↪jorndoe Meanwhile, Sergei Lavrov is saying that Zelenskyy is making any progress towards peace impossible. I'll fill in the blanks: 'The Ukrainians keep insisting that they own their own country. They won't agree that they should surrender to us and that Zelenskyy should resign. Therefore, we have no choice but to keep fighting.' — Wayfarer

Perhaps consider the critical thinking perspective, which you are clearly capable of on other subjects.

The first critical question is "why is it ok when the US does it".

The US uses its military power to coerce and if that doesn't work invade to implement their "national interests" all the time. As we speak the US has committed (either sent or sending) troops to violate both Mexican and Venezualan sovereignty, and recently threatened to take the Panama canal and all of Greenland, within the context of waging overt and covert wars all over the world.

Now, if you deplore US imperialism as much as Russian, then ok, great, we're on the same page.

If you take the next step of having a lucid view of things, the proximate cause of the war in Ukraine is US imperialism threatening Russian imperialism, soliciting a predictable response. If you want to argue the ultimate cause is Russian imperialism that was always going to try to take what it wants in Ukraine, then I'm not entirely convinced (the pre-2014 status quo could have perhaps continued for a long time; as Russia also benefited from the status quo in having a large Russian speaking voting block in Ukraine which served the purpose of maintaining the status quo) but I have zero problem accepting such a premise for the sake of argument.

For, when we look at this obvious clear reality we have two imperial powers and a smaller country in between that became the object of inter-imperial struggle.

In de-contextualized absolute terms the US is more powerful than Russia (population, economics, technology, satellites, military alliances and bases around the world, etc. with perhaps a few areas where Russia leads, like not having 37 trillion dollars of national debt), so on this basis it was argued that Ukraine can switch Imperial sides and this is a safe and wise move.

That is the fundamental premise of the whole war and events leading up to the war.

However, when context is taken into account, Ukraine is right on Russia's border and so Russia is the dominant Imperial power. As Obama (who had access to the raw in intel) informed us, whatever the US does in Ukraine can be overmatched 4 times by the Russians.

The idea that "Ukrainian sovereignty" is a a justification for fighting to a loss is simply pure propaganda.

In my military training (NATO military training) one of the bedrock moral principles we were instructed to follow, due to being common sense and the supreme law of the land by treaty (this is Canada where treaties like the Geneva conventions matter), is that the use of military force must be in service of an achievable military outcome; that it was not honourable to fight to the death for no purpose, and doing so not only caused more immediate damage (primarily to civilians who we're supposed to be fighting to protect) but also harmed the long term prospects for peace by causing further unnecessary animosity; for, not only does more harm cause more bad blood but it is easier to understand and forgive military action taken to achieve a rational military purpose than violence for the sake of violence.

While NATO encourages Ukraine to fight to the death, actual NATO training (obviously omitted from what was provided to Ukrainians) includes an entire multi-millenial war fighting philosophy in which the goal is to limit damage to civilians, international relations, and fight towards a lasting peace rather than inflicting vindictive harm on one's enemies.

It is the bedrock ethos of the professional Western soldier.

History demonstrates again and again that when the use of lethal force is used in a plausibly rational and justified manner, seeking to minimize harm to achieve reasonable military objectives, that healing the wounds of war is far easier.

War is by definition the breakdown of diplomatic dialogue in which differences can no longer be resolved by talking and therefore the facts on the ground will be determined by force.

How that force is used has an immense impact on the prospects of rebuilding a diplomatic process to avoid further warfare in the future. The reality is that rarely are two sides equally matched and fight to a standstill and then re-establish the status quo anti after a purposeless war that changed nothing and caused only harm. The reality is generally one side is stronger or then more committed and achieves military objectives while the other side loses, of course at great cost to both sides.

This is the actual issue. Ukraine cannot achieve further rational military objectives, and could not remotely plausibly achieve any further militarily achievable objectives since 2023.

And this is not just me saying this; General Milley expressed this basic war fighting philosophy regularly; for example:

“There may be a political solution where politically the Russians withdraw,” Milley said at a press conference Wednesday. “You want to negotiate at a time when you’re at your strength, and your opponent is at weakness. And it’s possible, maybe, that there’ll be a political solution. All I’m saying is there’s a possibility for it.” — Top US general argues Ukraine may be in a position of strength to negotiate Russian withdrawal

“When there’s an opportunity to negotiate, when peace can be achieved, seize it,” Milley said at the time. — Top US general argues Ukraine may be in a position of strength to negotiate Russian withdrawal

Instead of following in any remote sense this war fighting ethic carefully crafted over literally thousands of years so that the disaster that is war -- generally caused by delirious political leadership decisions on one or both sides -- serves a lasting peace to the extent that can be reasonably achieved in the brutal chaos of war and inter-state competition for raw power.

That is the issue, and if we take any similar situation where the US violates the sovereignty of smaller states for the political ambitions of its leadership, no one would be recommending that Mexico or Panama or Denmark fight the US to the death for no achievable military objective.

As a smaller state faced with imperial aggression, there's only 2 reasonable moves:

1. Negotiation and appeasement, and if that fails then complete capitulation.

2. Negotiation and appeasement, and if that fails then limited war fighting to return to negotiation and appeasement (demonstrate there is a cost to the use of force and it won't be "so easy"), and then if that fails complete capitulation.

Now, the rebuke to common sense strategy from a small-state point of view is that appeasement of Hitler didn't work and WWII happened anyways.

