But if I'm reading this right, this takes the cake for the worst one yet, or certainly up there.
my number one is the Australian AABill mandating any Australian citizen working for a tech company can be forced to create backdoors in code and altering their employer about it is illegal. This one is so bad, that if it were China, we'd no longer hire any Chinese nationals anywhere in the world.
But what worried me was that it was actually written quite coherently, I felt like it had been well considered by some people of technical background, but the bill still had ill intent. So I'm not sure what's worse, legislature misunderstanding technology so much that it's harmful, or people using a good understanding of technology to be more precise and underhanded in their abuse.
Or does Australian government also supply some handbook about how to do it properly?
What the fish?
> This one is so bad, that if it were China, we'd no longer hire any Chinese nationals anywhere in the world.
Heck if it was China implementing something like GDPR and the rest of the world was seeing those annoying popups, then:
* for 3 months the rest of the world will hate-tolerate it
* then somebody will figure out how to get rid of the popups for the rest of the world
I feel like this whole post, (notably this section) makes bad faith assumptions, then elaborates on the strawmen/bad assertions.
> ...no matter what they’re trying to put right in the world – to know the ages of all their visitors or users
That's not what it says, explicitly. I interpret it as "it will require most every useful online service to be account-based with hoops at that level, not just some random visitor or on every page".
Most of the sections are making reference to having to know the age of users as a pre-requisite to any web activity, in the UK, and I don't see it. Did I miss something or did she?
Are you willing to hire armed and trained goons to make them stop their ways and kill, maim and/or kill them? Because they are willing to do the same to get their way.
And that's why we let this pass. The so-called "monopoly of force" was not given by a "social contract", as Hobbes postulated - it was taken by them through superior force.
The fact that politicians can make rulings over things they don't understand in the slightest is bad, the fact that nobody even cares is tragic.
(To be clear, I dont consider the fact that he had to "sweat a bit over it" in any way justice, or a sign of a fair society, but at least its something)
* For some value of "we" which differs by jurisdiction:
Are you saying that there are literally no policy differences between major political parties in countries like the UK? What about countries that have voting systems that make the legislature more representative of voters' preferences?
The only way I can think to steel-man your position is that you're saying "Some unspecified power would intervene to stop a government relinquishing its monopoly on force even if the population overwhelmingly voted for the government to do so". That's hard to imagine though; not because the unspecified power is so vague, but because no country would ever vote like that to remove the protections that a state provides for them.
In the context of my parent's comment: "Government trying to legislate things that they do not understand", no, there is no distinguishable difference between the Tories, Sinn Fein, the DUP, the LibDems, the SNP or Labour. The Raving Loonies at least have the introspection that they consider themselves incompetent, so ... more power to them, I guess?