[qwytw]

> in case of airport security or CCTV in some public space suddenly everyone is OK compromising personal privacy in the name of personal life and safety.

These are not really comparable. Even without CCTVs you can't really expect that no one will observe you public areas (it's just that cost of doing so would be significantly higher).

Also it's something you have much more control over and it's significantly less intrusive than monitoring personal communication. e.g. an equivalent would be the government opening and reading every single letter you sent or received back in the days when people still sent them (or having the option to, which to be fair is something they probably had it was prohibitively expensive to do at scale). That is not something most people living in free societies found acceptable.

> If they honestly tried to combat child abuse, how do you see them going about it?

By actually directly targeting it as the other comment describes? Instead of using "think of the children!" as a vail to justify unlimited government surveillance.

> You are speculating about intents some other people might have.

Yes. Are you implying there is something fundamentally wrong with that? Do you always accept everything politicians say at face value? If so, perhaps you're on the market for a bridge?

[throwaway290]

> not comparable

Airport security literally checks the inside of your body (if they want to) through xray or other means. How you consider this not comparable in privacy invasiveness?

> By actually directly targeting it as the other comment describes

Please your own take. That comment didn't contribute anything useful.

> Are you implying there is something fundamentally wrong with that?

I can't believe this is a question. You realize you are putting your own thoughts in another person's head?

[qwytw]

> How you consider this not comparable in privacy invasiveness?

How is that comparable to having access to someone's personal communication? What's so particularly private about the 'inside' of anyone's body? Physically checking the outside seems much more invasive. But yeah, overall I agree that compromises can and should be made in certain cases when the potential harm to society might outweigh certain individual rights (I don't see how that might be the case in this situation).

> Please your own take. That comment didn't contribute anything useful.

I don't agree and to be fair more or less the same can be said about your previous comment.

> You realize you are putting your own thoughts in another person's head?

No. I'm trying to infer what thoughts might exist in another person's head when they do or say certain things. I don't really understand what are you implying (that we should never assume that no politicians have any hidden agendas and they they all are perfectly honest?)

[throwaway290]

> What's so particularly private about the 'inside' of anyone's body

Seriously? If your body is not private to you, then what's so particularly private about your communication?

> I don't agree

That's not an answer to "how would they go about it if their goal was to actually combat child abuse, as opposed to some conspiracy to surveil that you imagine"

> I'm trying to infer what thoughts might exist in another person's head when they do or say certain things

Exactly. It is what you think they think, not what they think, and such says more about your mind than theirs.