[lolinder]

Yep. It's similar to people who count on crypto to solve government interference in finance.

You can't solve a culture of pervasive government surveillance by inventing new tech, because that tech will just be outlawed or regulated to death (see the UK online safety bill). You have to change the culture that makes governments think they have the right to see everything.

[trieste92]

> You can't solve a culture of pervasive government surveillance by inventing new tech, because that tech will just be outlawed or regulated to death

I call bs. New regulation moves slower that the rate at which people can find workarounds

[tetha]

Regulation can be made very broad and up to interpretation by judges though.

You could setup something like "Circumvention of facial recognition using dedicated technical devices at demonstrations is considered disguising at a demonstration and follows the same laws" in germany.

And sure, this would result in a lot of lawsuits, discussions, escalations through different courts while the regulation is being tested - and it might be struck down entirely - but it would stand for a while and strike down _all_ workarounds.

[lolinder]

Sure, a few people will always do that, skirting the borders of the law. But I don't want a situation where 99% of the population is constantly surveilled while 1% finds workarounds. I want to solve the problem, I want surveillance to die in the mainstream, and in this space new regulation moves faster than mainstream adoption of new tech.

[TEP_Kim_Il_Sung]

"If regulation can stop the tech, it's the wrong tech." —DYIWEH