But that's not the same. That is an issue in which other great powers (and far greater powers at the time the appeasement strategy began; by definition starting with appeasing Hitler in remilitarizing in violation to Treaty of Versailles) that can credibly enforce their will on Germany and are deciding between appeasement and war.

To make an accurate analogy, we must recast appeasement in the scenario of the Sudetenland crisis as the situation being no one is about to go to war with Germany over Sudetenland but will send arms to Czechoslovakia so that they can fight the Nazi's alone.

Literally zero historians have taken the position in this debate that of course Czechoslovakian sovereignty is a categorical imperative for Czechoslovakian to fight for the death over and for the allies to send thoughts and prayers and arms (in a drip feed manner that wouldn't really threaten the the German's ability to take and hold the Sudetenland).

Had the allies made it clear they aren't about to fight the Germans over Sudetenland but they encourage the Czechoslovakians to do so, THAT IS CALLED APPEASEMENT! just with the extra setp of a lot of Czechoslovakians dying.

And that is the NATO policy vis-a-vis Russia since 2022: appeasement, just with the extra step of a lot of Ukrainians dying.

Would any historian make the case in such a scenario where the Allies make clear they won't fight the germans but smaller states should, with some arms (but shhh, even then not too many) ... would not be appeasement to Hitler as long as they talked tough?

Because that is the Western hypothesis: that others should fight the Russians for our moral beliefs, and that is not appeasement because we talk really, really, really tough ... except when it turns out indefinite conflict with the Russians isn't politically practical because the Ukrainians will lose and also Russia has stuff we want, then it's predictably time to cut loose the Ukrainians and recast ourselves as peace makers the whole time.

This is the issue: we appease the Russians, handle the war with kitten gloves to make sure we don't piss off the Russians too much (so avoid nuclear escalation but also to avoid too much bad blood that we can't access Russian resources when the time comes for that to be profitable and not putting at risk LNG exports to Europe, or get whatever else from Russia that has become expedient), and while we do that we vicariously live Churchillian non-appeasement through Ukrainians in a war they can't win and is horrendously damaging to them.

But would that be the feeling if we just propped up the Czechoslovakian's to be killed in large numbers and Hitler still get what he wanted? Would Western historians be like "fuck yeah, we really showed him" in a scenario that plays out like that without the US, France and UK ever declaring war on Germany?

Because that's what we're doing today but packaging it as brave.

What you say is part of it, but I'd posit the foundational well-spring of beauty obsession in the West is imperialist race supremacy.

Especially before genetics even existed, the only basis on which to conclude Westerners are superior is superficial attributes. If you grow up believing you're better than other people's because you're from a more perfected race then it's a natural corollary that looks would further differentiate the superior to the inferior within the superior race.

Point is the whole framework of racial superiority is independent of actions, character and morals, you just walk around believing you're of higher value than various lower forms of humanity (or higher forms of our cousin primates, depending on the race theory). If you're conditioned to feel this way to understand your general value position within society you're going to have the same thoughts comparing yourself with anyone, including other "civilized" peoples.

And in general, the more I learn about the nuances of politics, history and sociology, the more, not less, things seem reducible to racism.

Why is the genocide happening right now: racism.

Why do we have a war on drugs that fuels organized crime and corrupts our institutions: racism.

Why do we not ensure everyone in our own societies has basic needs despite having the wealth and technology: racism.

Why do we not even consider providing everyone on the planet with basic needs, or have a reasonable go at it: racism.

Why is capitalist polite society unbothered by the failure of its promises: racism.

Why is Western culture obsessed with superficial beauty: racism.

Because sure, social problems are complex ... but also studied exhaustively and we know can be solved. Why not implement those solutions? Racism.

↪boethius Please don't lie. What I said was this — AmadeusD

I've literally cited you saying exactly:

what have i suffered, without something more? It's nothing, isn't it? — AmadeusD

The immediately preceding comment to yours has me citing you:

↪boethius You made a claim. I've challenged it. You are not answering hte challenge. So be it.
— AmadeusD — boethius

And yet you accuse me of not citing your words and misrepresenting your position ... which is not even the argument you're making in going on to say:

and you've provided absolutely nothing to move that needle. You cannot name a single 'suffering' i endure by you receiving my personal information. You are getting extremely agitated by having to answer a simple question directly related to your contention. — AmadeusD

Which clearly recognizes I haven't misrepresented your position, you just claim my explaining (multiple times) that invasion of privacy is illegal hasn't answered your question. And why is it illegal? Because it causes suffering.

Again, for you personally maybe you are radically transparent and really wouldn't suffer by demonstrating it is "nothing" to you that I have your information by simply sending it to me. Now, while that would satisfy me it really is nothing to you personally, invasion of privacy would remain illegal due to the very act of invading someone's privacy causing suffering of a feeling of violation, lack of safety, and worry of further harms enabled by the invasion of privacy (once they find out about it of course; privacy invaders, cluster B folks, would of course say that the goal is the subject of their enquiry never finds out about it and therefore it is a victimless crime and they've done nothing wrong and shouldn't be held accountable even if their victim does find out, because it's someone else's fault that the victim found out and therefore that person caused the suffering).

This is why you are not worth engaging with. You are being dishonest, uninteresting and avoiding the challenge entirely. These are facts. — AmadeusD

This is like the fifth time you've made your stylish exit.

And once more, every accusation is a confession.

