Olives @olives@qoto.org

https://reason.com/2023/10/10/the-right-to-give/

"In July, Phillip Picone, a Houston activist, stood before a jury of his peers, charged with the heinous crime of feeding the needy."

"Picone is one of several activists affiliated with Food Not Bombs (FNB), a volunteer group with chapters worldwide. Houston police have repeatedly cited FNB activists for distributing free food outside the city's downtown public library, based on a 2012 city ordinance restricting charitable food services. By the time Picone appeared in Houston Municipal Court, FNB members had received 45 tickets at $254 each, for a total of $11,430 in fines."

https://reclaimthenet.org/iran-rolls-out-invasive-facial-recognition-tech-in-colleges

"The tightening grip of surveillance and political suppression in Iranian universities has intensified, as the Islamic Republic seeks to muzzle the academic community. With facial biometric verification becoming a staple for accessing even the most basic of services, the cloak of unease drapes heavily upon the student body.

Student groups from across the nation have raised concerns about these invasive measures. A striking video from the United Students Telegram, released October 1, captures school officials from Shiraz University mandating students to provide facial scans to access food from self-service amenities."

https://reason.com/2023/10/09/federal-prison-censors-reason-issue-about-how-federal-prison-employed-serial-rapists/

"A federal prison blocked an incarcerated Reason subscriber from receiving one of our recent issues. It's the one whose cover story showed how the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) allowed a cadre of guards to sexually assault female inmates with impunity—and allowed them to escape legal consequences after they confessed."

"The rejection notice from FMC Devens says the issue "is being rejected due to the nature of its content. The magainze [sic] contains an article about Bureau of Prisons staff at FCC Coleman including the names of Correctional Officers and victims. Such material jeopardizes the good order and security of the institution.""

"This is far from the first time Reason has had a run-in with prison censors. Issues of Reason have been impounded by Florida and Arizona prison officials. The latter found a on the deplorable conditions inside the Washington, D.C., jail "detrimental to the safe, secure, and orderly operation of the institution.""

What's next? CSI? Murder mystery novels?

It's a nonsense argument.

Also, this is exactly the sort of argument someone might use to clobber transparency, which would lead to misdeeds, unethical practices, and rights violations not being covered.

Society shouldn't be architected to the convenience of a cop above all else.

We really shouldn't let these people get away with this.

It is a testament to the efficacy of this meme that the think of the children people keep complaining it, even though it is hardly even used.

"People really should stop letting them get away with this"

https://reclaimthenet.org/hundreds-of-canadians-have-been-debanked-in-the-last-five-years-report-shows The most concerning part of this is that it seems someone can be debanked in Canada with practically no due process.

I'm seeing a curious "child torture stories" framing for something from one bad faith actor. As you might expect, it uses exploitative language, for something which is likely there for the purposes of "shock value" or "horror".

Of course, when you tend to invoke something similar to pseudo-scientific deviancy* theories, you might theorize how literally anything might be related to "evil" (out of paranoia, or out of a more political intent), rather than a far more mundane explanation.

It is also quintessential "there might be something on the Internet which offends me" (especially, since it is very likely rare, and the Internet is *vast*). Perhaps, someone should examine why they really go out of their way to complain about such things.

I won't say this one is that Karen but there is also not much there.

* https://qoto.org/@olives/111191543236620885

Since it's probably a troll, let's add a bit more flair to this post.

How dare you be outraged that the government wants to come take your rights away! You should be happy! It is for the children!

How dare you show any emotion towards this!

Here's a bunch of words to shove in your mouth which you never said!

I am sure it has something to do with Big Tech! Yes! Yes! How could anyone possibly want rights!

I am sure your behavior is related to x, y, and z conspiracies whirling through my head.

I am Seven of Nine, Tertiary Adjunct of Unimatrix Zero One. I. demand. to. be. taken. seriously.

I'm now seeing a think of the children troll? sock? account on another site trying to conflate critique of a disingenuous use of "think of the children" for human rights violating purposes without rational thought with "critique of child welfare".

It's fascinating that a "think of the children" guy is now concerned that E2EE is not all that effective at thwarting adversaries (therefore, we should get rid of it), because someone could derive something from the metadata.

That *is* a problem, yes, although it is fascinating to see someone use it to argue for *worse* security.

Or we could take this as evidence that future systems need to be more metadata resistant, as some researchers, such as Sarah at Open Privacy are looking into (that is not the only system which comes to mind).

Imagine being in the line of business of shilling shoddy pieces of surveillance software.

Might be her subordinate in this particular case, although it seems close enough anyway.

Facebook pretending this model is "open" was always a farce.

People seem interested in this post, who'd have thought.

Of course, there is an idiot on the Internet who is commenting on obscenity without understanding what it is. Reviving the concept of "obscenity" would be very stupid.

It tends towards banning all online porn, because it relies primarily on the concept of "morality" (which is tempered by precedents which effectively neutralize the doctrine when applied to the Internet, and it's been unheard of in over a decade).

When it was applied, it was a *disaster* which struck best actors, and ended up created a darker market (every time the obscenity law has been active, things have gotten *worse*, obscenity laws *do not work*). It was a tool of state harassment, and accomplished precisely nothing. The head of the obscenity unit appears to have been hired by an extreme Mormon group which wants to ban pornography.

For pertinent cases, there are other laws which cover them, perhaps knowingly posting photography of someone without their consent or something (let's say it is an actual person, because we know there are "smart" bad faith people out there).

It is also probably unconstitutional.

https://reason.com/2023/10/05/texas-rep-joaquin-castro-warns-military-strikes-within-mexico-could-be-considered-an-act-of-war/ I don't think it would be a good idea.