• ImpossibleRubiksCube@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Shit, man, seems like it’s always something. There have been a number of attempts at that in the USA, but they’ve almost all been shot down as blatantly unconstitutional or were severely weakened in their scope. You aren’t stuck in an affected area, are you?

      • ImpossibleRubiksCube@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I read that article but I’m failing to see how it relates to our conversation? We’ve always had biometric data on both criminal suspects and also state employees and contractors. There doesn’t seem to be anything here on explicitly fighting private encryption?

        • leviosa@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s the section “Access to electronic evidence” and the talk of encryption there, with delegates pressing “lawful access by design”. They aren’t dreaming of lawful access to encrypted byte streams and when there’s a backdoor for lawful access today, it’s available for different laws tomorrow. They do seem like they are on the same page on this, which isn’t surprising since it was floated onto the G7 agenda from wherever globalist policy originates from.

          • ImpossibleRubiksCube@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That would literally mean after the acquisition of a search warrant in America, which are generally not easy to get; so I’m still not terribly worried about it. The US isn’t the EU.