> Why? The other side isn't playing fair by any metric.
Because now I know you are full of shit. Everything you touch is sus now.
> I believe that it's always moral to break unjust laws, and it's always moral to help other people to do so.
Are unjust laws just laws you don't like? Are you saying it is a violation of your religion?
> "The people" are not a singular entity with rights. Even if there's a majority that wants this, it's not "their right" morally - not when it imposes surveillance on the rest of us
You are living under rule of law. If you don't like the rules, vote or get a gun. The victims of CSAM and many other crimes disagree with you. So why should your surveillance worries trump their actual victimization concerns? Instead of solving that, you lie and deceive politicians to keep the status quo and pretend you are the one fighting for justice.
> Let them work hard for every such law they pass, and then work even harder trying to deal with all the tech that makes those laws so difficult to enforce.
Yes they should work hard but if all of you tech people are a bunch of liars the you no longer get to claim how clueless politicians are on tech law, because when they turned to you for technical advice, you lied!
> Are unjust laws just laws you don't like? Are you saying it is a violation of your religion?
Unjust laws are those that, upon evaluating them from a moral perspective, are found unjust. This is inherently subjective, of course, as is all morality. I am an atheist.
> You are living under rule of law. If you don't like the rules, vote or get a gun.
The laws I am living under are imposed on me without my consent, so why should I consider them binding? If you don't like me breaking your rules, catch me breaking them - if you can.
> The victims of CSAM and many other crimes disagree with you. So why should your surveillance worries trump their actual victimization concerns?
Because the scale of surveillance enabled by these laws exceeds the scale of CSAM by many orders of magnitude.
> when they turned to you for technical advice
They didn't. What they want is for us to rubber-stamp their desired solution, with CSAM as an excuse. I'm treating them accordingly.
Because now I know you are full of shit. Everything you touch is sus now.
> I believe that it's always moral to break unjust laws, and it's always moral to help other people to do so.
Are unjust laws just laws you don't like? Are you saying it is a violation of your religion?
> "The people" are not a singular entity with rights. Even if there's a majority that wants this, it's not "their right" morally - not when it imposes surveillance on the rest of us
You are living under rule of law. If you don't like the rules, vote or get a gun. The victims of CSAM and many other crimes disagree with you. So why should your surveillance worries trump their actual victimization concerns? Instead of solving that, you lie and deceive politicians to keep the status quo and pretend you are the one fighting for justice.
> Let them work hard for every such law they pass, and then work even harder trying to deal with all the tech that makes those laws so difficult to enforce.
Yes they should work hard but if all of you tech people are a bunch of liars the you no longer get to claim how clueless politicians are on tech law, because when they turned to you for technical advice, you lied!