↪boethius Shouldn't you be doing something about the Child Trafficking Operation We Should All Do Something About? — RogueAI

I am. There are two ongoing investigations (that I know of): one by the ministry of health and another by a corporation involved. I finished compiling all the private information I have about it yesterday.

Why are you wasting time quislinging for Russia? — RogueAI

I (and many others; I'm by no means alone in saying so) predict 3 years ago that Ukraine will go the way of our Afghani "friends" and be propped up the time they are useful and then cut loose as soon as they aren't.

There's never any counter argument presented to this prediction, just endless moralizing about how bad Putin is and how great Zelensky is.

The prediction comes true as even the pro-Zelenkiytes here seem to agree, and yet there is zero self reflection on what this cheerleading for Zelensky has accomplished these 3 years.

And even now, to point out facts (such as the pattern the US has of abandoning their "friends" once no longer of use, or that Russia is a lot bigger than Ukraine in size and population, and the policy is clearly to drip feed weapons to Ukraine precisely so there is nothing "serious" that threatens the Russians and so on) is somehow even now pro-Russia and anti-Ukraine.

I'm the only one here that advocated for sending troops into Ukraine, as that would very likely force a peace settlement and if done in a sensible way with sensible diplomatic options on the table would be less likely, not more likely, to escalate to nuclear weapons use. The end result would have been super likely a new security architecture to ensure peace going forward (what Russia wanted and so even entertaining the idea was "Putinistic") and far, far less Ukrainian dead and damage to Ukraine as a nation.

Of course I also explained that's not an option even being considered by Western politicians and talking heads, because helping Ukraine isn't the goal! They straight forwardly inform us the goal is to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. That's not what "friends" do, much less allies.

This whole 1 million Ukrainian dead saga is a lesson in actions speak louder than words. Doesn't matter what the West says, if they aren't going to send their own troops to a fight then it's because the issue doesn't matter that much to them; and both politicians and the vast majority of regular people in the West would all say without hesitation since the war began that of course none of their own soldiers should be sent to Ukraine. The conclusion therefore should be that clearly this issue of Ukrainian sovereignty simply doesn't matter much to the West and they shouldn't be relied on to "do whatever it takes" and deliver on other empty promises.

Lol.

Putin won't risk nuclear war over Ukraine. His nuclear rambling has already paid well off for him. — ssu

Well then why not just give Ukraine a bunch of nukes to end the war 3 years ago?

Why all this "no one wants world war 3 man" from the Biden administration to explain not sending in armour, then some armour nut not tanks, then not sending missiles, then missiles beyond a certain range, and not sending fighter jets, and limiting what can be struck and so on.

What exactly is your argument? That Putin's nuclear ramblings have paid off in terms of deterring the West from the kinds of military support that may end up in a loss? I.e. that what I explain is exactly what you're explaining, but somehow my version of the exact same thing is laughable?

Of are you saying that Putin manage to fool Biden and most if not all of the Biden administration, and even boethius of the philosophy forum, but he hasn't fooled you? You remain unfooled and would have not hesitated to send Ukraine whatever it wants because Putin's bluffing with his nuke talk?

And what ramblings? Putin rarely talks about nuclear weapons.

The deterrent effect here is having the nuclear weapons, not so much speaking about them.

And this has to do everything with agent Trumpov and how mesmerized he is with Putin. At least now Trump says something negative of Putin, but he still claps for the dictator. — ssu

Ok, sure, but then why didn't saint Biden end the war by giving Ukraine nuclear weapons or then all the good conventional stuff from day 1?

What's the sense of your argument? The current state of the war in Ukraine was determined during the Biden administration. Ukraine and its "friends" have been openly talking about their man power problem and man power disadvantage for a while now, which is not solved by more weapons even if the US had them in abundance (which they simply do not seem to have).

The weapons production problem, again, is the result of the Biden administration who could have executed a crash program of shells, and drones and other arms production to ensure Ukraine was flush with weapons while it still had a solid and substantial military core of soldiers.

A production program which, had it been executed at the start of the way, would have probably actually resulted in an actual stalemate with the Russians, but instead Ukraine has weathers under a shell disadvantage of 7-10 to 1 (in addition to being disadvantaged in every other weapons system, such as glide bombs, drones, armour and so on).

Western talking heads prattle on about Russia's arms production advantage, all while boasting of the West's economic might dwarfing Russia in GDP (when it's important to make the point that Russia is a backwrter and not a "player"), but don't put two and two together and come to the obvious conclusion that it's a Western policy choice to not produce enough arms for Ukraine to significantly hamper the Russians.

The good pro-Ukrainian stance would have to give them everything they needed right from the start and then also to take seriously the threat that Russia poses and truly start building up European military industry right from the start. — ssu

Thank you, we're in agreement.

The problem with the Western policy is that it is designed intentionally to not pose a serious threat to the Russians. It is duplicitous manipulation essentially optimized to harm Ukraine as much as possible to achieve other ends.

That is my issue with the Western policy since the start of the war, since the declaration that armour won't be sent to Ukraine, then sending a bit, then a bit more, and then keeping up the drip feed of weapons just enough for Ukraine to get decimated in it's war fighting capacity and demographics.

The reason the West was never serious (long before Trump) about supporting Ukraine is because had they done so, applied the military leverage at their disposal, that would have forced a resolution, as everyone would see Russia is being pushed to nuclear weapons use and then too many people act out of self preservation for such madness to continue.

But the goal was never to resolve this war in a way to help Ukraine under any plausible definition of the word help.

