[pixl97]

>This is quite simply a data breach hackers dream.

The problem here is you're missing the point of the people making these laws. This is a feature, not a bug to these people. They want to punish you for stepping outside of your cis normative + 2.5 kids relationship that good 'religion of their choice' people do.

[Nifty3929]

Gave you an upvote because you're calling out that this is a feature, not a bug.

But I don't think you needed to go down the religious-norms path to get there. It's not really fair. I think you could easily substitute items from the other side and end up in the same place.

The point is that the government wants all this information for the same reason they want to spy on our chat communications and all the rest - they want to control us with it.

[pixl97]

Eh, I'm not really much of a 'both sides' type of person when one particular group (in the US in this case) is increasing pushing rules that border fascism while the other side may have bad ideas, but are far more moderate. To do so hands power directly to the fascists and makes them an acceptable choice.

[itronitron]

You're bundling a lot of large groups into one group that is not particularly representative.

[Nifty3929]

I hear you, but I think you're slightly missing my point. Even if I grant that the current regime is focused on religious/conservative issues, that can easily change over time. The problem is allowing our governments to use spying and surveillance to control us. That's something that gets worse over time and doesn't get rolled back with changes in elected or unelected officials.

In 100 years, will progressives or conservatives be in charge? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that whatever spying apparatus we put in place now will still exist (or be enhanced) by then.

[swells34]

I'm with pixl97 on this one, but I think you are both in agreement, just focused on different parts. They are focused on the cause, you are focused on the effect. The two are causally linked.

I cannot for the life of me think of a way this policy would be enacted without a strong religious based push. I understand you think that it is unfair to claim that this is caused by religious based policy-making, but how can you claim that "you could easily substitute items from the other side and end up in the same place". What other side? Atheism? Can't see an atheist caring about this subject enough to create privacy invading laws. Religion always seems to be focused on what people do in the bedroom more than any other subject. Absolutely sex-obsessed.

[pixl97]

And to add to your statement, in western culture religion is going to be the policy element used to favor power when using these moral arguments.

China with there developing demographic issues will use a less religion based policy and more of the social shaming policy, and already are an authoritarian government.

[WrongAssumption]

We don’t have to imagine. We saw it in action in the Soviet Union with Stalin.