Exmuslim here, it’s forbidden in Islam to spy on people ( invade their privacy ), but there is another rule ( which is not actually written, at least not in the main scriptures ), that basically flips everything around, lying, stealing, killing, invading someone else privacy… etc everything becomes allowed, because it’s a necessity… now you might be asking, how and when you know it’s a necessity to do something that’s officially forbidden by Allah ( in this case invading others privacy ) ?
the answer is… it’s subjective, you just make up your own mind, and justify it with : it’s a necessity, may Allah forgive me 🥺👉👈
Of course, I’m being too optimistic, religion is there so people don’t use their brains, in reality people ask imams ( our version of priests ) who have authority because “they know” these stuff, it’s just makes life easier
push users to register VPNs with the state’s media regulator, ostensibly to enhance cybersecurity and fight terrorism.
Ahh, the terrorism excuse, ok… define terrorism ?!
again, their own sharia laws are against them…lol…, Invading people’s privacy is prohibited in Islam, so They’re going out of their way, and against the word of their holy Prophet
“Using VPNs to access blocked or illegal content is against Islamic and social norms, therefore, their use is not acceptable under Islamic law. It falls under ‘abetting in sin,’ ” said the statement, quoting the council’s chairman, Raghib Naeemi.
man, don’t you just love it when religious people try to save you from eternal hell?
I did the math actually. And it seems like mass surveillance will only be justified if homicide rates are higher than 20% ( if 1 out of 5 people die in murder ). And only if surveillance actually stops all the crime ( which it doesn’t ) and only if there is nothing less problematic that could be used instead ( which there are plenty techniques, like normal regular investigation, where you ask people around on their own terms ). Basically the math says it isn’t justified by an apocalyptic margin.
And only if surveillance actually stops all the crime ( which it doesn’t )
When mass surveillance works, you lose your rights, and when it doesn’t work as intended ( which as the government says to protect you from terrorists ), it gets things wrong and it can be too damaging, like when Google flagged a man who sent his child’s photos to a doctor, or when Facial recognition system gets the wrong person, or when a bank algorithm locks someone of their own account due to suspicious activity… etc
So we’re damned when it works and we’re damned when it doesn’t.
Edit: how can I do the math? Do you have any links…
Exmuslim here, it’s forbidden in Islam to spy on people ( invade their privacy ), but there is another rule ( which is not actually written, at least not in the main scriptures ), that basically flips everything around, lying, stealing, killing, invading someone else privacy… etc everything becomes allowed, because it’s a necessity… now you might be asking, how and when you know it’s a necessity to do something that’s officially forbidden by Allah ( in this case invading others privacy ) ?
the answer is… it’s subjective, you just make up your own mind, and justify it with : it’s a necessity, may Allah forgive me 🥺👉👈
Of course, I’m being too optimistic, religion is there so people don’t use their brains, in reality people ask imams ( our version of priests ) who have authority because “they know” these stuff, it’s just makes life easier
Ahh, the terrorism excuse, ok… define terrorism ?!
again, their own sharia laws are against them…lol…, Invading people’s privacy is prohibited in Islam, so They’re going out of their way, and against the word of their holy Prophet
man, don’t you just love it when religious people try to save you from eternal hell?
I did the math actually. And it seems like mass surveillance will only be justified if homicide rates are higher than 20% ( if 1 out of 5 people die in murder ). And only if surveillance actually stops all the crime ( which it doesn’t ) and only if there is nothing less problematic that could be used instead ( which there are plenty techniques, like normal regular investigation, where you ask people around on their own terms ). Basically the math says it isn’t justified by an apocalyptic margin.
Oh, Are you the same Blender Dumbass 2.0 ?
When mass surveillance works, you lose your rights, and when it doesn’t work as intended ( which as the government says to protect you from terrorists ), it gets things wrong and it can be too damaging, like when Google flagged a man who sent his child’s photos to a doctor, or when Facial recognition system gets the wrong person, or when a bank algorithm locks someone of their own account due to suspicious activity… etc
So we’re damned when it works and we’re damned when it doesn’t.
Edit: how can I do the math? Do you have any links…