To be afraid of Putin's nuclear rattling was the failure. — ssu

It is not a failure in reasoning to be afraid of nuclear weapons.

This game has been played in the Cold War already, hence full commitment on your ally fighting the enemy is the correct thing to do. — ssu

A game played to terrifyingly close to full strategic nuclear exchange (with far more nuclear weapons than exist now).

And again, post-Soviet Ukraine is not and has never been an ally of the US or NATO or any country in NATO.

The error in reasoning that has occurred is expecting a non-ally to do ally type of things.

For if not an ally what is Ukraine? A useful tool by definition.

Trump's increase of military spending to 5% has been one of the good things that idiot has done. — ssu

It really depends on how the money is spent and also the broader impact on the economy.

None of the pro-NATO people here are concerned about how much money is spent by the West year on year and that somehow critical weapons systems run out and can't be replaced at even a small fraction of what the Russians can produce?

The betrayal begins. — Wayfarer

What betrayal? Ukraine was never an ally of the US or NATO.

FYI, here's how some Russians took the Trump-Putin meeting:

Had a successful summit in Alaska...
If you read "between the lines":
1) Ukrainians and Europeans need to screw themselves now, if they have enough money and will, and the United States is no longer their helper
2) The bosses obviously coordinated the road map of events for the convergence of the two countries
3) among other things, the United States will reduce its armed presence in Europe
4) the key issues of the convergence will be large joint economic projects, perhaps the creation of a joint infrastructure fund of direct investment for this purpose, and on the Russian side the contribution will be made by frozen assets (interesting what Europeans can do about it )
5) Since Trump is not "out of control", Russia will help slowing down Israel's ambitions
Next meeting in Beijing in two weeks with a little
— Michael Getman · Aug 16, 2025
Александр Рудько and how do you imagine the "destruction of the United States"?
— Ola Ivanova · Aug 17, 2025
Оля Иванова Civil war, the overthrow of the elites and 50 independent states as a result
— Alexander Rudko · Aug 17, 2025

Not much new I guess...

Trump could trigger a financial crisis in Russia — if he wants to — but has backed off from his threat of ‘very severe consequences’
— Jason Ma · Fortune · Aug 16, 2025
Trump to back ceding of Ukrainian territory to Russia as part of peace deal
— Edward Helmore, Pjotr Sauer · Guardian · Aug 16, 2025 — jorndoe

From what I understand, micro blogging social media without making a points is now against the forum rules.

It's just weak sauce to cite other people without even making it clear if you agree, if so 100% or then 99% or whatever. The people you micro-blog aren't here to debate.

For Zelensky, the status quo is better than that kind of deal. — RogueAI

If the status quo is Ukraine cannot sustain the war of attrition then Ukraine will continue not only lose people and material but at an increasingly disproportionate rate to Russian losses, as well as continue to lose more territory and face even higher demands from Russia later to compensate the further fighting.

So, the status quo is not better for Zelensky if there is no pathway to victory or even a stalemate; the status quo simply kicks the can down the road making the situation even worse for both Zelensky and the vast majority of Ukrainians.

I have no doubt he will sell out Ukraine to placate Putin. — Wayfarer

As was predicted since the beginning of the war by parties here and many other places of sober analysis.

This was the inevitable end result ever since Russia weathered the economic sanctions (which was always extremely likely, as sanctions have never in themselves caused states to collapse in addition to Russia preparing for this very war for 8 years, if not longer, and also being backed by China who can easily substitute anything the West provided; perhaps not as efficiently in all areas but having a pump that's 39% efficient rather than 41% efficient isn't going to collapse the entire economy).

What's remarkable is that there is zero introspection all these years later on part of the people that cheerleaded Ukraine continuing to fight, for Zelensky to rebuke negotiations in every possible way (that this made him strong and intelligent), and having no plan other than to repeat that Russians should go home, and when someone points out those aren't responsible actions and just get large numbers of Ukrainians killed for no militarily achievable objective, just retort some version of "But PUTIN!"

Rubio is now saying ‘both sides have to make sacrifices.’ As if Ukraine has not sacrificed enough already. — Wayfarer

As has been explained for many pages, international relations is not a game of brownie points.

You either have the leverage or you don't.

Russia has far more leverage not just militarily over Ukraine but also in the international system, and so (as I and many other predicted) once the West, in particular the US, has squeezed all the value out of Ukraine (from the elite perspective of wanting a new cold war to dramatically increase arms spending) it's going to want to throw Ukraine under the bus and cut a deal with Russia. Russia simply has significant leverage that the West, in particular the US, can't simply ignore indefinitely.

Now if the situation that Russia has the leverage to get what it wants (i.e. Russian elites) in this situation at the expense of Ukraine is lamented and equally lamented that US also uses it's leverage to get what it wants at the expense of plenty of people, then definitely I agree the whole nation state system is lamentable.

However, for those that cheerlead US imperial actions as "rational self interest" and "benevolent hegemony" and even explain how using Ukraine to damage the Russians was a smart US imperial move and so on, it is really difficult to stomach all these "dastardly Putin!" and fist shaking in the air type of comments, is simply incredibly hollow.

On the contrary, Trump is making things quite easy for him! — ssu

Ukraine is losing, Trump likes winners.

