singapore due to Canada pushing anti-privacy laws. That's the taste of self-hating north americans for you.
A good quote in relation to this comes to mind: "There is no geographical solution to personal problems." Note: it doesn't mean that moving to another country due to your current one becoming unlivable is bad idea. But it seems weird to want to leave your country due to poor internet laws for a country with even worse internet laws and privacy. Which is what you can see with those mentions of Singapore, they didn't quite think it through at all. That's the taste of a group of self-hating north americans for you.
Netherlands, although not perfect still has some classical liberal ideals. Singapore is a "Disneyland with the Death Penalty", who in their right mind would go there.
And the death penalty is applicable to a tiny proportion of the population (disproportionately drug smugglers). It might not be your ideal, but please refrain from implying someone else is crazy for living there.
> Doesn't that make this a bit pointless since I don't know anyone that [...]
There is a very large variety of people out there. It's unlikely that your social bubble contains all the different ways to use a phone. if you search the net the phrase "phone clearing dump" you will find example of people having filled their phones with so much "funny images" that they are now saving them to an online image hosting service.
You probably also don't know anyone who has depictions of sexual abuse of children on their phones, yet it is a thing that exists, and that apple seems to be trying to address.
yes. it's specific images. It's pointless and looks half-assed, but hey, they have the future to perfect it. This is only the watered down/tame version to get the foot in the door and cause a big commotion while still being able to keep plausible deniability. Once they do this a couple of times people will get tires and stop caring. That's when the scary stuff slips in.
It finds specific images, but the hash is based on pixels, not raw file bytes. The hash is insensitive to small image changes (brightness, saturation, rotation, compression artifacts), so slightly modified images still hash to the same value.
Supposedly they have to do that for safety deposit boxes too, but as recent events have shown in LA, that doesn't stop them from seizing everything including those boxes and then opening them up to take inventory. A judge objects, but it's too late. Now people are having to prove that they own whatever was in those boxes to get back their stuff back, and if they can't -- everything is gone.
Where are you from? If it's from continental Europe, I wonder if that's the difference. We get our laws from English Common Law instead of civil law (except Louisiana).
Can we get a brit in here to see what their conception of the law is?
How courts interpret legislation and precedent differs a lot between common and civil law jurisdictions, but that's got nothing to do with how policing operates. Police everywhere can choose not to take action unless you're talking about a zero-tolerance society with Stasi-like levels of monitoring.
"Selecting policing" is just "discretion", that particular phrase is possibly US-centric but the concept itself isn't.
I'm sure every police force takes that into account along with other factors, there are always laws that become outdated and are arrested for less, prosecuted less and convicted of less over time. And in common law jurisdictions precedent can impact the scope of existing law and change how police will enforce it.
> the transfer of cryptocurrency is the same as the transfer of generic messages
Technically, yes. Legally and sociopolitically, no.
And if you intentionally muddle the data streams, that brings the full force of anti-money laundering, tax evasion and terrorist financing law against you. It gives almost any government a free pass to do what it wants.
Freedom to speak privately is, in most democracies, popularly recognised as a right. Freedom to pay using dark money is not. Attaching the second to the first weakens both.
> FinCEN distinguishes custodial exchanges with noncustodial wallets. It looks like signal is doing the latter.
We agree. There is a legal difference between a custodial exchange and noncustodial wallet. Just as there is a difference between a non-money messaging system and a noncustodial wallet. The comment you are responding to concerned itself with the latter.
I'll tell you one way it's not, is as soon as someone commits a crime who happens to use Signal and the media gets ahold of this. It'll be a circus with terms like "dark webv and wha not thrown arohnd. GPs point #3 is kind of important for their reputation and if we want to onboard more people into crypto messaging.
Transferring cryptocurrency between different people (with the exception of spouses) is an asset disposal that is subject to capital gains tax in the UK. It doesn't matter what, if anything, you get in return.
Again, private companies really need to remain smaller. The size of the companies are completely out of control. So do they have too much control? Of course.
With that said, they are only doing what they know the masses want. So in a way, they're just doing the people's bidding. If Google thought the majority wanted Parler and hate speech, they'd certainly have kept it up.
When I worked at Facebook, the wide-audience internal feeds were kind of dominated by very um.. progressive, enthusiastic messaging that I’d even call activism. And it was considered cool to participate and be in that.. well, ‘clique’ may not be exactly the word but it’s close.
I actually did think it was cool! However, if there were any right wing folks there, naturally they kept quiet.
Also, there are a huge number of conservatives and moderates using Facebook. The main point I’m trying to make is that it is misguided to believe that these companies do not have their very own conscience / worldview / quite strongly held political values.
Facebook literally tweaked algorithms to advantage right conservative websites. If the planned change would disadvantage them, the change was modified until they ended up on top.
While true, fsflover has not made any statements and is only posting questions. He's "JAQing off" [0], so to speak. It's a hallmark of bad faith arguing.
I honestly don't understand why the 1984 comparison is not appropriate here, because the book is about the oppression. I don't know how it's for you guys (that's why I asked), but for me it does not matter who oppresses me, government or corporations.
