We can not rely on any technology to ensure freedom of speech. We need to engender social acceptance and our laws to encourage it.
Anyways, you think we should change the laws so that just because somebody is using an encrypted or "anonymous" chat app the police can't use any of that to build evidence against them? That seems too OP for the criminals
Her defense was that the clerk was lying, because Jesus gave her an invisibility cloak. The judge didn’t skip a beat and asked “Did you put the beer under the cloak?”. She said “shit” and changed her plea.
Moxie Marlinspike has argued that it is important to be able to break the law and that perfect surveillance means the end of making social progress in a civil manner.
https://www.metafilter.com/161351/I-think-it-should-actually...
Laws get interpreted by humans, not by computers, so they should not to be taken literally and in isolation — they’re both harder and laxer in different ways.
There is also the matter of protecting a persons right to commit a crime when it involves behaviors that should not be criminalized. A same sex couple being in a relationship is something that we should protest for, even if it is illegal. Not just making it legal, but also protesting specific examples of it being criminalized.
Is free speech itself something worth protecting enough that we should give it some level of special protection? In a world where the only person who doesn't have to know the law is the cops enforcing it, who are given their own special protection from harm they cause, I don't think it is an unreasonable request.
I think that's overstating the situation a little.
The Human Rights Act (which enabled domestic courts to give effect to the ECHR) is considered to be as much of a constitutional document as one can be in the UK.
Laws can't accidentally go against Convention rights. Secondary legislation can be struck down if it breaches the HRA/ECHR, and even primary legislation (Acts of Parliament etc.) isn't completely immune.
Primary legislation must be interpreted by courts to be compatible with the ECHR, even going as far as to reverse the plain meaning of statutory language in some cases. It's only where there's an express contradiction or one that can't be "interpreted around" where the court has to apply the statute as-is.
Yes - that is, it can be overruled by a simple majority of MPs plus the unelected House of Lords. So constitutional change can be achieved with the support of only a minority of voters.
Look at Satoshi Nakamoto. The entity posted in public forums and had conversations in the public view for so long. He is presumably one of the most infamous subjects in the last 10 years an nobody has managed to doxx him
Yes you can censor yourself, hide facts, and remain anonymous.. but you can not do so across the entire spectrum of discourse, only in limited domains.
Very clearly it can. There is no technological solution to doxing. You have to censor yourself, you have to hide facts, you can not speak freely.