But the end game here has nothing to do with Trump. US was never going to risk nuclear war over Ukraine (they were always clear about that: No WWIII), and so the policy was to simply prop Ukraine up the time that was useful to do (mostly to lock-in a new cold war and the EU buying US natural gas, also buy up all the assets on the Ukrainian side), and once Ukraine starts to lose to cut them loose.

The only legitimate militaristic pro-Ukraine stance would have been sending Western troops into Ukraine to "standup" to the Russians beside their Ukrainian "friends". People who have no problem with the idea that's simply not possible, as the Biden administration explained many times "for reasons", have been cheering on the exact scenario that is playing out.

The Biden administration laid it out many times: no armour, no escalation, no WWIII, no boots on the ground, no missiles, no planes, no strikes in Russia ... i.e. no pissing off the Russians too much, and what would piss them off too much is losing. The policies that did change is always after Ukraine capacity was destroyed to an extent that changing the police, such as sending the missiles, would not place the Russians at greater risk of losing (would annoy them, for sure, but not the extent of losing).

What's the end point of such a police? Ukraine losing a war of attrition "calibrated" to lose (to use the RAND terminology), and once that becomes clear blame everything on Ukrainians: they wanted to fight and we didn't force them, and they just didn't want it bad enough and those clever Russians did, and we've even been paying for everything so they should be grateful, and so on.

Prediction made by me and others years ago.

The only counter-point to the prediction that Ukrainian "friends" won't fare any better than Afghani "friends" was that Ukraine and the US were more culturally similar (aka. white) and so the US wouldn't possibly leave Ukraine hanging like they left the Afghanis (when their brown, let them down, was the attitude that explained why what happened to Afghanistan was not a cause for concern).

Also because it's also annoying, an ad hominem requires both insulting someone's character, in one way or another, as well as using that to deflect from the substance of the issue.

If you deal with substance and also disrespect your interlocutor, that's not an ad hominem but rather simply answering the contentions and making it clear you don't respect the person as well: it's just two factual claims.

What you do is ad hominem:

↪boethius You could answer the question, please good sir, instead of prevaricating.

In the scenario i just gave you, what have i suffered, without something more? It's nothing, isn't it? — AmadeusD

Instead of dealing with the substance of are you going to send me all your personal data to demonstrate it really is "nothing" to you, you accuse me of bad faith.

You attack my intentions, accuse me of prevaricating and so avoiding the substance of the issue, to avoid yourself dealing with the substance which is: obviously you're not going to send me all your personal information as obviously doing so would cause you psychological suffering (to one degree or another) in addition to putting you in danger of further harms (and so also the psychological suffering of needing to worry about that).

That is ad hominem.

Which then you simply double down on:

↪boethius You made a claim. I've challenged it. You are not answering hte challenge. So be it. — AmadeusD

And then keep going, all while adding that you are existing the conversation due to my base character.

You're the one making the incredibly bold claim that it would be "nothing" to you not only that I had all your information but I stole it, of which the natural reply to such a bold claim is to ask for a demonstration.

If I suddenly made the bold claim that I could talk to anyone in the world telepathically, I'm pretty sure you and pretty much everyone here would immediately respond "well do it then! talk to us!", as that's the common sense response to such a bold claim.

You accuse me of what you're doing.

Every accusation is a confession with you types.

However, you're not alone in your devotion to the ad hominem cause, since while we're at it:

↪boethius Given your bend-over-backwards defense of Russia, it's hard to take your child welfare concerns seriously. — RogueAI

Is also an ad hominem of attacking the messenger rather than dealing with the substance of the GDPR breaches and their relation to child trafficking. And what sort of argument is this?

That even if we assume the GDPR breaches described in the OP are real and serious, if I am not pro-Ukraine enough (by which we mean pro-Zelensky apart from the welfare of actual Ukrainians, naturally) then we just have to let these Finnish compromising of child welfare systems slide and accept children may have and may continue to be trafficked in relation to the GDPR breach described?

This whole conversation is profoundly disturbing.

↪boethius You have devolved into someone not worth exchanging with. That's a shame, as some months back you were consistently contributing well across multiple areas of the forum.

Take care of yourself. — AmadeusD

Who's not worth discussing with is someone who is bad faith: gaslighting, deflecting, wasting time, and so on, and the only appropriate response is to call out such bad faith and make clear it is not respectable.

You ask:

What suffering? — AmadeusD

Skipping over the part where I already explained that, but that's fine as I could just quote myself if I didn't want to write it again.

I then answer the question again, responding directly to your question:

Invasion of privacy in itself causes suffering under Western jurisprudence and I would also argue just as a fact regardless of what our legal system says about it.

Which is why invasion of privacy is a crime. Of course, the suffering is once the victim knows about it. — boethius

You then claim I am wrong:

I've asked what suffering. You've not answered.

You receive information from my personal email account (clandestine, we assume). What have I suffered ? I shall short-cut this.

I haven't. Something more is required. Most Western Law even requires harm or damage to be established before a conviction or punishment will be metered out. — AmadeusD

If you're claim was good faith (i.e. something you at least believed to be true) then you'd have no problem demonstrating exactly what you claim; that it would be nothing to you, cause zero suffering, if I had all your personal information ... ok so hand it over. That wouldn't resolve the issue of whether it is illegal or not to compromise people's data, but it would at least demonstrate you do at least believe it is not harmful to anyone including yourself.

Ok, then send me your ID and complete medical information if it's nothing to you that I have it. — boethius

Up until now, you've asked me your question, rejected my answer and provided your own.

We're debating, fine, great.

