Flying Squid to [email protected]English • 11 months agoApple says it will remove services such as FaceTime and iMessage from the UK rather than weaken security if new proposals are made law and acted upon.www.bbc.commessage-square353fedilinkarrow-up11.86Kcross-posted to: [email protected]
arrow-up11.83Kexternal-linkApple says it will remove services such as FaceTime and iMessage from the UK rather than weaken security if new proposals are made law and acted upon.www.bbc.comFlying Squid to [email protected]English • 11 months agomessage-square353fedilinkcross-posted to: [email protected]
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish84•11 months agoGod damn bullshit always “for children and terrorists”
minus-squarehiirelinkfedilinkEnglish16•11 months agoI hate how people turn a blind eye to these things nowadays. They’re willing to give away their personal lives at the expense of the shittiest excuses out there. Privacy should be a necessity, ffs.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish9•11 months agoWhy don’t they just actually give their actual reason: to spy on UK citizens. To use children and criminals as a scapegoat for this attrocity is disgusting.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish8•11 months ago“protect the public from criminals, child sex abusers and terrorists” Aren’t two of those just subsets of the first one? What a curious pair of emotionally manipulative examples to choose, when it adds absolutely no extra meaning to the Home Office’s statement.
minus-squaredarcylinkfedilinkEnglish3•11 months agoi would assume they mean ‘criminals, especially…’, but classic tHiNk oF tHe ChiLdReN argument
God damn bullshit always “for children and terrorists”
I hate how people turn a blind eye to these things nowadays. They’re willing to give away their personal lives at the expense of the shittiest excuses out there. Privacy should be a necessity, ffs.
Why don’t they just actually give their actual reason: to spy on UK citizens.
To use children and criminals as a scapegoat for this attrocity is disgusting.
“protect the public from criminals, child sex abusers and terrorists”
Aren’t two of those just subsets of the first one?
What a curious pair of emotionally manipulative examples to choose, when it adds absolutely no extra meaning to the Home Office’s statement.
i would assume they mean ‘criminals, especially…’, but classic tHiNk oF tHe ChiLdReN argument