[klustregrif]

> Oh so she cares about her own privacy?

She didn’t choose to make that move. PET (the equivalent of FBI) made the decision to protect her address. I’m sure she much prefer the time back when she was living at her own place and her address was freely available to the public without any issues.

There is no hypocrisy here. As for releasing social security numbers of people, she’s against it no matter who’s doing the doxing and who the target is. But yes, obviously the government knows hos government issued ID corresponds to who. That’s pretty obvious. But that doesn’t mean everyone in the country has to have access to it. Your doctor also has access to your medical journal, that doesn’t give you the right to publish the medical journal of your doctor on Facebook if you get angry at him for giving you a bad diagnosis.

[sensanaty]

> There is no hypocrisy here.

Pretty much every single politician calling for Chat Control wants to carve out protections for themselves to be excluded from it. This is quite literally as hypocritical as it can possibly get, they want the gov't to have the ability to spy on you and every single conversation you have, but they've carved out a nice little enclave for them and their corrupt donors that excludes them from this same scrutiny. 'Cause everyone knows the average Joe needs to have their private messages out in the open, and not the corrupt pedophile politicians.

[themaninthedark]

PET is holding her hostage? They took her in the middle of the night to the new address and told her that if she reveals it to anyone that they will kill her dog?

She is taking the recommendation of PET to move to a secure location and conceal her address.

I have no real clue who any of these people are but I can see the glaring hypocrisy from here.