However, to keep in good faith, you must either demonstrate your claim that my having your information is nothing to you, or then retract your claim and recognize it's clearly not nothing to you.

Instead, you claim I haven't answered your question (which I've clearly done multiple times), then keep claiming I haven't answered your question.

As I explain above, if it was actually nothing to you then you wouldn't need me to answer your questions first, but even if that was someone a reasonable condition to make on something that is nothing to you, I clearly answered your question both before and after ... and yet you still do not send me all your personal data and also don't retract your claim.

The reason it's important to respond to bad faith with disrespect is that it is the only way to the truth of the matter, that you are simply lying about what is and is not nothing to you, then pretending not to understand your own position and adding conditions (which are something) to it being nothing to you, and conditions which are not sufficient, as you still don't send me your data even after that condition is met.

It's also important to demonstrate that bad faith tactics are not "clever" but sub-optimal methods of discourse.

Also, pretending now you were simply asking a question, rather than claiming to know the law and will teach me is further annoying bad faith.

You make some bold claims:

I've asked what suffering. You've not answered.

You receive information from my personal email account (clandestine, we assume). What have I suffered ? I shall short-cut this.

I haven't. Something more is required. Most Western Law even requires harm or damage to be established before a conviction or punishment will be metered out. — AmadeusD

Which are not true, but if you happened to believe they were actually true and my having your data was nothing to you (which, fine, maybe you personally don't mind) you would not hesitate to demonstrate that by sending me your data.

But you don't, because it is something to you and you recognize that something is that you would suffer if I had all your personal data, therefore you avoid that happening.

Why lie about it, unclear. Why keep going on about my not answering your questions, and ad homonyms, and so on, also unclear.

What is clear is that you are clearly lying when you state it is nothing to you if I had all your personal data.

I see you immediately devolve into insults and ad hominems. Interesting. — AmadeusD

What's insulting is lying.

Obviously my having your personal data is not "nothing" to you, otherwise you would do it.

You lie about it (for honestly difficult to discern reasons) and insult me and everyone here, excepting those who also think it's fine to compromise children's private data.

And now you seek to sneak in answers you refused to give previously. Gotcha. — AmadeusD

This was already answered.

Is there any actual evidence that any children have suffered because of what you explained?
— Sir2u

First of all, compromising people's data is itself harmful, which then, in itself, causes the suffering of needing to worry about how one's data could be used for ill, once one is made aware of the data breach (as required under the GDPR). If you knew your ID and medical history was stolen that would cause suffering even if the data theft is never exploited to commit further crimes against you. — boethius

Then I answer the same question several more times.

There is zero sneaking about.

As for your claim that it is nothing to you if I have your personal information, if you were not lying about it then you would just send it to me.

If it was nothing to you, you'd have no hesitation to do it. You would need nothing answered at all, you would simply demonstrate that it is nothing to you by doing it.

And lying for what? To defend an entire group of child welfare corporations sending EU child information outside the EU and into the possession of some anonymous individual in the US?

You insult yourself by your own words and actions, my pointing it out is simply truth and accuracy.

↪boethius I see you continue to refuse to answer the simple question posed. OK then. That is a shame. — AmadeusD

I've answered it multiple times. It's a shame you can't read simple sentences and also don't know anything about the law despite pretending to.

Compromising someone's personal data is a violation of their right to privacy and causes suffering in Western jurisprudence; the reason it is illegal to drill a hole through the wall of the women's locker room and spy on them, which you obviously know is illegal and yet does not meet your condition of "something more" in terms of causing some physical harm or damaging property (of the women being spied on; drilling a random hole a separate matter).

It's illegal because it causes suffering to invade people's privacy.

Personal data, in particular medical data and so on, is also private and compromising someone's privacy causes the same kind of suffering as in the example above.

Why it's illegal to hack into someone's email even if you "don't do anything with it". Of course, compromising people's privacy enables further harms, but the compromising of the privacy is also harmful in itself (and why it's illegal).

I've explained that multiple times, when this erroneous idea was first brought up and then multiple times after that.

What have i suffered? This requires an actual answer, not continuous prevarication. My claim is it is nothing. I cannot prove a negative. You must convince me that you receiving information out of my personal email account results, prima facie, in my suffering. — AmadeusD

Again, if you're talking about yourself, maybe you suffer nothing because you don't care about your own privacy. However, to spy on you and invade your privacy (your private physical space or hack into your data) is still illegal and you can press charges whether you've actually suffered from it or not. The reason it is illegal despite you claiming not to suffer, or then claiming not to understand how you've suffered, if because nearly everyone else suffers when their privacy is invaded.

It's honestly concerning that you seem to not understand that people value their privacy and if it is compromised by accident, negligence or intentionally they suffer from that. The suffering can be quite intense as they may develop a long lasting trauma response to such events.

A: You receive some clandestine information about me.
B: Nothing else has happened, as I gave this scenario and I am telling you this.
C: Where's the suffering ?? — AmadeusD

You may not suffer if you don't care about your privacy, but this would cause suffering to most people knowing that I have their private personal information when I shouldn't.

As I've stated already multiple times, the suffering also requires becoming aware of the invasion of privacy.

You do not have an answer it seems. Have a go! Your answer is restricted to responding to this scenario. If you move beyond this scenario, you are not answering the question/challenge. — AmadeusD

This is like the fifth or sixth time I've answered why invasion of privacy (in digital form or another) causes most people suffering and that suffering is why it is illegal.

