submitted 2015-11-18 16:27:04 by KynophileDog lover
KynophileDog lover 3 points on 2015-11-18 16:35:36
Not directly zoo related, but we naturally have an interest in privacy in technology and government overreach. But I'll throw in my two cents:
1) There is a danger of a return to witch hunts and hysteria, however small that is, and we should be worried if it happens. Historically, literal witch hunts were often accompanied by persecution of sexual minorities and other societal deviants, zoos included.
2) From my limited understanding, the director is complaining that they can't crack encrypted communications by ISIS, including messaging on Playstation systems and other games. As a privacy-concerned citizen, I give two thumbs up and a middle finger to that. At best, their efforts will be ineffectual, and at worst, will lead to an oppressive surveillance of citizens who aren't smart enough to use means that they can't crack into, unlike actual technologically sophisticated criminal elements like ISIS or (in some jurisdictions) us.
actuallynotazoophileok, I lied 3 points on 2015-11-18 17:35:18
The main thing Im thinking in regards to all this is surely they wouldnt show their hand just to lock up a few people who look at this stuff online or mess around with their dogs behind closed doors.
Dont film it, dont tell anyone, dont paint a target on your back and I think you should be ok. For the time being at least.
If I'm wrong then god help us all.
ZooIam 2 points on 2015-11-19 02:07:38
One can hope. However, the article mentions abuse, and I feel that it may be the case here. Intentions are to catch ISIS members, but the tool can be abused for moral witch hunts.
zetacolaPitounes <3 2 points on 2015-11-19 02:49:31
dont paint a target on your back and I think you should be ok.
Exactly. Society has bigger fish to fry than catching people who boink quadrupeds. Don't be an idiot and you should be fine.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 2 points on 2015-11-19 08:55:59
Society is going to have very big problems from surveillance very soon. As a toy example, mobile phones can be used to find most speeding drivers, but (given how many consider limits to be just suggestions) enforcing them will either force the fines waaaaaaay down, or bankrupt drivers (leading to riots complaining about it being nothing but a money making scheme).
If sexual fantasies imply possession of pornography (they don't for me, but I'm a weirdo who cares about obeying the law), then at least a sixth of the UK population have fantasies which put them in the crosshairs of the UK's "extreme porn" laws.
Drugs, likewise. I've never broken drugs laws myself, but the UK government estimates a third of their adult population has. Enforcement on that scale will literally and instantly bankrupt the country, from prisons costing more than (a proportionately reduced) GDP.
No idea how this will play out, but something will have to give.
actuallynotazoophileok, I lied 1 point on 2015-11-19 11:12:22
Interestingly enough I actually saw a local newspaper article where they charged a guy using those new extreme pornography laws. It might have been stuff involving animals but I cant exactly remember. It wasn't the main charge, but something they had obviously found it during their investigation.
But thats the thing. If they lock up one zoo who they found through surveillance then they'll have to lock them all up and god knows how deep that runs.
zetacolaPitounes <3 2 points on 2015-11-20 02:08:56
You know, when a sixth or a third of your population is doing something illegal, maybe it's time to take a long, hard look at why it's illegal in the first place. History tends to show us that governments utterly disregarding the will of their people don't last very long. I still don't think we have much to worry about. Even if surveillance becomes a bigger part of our lives, we have the advantage of being a marginality and not directly pose a threat to other people's lives.
We are a mere moral nuisance. No government is going to invest serious resources to track us down.
HeartBeatOfTheBeastHoof and Claw 1 point on 2015-11-19 23:34:20
I agree that they are not looking for zoophiles, they are looking for dangerous terrorists. The CIA could care less about us.
larblac 1 point on 2015-11-19 02:57:15
We all have a right to privacy, regardless if some within that collective are criminals or terrorists.
/r/zoophilia archive
Not directly zoo related, but we naturally have an interest in privacy in technology and government overreach. But I'll throw in my two cents:
1) There is a danger of a return to witch hunts and hysteria, however small that is, and we should be worried if it happens. Historically, literal witch hunts were often accompanied by persecution of sexual minorities and other societal deviants, zoos included.
2) From my limited understanding, the director is complaining that they can't crack encrypted communications by ISIS, including messaging on Playstation systems and other games. As a privacy-concerned citizen, I give two thumbs up and a middle finger to that. At best, their efforts will be ineffectual, and at worst, will lead to an oppressive surveillance of citizens who aren't smart enough to use means that they can't crack into, unlike actual technologically sophisticated criminal elements like ISIS or (in some jurisdictions) us.
The main thing Im thinking in regards to all this is surely they wouldnt show their hand just to lock up a few people who look at this stuff online or mess around with their dogs behind closed doors.
Dont film it, dont tell anyone, dont paint a target on your back and I think you should be ok. For the time being at least.
If I'm wrong then god help us all.
One can hope. However, the article mentions abuse, and I feel that it may be the case here. Intentions are to catch ISIS members, but the tool can be abused for moral witch hunts.
Exactly. Society has bigger fish to fry than catching people who boink quadrupeds. Don't be an idiot and you should be fine.
Society is going to have very big problems from surveillance very soon. As a toy example, mobile phones can be used to find most speeding drivers, but (given how many consider limits to be just suggestions) enforcing them will either force the fines waaaaaaay down, or bankrupt drivers (leading to riots complaining about it being nothing but a money making scheme).
If sexual fantasies imply possession of pornography (they don't for me, but I'm a weirdo who cares about obeying the law), then at least a sixth of the UK population have fantasies which put them in the crosshairs of the UK's "extreme porn" laws.
Drugs, likewise. I've never broken drugs laws myself, but the UK government estimates a third of their adult population has. Enforcement on that scale will literally and instantly bankrupt the country, from prisons costing more than (a proportionately reduced) GDP.
No idea how this will play out, but something will have to give.
Interestingly enough I actually saw a local newspaper article where they charged a guy using those new extreme pornography laws. It might have been stuff involving animals but I cant exactly remember. It wasn't the main charge, but something they had obviously found it during their investigation.
But thats the thing. If they lock up one zoo who they found through surveillance then they'll have to lock them all up and god knows how deep that runs.
You know, when a sixth or a third of your population is doing something illegal, maybe it's time to take a long, hard look at why it's illegal in the first place. History tends to show us that governments utterly disregarding the will of their people don't last very long. I still don't think we have much to worry about. Even if surveillance becomes a bigger part of our lives, we have the advantage of being a marginality and not directly pose a threat to other people's lives.
We are a mere moral nuisance. No government is going to invest serious resources to track us down.
I agree that they are not looking for zoophiles, they are looking for dangerous terrorists. The CIA could care less about us.
We all have a right to privacy, regardless if some within that collective are criminals or terrorists.