Like “warrant-proof” rooms and houses that, even with a valid warrant, won't record conversations and send them to the police.
And just like encryption, those “warrant-proof” protections can be circumvented by planting physical or software bugs on target houses or computers.
They're not complaining that law enforcement can't subvert privacy protections - they're complaining that they're not already subverted, ahead of time, for everyone.
>...We all know what it is: Thought Crime...
>Scotland’s proposed hate crime bill will penalise anyone whipping up hatred against “protected groups.” That includes people making “insulting” remarks within their own home, Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf has revealed.
[Many other sources are available, if RT's line is not to your liking]
We've already seen many examples of how pwople's phone data has been used in prosecutions. How long before someone is taken to court for an un-PC remark which they made in the [supposed] privacy of their own home, but which was then picked up by their Alexa, transcribed at Amazon HQ and then reported to the authorities as a "hate crime"?
I know using the phrase "virtue signalling" tends to merit a bucket load of downvotes here on HN. But I really do think we've arrived at a farcical situation in the West [especially in Europe] where legislators are falling over themselves to draft ever more idiotic laws intended to show how much more "liberal" and "progressive" they are than the next guy.
With, ironically, the consequence that these same laws are actually making society less free and more controlled, as people are becoming too frightened to express opinions that don't conform, for fear of being branded a bigot / racist / sexist/ <alphabetti-spaghetti>phobe
Ironic that so few people in the West can see that we're mirroring exactly the same kind of 'dissenting viewpoint not tolerated' society that we used to deride the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe for and continue to condemn China for today.
Perhaps because it is an unfalsifiable claim. If someone does something that they think is good, and someone else notices, were they "virtue signalling"? In the case of public figures, especially legislators, many of their actions are broadcast to the public, so condemning "virtue signalling" is like condemning virtue itself, or merely stating that you disagree on which acts are virtuous (as is expected in a society where we are free to disagree).
> legislators are falling over themselves to draft ever more idiotic laws intended to show how much more "liberal" and "progressive" they are than the next guy.
I imagine that legislators think "Violent people often have a history of saying bigoted things, but none of my friends say things that I think are bigoted, so locking up the people who say bigoted things will only have a positive outcome on society." Unfortunately there are enough people who can't imagine any bad consequences of such a law (even to themselves, eventually) that there is a genuine democratic mandate for it in some places.
*no pun intended.
I personally don't believe that most supporters of such policies are consciously motivated by a desire to harm those in majority groups, as many of these supporters are themselves in majority groups. They probably just don't think that the policies will affect them, or realise that the policies could backfire and be used against minorities.
"Last October, Facebook, Google and Twitter were asked by Hawaii Senator Mazie Hizono to draw up a “mission statement” to “prevent the foment of discord.”"
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/face...