And you obviously understand that you'd suffer if I had all your personal data even if I did nothing with it, just knowing that I know private things about you that I shouldn't know would cause you some suffering as well as the suffering of needing to worry about what I may do with the information that may cause you further harm.

Because you understand that, it's obviously not "nothing" for me to have your personal information or then you'd just send it to me if it really was nothing to you as you say.

It's nothing to me to write down right here "fabricateous" and so I do so without hesitation.

fabricateous

I did it again, because it really is nothing to me to write down this word and I can demonstrate that easily and without hesitation.

The meaning of saying something is "nothing" for you to do means exactly that, it's nothing to you, there's no hesitation to do it.

For example, if I'm at a bar and someone asks if they can sit beside me, and I say "it's nothing to me if you sit there" then the implication is that they need not hesitate to sit there. If they proceed with their sitting plan and I interrupt them to say "woe, woe, woe, what are you doing, you can't sit there until you answer my questions ... that you haven't answered!!" then obviously it's not nothing to me that they sit there, but has conditions that are more than nothing.

The present situation is even worse, as not only do you demand I satisfy conditions for you to demonstrate it's "nothing" to you that I have all your personal information, but I satisfy your demands and still you don't demonstrate it's nothing to you by doing it.

Imagine after accusing this fellow bar goer of not answering my questions (let's say from a previous conversation) and of obviously he can't sit beside me at the bar until those questions are answered, all while claiming it's nothing to me if he sits there, and then the man does answer my questions and I still refuse to allow him to sit beside me.

Obviously I don't permit him to sit because I have issue with it, and it's not nothing to me. If it was nothing I'd make no conditions, answering questions or any other, as it's nothing to me, conditions would be something. My saying it's nothing to me and then obstructing the thing I say is nothing to me from happening, is called a bluff. It's obviously something to me but I don't want to admit it so resort to gaslighting and bullshit to avoid the thing in question from happening.

You made a claim. I've challenged it. You are not answering hte challenge. So be it. — AmadeusD

You clearly state:

In the scenario i just gave you, what have i suffered, without something more? It's nothing, isn't it? — AmadeusD

Stating it is nothing for one to possess another's personal information, without something more.

If it's nothing, then you'd not hesitate to do so. It's nothing, therefore there's no obstacle, you should easily be able demonstrate something is nothing to you by simply doing it.

Obviously it isn't nothing to you, and is why you don't do it, because you're a liar.

As for your question, I had already answered it and it's just tedious to answer it again, even more tedious to answer to someone pretending to know something about the law, so incredibly ignorant as to state:

I haven't. Something more is required. Most Western Law even requires harm or damage to be established before a conviction or punishment will be metered out. — AmadeusD

Something more is not required in terms of compromising someone's privacy (personal data in this case), as I've already stated:

Compromising someone's data, violating the law that is the GDPR and a bunch of other laws, is by definition harmful and causes suffering (one must worry how one's data maybe abused). — boethius

The reason invasion of privacy is a crime is because it causes suffering even if there is no "physical harm". If I secretly watch you undress while you believe you are in a private space and not being watched, that is a crime even though I haven't done "something more" to cause you physical pain or cause you to lose property.

Why is invasion of privacy a crime? Because there is a feeling of violation when your personal space is not respected.

And maybe reflect on your own critical thinking skills as you obviously know invasion of privacy is a crime and yet there is 'nothing more'; the suffering is a purely psychological response to having been watched when you thought you had privacy. If I watched you undress without your knowledge while you expected privacy, but that happens to turn you on then you have actually benefited and not suffered, but it being "nothing to you" and actually a benefit is completely irrelevant to it still being illegal. Most people suffer from it and that is the reason it is a crime.

In the case of data, it is also an invasion of privacy; people have a reasonable expectation that their medical information, and ID, and court documents and so on, are kept private. There is the same feeling of violation if someone gains access to them who shouldn't.

In addition to the basic privacy violation in the case of child protection data there is the further suffering of all involved (children and guardians) of needing to worry about whether the data being compromised can be used for further harms (as I already explained).

The logic that invading someone's privacy is not harmful because "nothing's been done with it yet" is definitely the logic of a sociopath, and the reason cluster-B folks tend not to respect boundaries as they don't see the harm in it. FYI.

Lying is also a cluster-B personality trait.

I'm not a doctor, but I can definitely diagnose you with stupid.

↪boethius In the scenario I gave you, what suffering have I endured? — AmadeusD

I'm not you. You say it's nothing to you that I have all your personal information.

Do it then.

That would demonstrate your point, which may indeed be true for you, that you really don't mind.

If you don't demonstrate it though, match your words with your actions, then you're lying to me, and it's important to make that clear.

It's nothing, isn't it? — AmadeusD

If it's nothing, then there should be no hesitation to demonstrate it's nothing.

For example, it's nothing to me to write the word "fabricateous", and I can demonstrate it is nothing to me right now by doing so:

fabricateous

So there you have it, my position matched by my deeds.

If it's nothing to you to send me all your personal data, then do so to demonstrate it is indeed nothing to you.

I haven't — AmadeusD

Ok, then send me your ID and complete medical information if it's nothing to you that I have it.

Just DM me all that, as well as any other information on hand you consider personal, and we can continue from there whether the same would cause suffering to other people.

This is part of it definitely, though my intuition is that nanny state policies are less important than police state policies in this matter (though both very consequential).

However, I think there is more to this issue than simply the individual's loss of community and relationship to the state.

