[safety1st]

While I agree, I think there's a better way to frame this with the public. We don't need to bring in pedo references. That looks very unhinged to most people.

There's already a lot of support out there, in both public opinion and the law, for the idea that if I pay for something physical like a device, I own it. Any substantial alteration in its functionality, especially a reduction in what it can do, requires my consent. Reduction in what it can do should require my consent. Just because tech made it possible for the manufacturer to brick my phone or my car, start charging me extra for certain features I already paid for, or block the apps the OS vendor doesn't approve of doesn't mean they should or that it's even legal to do so. Additionally once I buy the device the vendor has zero business telling me how I can modify it, or whether I can repair it.

I own the thing I bought, fucker. It's my property and I have property rights. The corp has no right to steal away part of the thing I bought or change the terms after the fact. It's potentially criminal if they try.

This framing resonates with a lot of people.

The guy who really exemplifies this positioning at the moment is Louis Rossman and by focusing on these widely understood and popular concepts, he's gained the ability to direct an enormous amount of attention to an issue. He can absolutely swamp a legislature with letters from angry constituents for example when he gives an issue visibility.

Frame it as theft because it is. If they push an update without my consent that removes functionality or sabotages my ownership of the device, it's theft. At the very least product liability laws should apply. Some part of what I bought stops working, that goes to product liability. But I'd take it a step farther and say we're dealing with straight up theft.

[fransje26]

> We don't need to bring in pedo references. That looks very unhinged to most people.

Sorry for how you may feel about it, but that *is* how it's being framed for the public..

https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/eu-parliament...

[someguyornotidk]

The problem with the reasonable framing you suggest is that it gets thrown out of the window the moment someone utters Protect the Children®. I'm willing to bet that most people, including those with kids like myself, don't truly believe that surrendering our basic rights to better protect the children is a rational thing to do, but they would never dare to push their opinion publicly. The few that do get all but labeled as, you guessed it, fraudster terrorist money launderer drug dealer pedophiles.

It's the the Emperor's New Clothes in real life but for morals. No amount of Rossmanning is going to help society walk back its collective hypocrisy.

[pocksuppet]

I don't actually believe this. People don't actually believe every car should have a GPS tracker so that if a pedophile drives a car, the police can track it. That is a ridiculous argument, and if they make it, there should be something you can say to make it blow up in their face. Unfortunately, as we've all now discovered, winning arguments isn't about being right, so I don't know which words you can say to make the obviously stupid argument sound obviously stupid.

[someguyornotidk]

> People don't actually believe every car should have a GPS tracker so that if a pedophile drives a car, the police can track it.

It's not about what people believe, but what they are willing to publicly push back against. If such a law was proposed today, I bet it would pass because the only discussions around it would be whether the data can be kept safe and what punishments to dole out if the car owner access this data. Arguments about privacy will be waved away or dismissed without debate.

In fact, let's make a pointless bet: I bet my imaginary internet reputation that the US or EU will pass a law within the next 10 years that requires the continuous recording and collection of data that not only includes GPS, but also face and audio data whenever a car is in motion. This law will impose severe punishments on any owner that accesses this data or deletes it.

I desperately fear for my family and want things to improve, but we are going to lose this battle.

[vim-guru]

This was already in place in the EU back in 2024. Lookup DDAW. You can turn off warnings, but it will still keep on monitoring the driver

[solidsnack9000]

Wow!

https://seeingmachines.com/understanding-driver-drowsiness-a...

Since July 2022, Driver Drowsiness and Attention Warning (DDAW) systems have been required in all new vehicle types within the European Union (EU). They will be mandatory for all newly registered vehicles from July 2024.

[someguyornotidk]

Guess I lost that bet before I even made it :(

[pocksuppet]

I think most people would think, and say, that giving every car a GPS tracker so that if a pedophile drives a car, the police can track it, is a terrible idea.

[close04]

People already showed that they will swallow anything as long as it's attached to "protect from the terrorists" label. Protect the children is an even more powerful extension. Few people ever really have to worry about terrorists but kids, that's a different story.

My logical assumption is that all terrorists and pedophiles will concentrate in the areas where they have legal exceptions from being monitored by multiple different parties at any given time. Legislators and the like. To play one of their cards, why would people who love to say "innocent people have nothing to hide" have something to hide?

[throwawayqqq11]

"Criminals will adapt and avoid while the public gets transparent." Is my simple response.

[someguyornotidk]

Not only transparent, but exposed and vulnerable to attack. It's truly a lose-lose situation.

[kortilla]

Legislation is already passing to make cars spy on you under the guise of preventing DUIs. They didn’t even need to stoop to the pedo references.

[brigandish]

I have decided that if they'll play dirty then I will. If someone says "protect the children" then I smear those saying it, e.g.

Kier Starmer wants to protect children? He put Mandelson into government even though he was mates with Epstein. Doesn't sound like someone who cares about protecting children to me.

Rinse and repeat for any politician or political side, they are all only a step or two away from someone who's done something horrible to children. It doesn't matter to me whether I really think it's true or not (though in the example I've used, that is my opinion, who employs someone like that and really cares about children?) but *it does not matter*. This is an us versus them situation, and they are making proponents of freedom out to be criminals at best, paedos at worst. They can take some of their own medicine, and anyone who parrots their line. If ad hominem is the name of the game then let's play, I'm on firmer ground than they are.

[deaux]

> Rinse and repeat for any politician or political side, they are all only a step or two away from someone who's done something horrible to children.

Not true, some aren't. Namely the tiny minority who pushes against this sort of stuff.

[Animats]

There's an answer for that now: "Release ALL the Epstein files."