At the moment it is just a conjecture, as I don't know enough to offer confidence, but at least how I imagine it, in other more explicit totalitarian regimes, such as for example Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, in particular where and due to the deification of the state, people are conscious of choosing the state over community and family relations. The cognitive dissonance arrives later when the virtue of the state is doubted, but as long it isn't doubted there is a certain coherence to acting on behalf of the state.

In other words if you fear the state but also idolize the state all your emotions are pointing in the same direction of doing what the state wants.

However, in our Western culture we do not reify the state, but rather the explicit ideology is that the state is dangerous and needs constraints and checks and balances and so on and "power corrupts" and people have rights. In this ideological sauce, so to speak, where the sate isn't explicitly idealized, acting on behalf of the state when one knows the state to be wrong creates severe cognitive dissonance.

What is conjecture is that this cognitive dissonance is greater and of a different flavour, if my meaning is understood, compared to systems of more explicit state obedience.

To put things in concrete terms, consider a basic virtue signaller going to all the civil rights parades and other state sanctioned causes, believing this in their heads to be "civil disobedience", but in every other aspect of life simply advancing their career and doing what they are told and the state is basically their best friend. We can call this civil disobedience theatre in which the individual and the state are mutually winking and mutually respectful allies. When this person encounters a just cause (that they see as just) in which the state is not playing the fetish role of the naughty school teacher but truly is cracking down on dissent in a vicious way, the result is a sort of state servitude pathology.

To give an idea of why I use the word pathology is that these conversations I'm referring are truly bizarre. For example, one constant feature is immediately bringing out their own grievances with the state; bad things the police or other authority figures did to them (even if the story is nonsensical such as leaving the scene of a car accident, knowing that what you're supposed to call police but instead taking the person who hit you's word for it that the damage will be paid for, then wanting police to fix things later but they don't ... as a proposed equivalent police wrong doing to being placed under investigation for years for reporting African diamond money laundering to the auditor). The emotions of injustice about their own grievances with authority and the state are super genuine and extreme, to which my answer is always "exactly, we don't want corruption or incompetence, it's not a good thing," but somehow these experiences justify tolerating corruption and defending the states actions as corrupt.

So it's really very psychologically profound, on the level of justifying a parent's abuse which abused children unfortunately cannot avoid doing, and the reasoning will be incoherent and disjointed, filled with equal terror and admiration for the abusive parent.

↪boethius Given your bend-over-backwards defense of Russia, it's hard to take your child welfare concerns seriously. — RogueAI

My pointing out that Ukraine cannot win, in any practical analysis, a one-on-one war with Russia is not "bending over backwards" to defend Russia.

Therefore Ukraine should use it's leverage of being able to continue fighting and impose a cost on Russia, even if the cost to itself is greater, to seek a diplomatic resolution, and so formulate a realistic diplomatic position.

Had such analysis (that I provided in the first weeks of the war, and many others before the war) been heeded, Ukraine would very likely be in a far better condition than it is now, far more children would still have their fathers and not be vulnerable to trafficking in Ukraine or Russia (organized crime is definitely a problem in Russia as it is in Ukraine), and also those fathers and other civilians would not themselves be dead or seriously wounded, in addition to the generalized trauma.

My advocacy of some rational plan for Ukraine is not "bending over backwards to defend Russia".

Furthermore, I made it super clear that my criticism was not even so much directed at Ukraine (though definitely Zelensky is an idiot, he is not the only Ukrainian "decider"), but at the Western policy.

My problem with the Western policy was that it was flooding in cash to Ukraine (with zero supervision) which is a de facto bribe to the Ukrainian elite to do what the West wants, while drip feeding weapons to Ukraine precisely to ensure it could not even hope to win, to pursue a policy made explicitly clear that the goal was to "fight the Russians to the last Ukrainian"; or as the Rand paper, discussed at length, put it to "calibrate" a conflict with Russia to impose costs on Russia for it's anti-US activities while not risking escalation into a direct or nuclear conflict that would be harmful also to the US.

I proposed two alternative policies:

1. Instead of sending money and drip feeding weapons systems on condition of not negotiating with Russia, using Western military and economic leverage to back Ukraine in negotiating the best deal possible for Ukraine.

2. If the UN charter and "rules based system" is really the categorical imperative and Ukrainian rights need to upheld whatever the cost, then what follows from that logic is sending troops into Ukraine to stand by our Ukrainian pseudo ally; as that's what friends do, the stand by each other.

I even explained at some length how option 2, of a direct confrontation, would be less risky in terms of nuclear escalation than the drip feed option; of course has to be managed with care and a reasonable offer on the table at all times to make clear the use of force is to motivate a swift diplomatic option.

The reason these options were never considered by the West, and plenty of Western politicians and analysts and talking heads happy and exuberant to explain why, is that it would have resulted in good things for Russia too. All roads that limit, or avoid entirely, multiple years of war would inevitably result in the new "security architecture" that Russia was asking for, and that was a no-no for Western policy.

However, the only pathway to damage Russia rather than seek a resolution inevitably results also into far more damage to Ukraine. Western leaders were super clear at each step that this is what they wanted.

Remember the logic of "this is between Russia and Ukraine, the West can't negotiate with Russia about it" packaged as a weird "we respect Ukraine so much that we won't help find a peace settlement, certainly won't use any of our economic leverage to help Ukraine out in such a process"?

Well what's the US doing right now with Russia?

Zelensky in Alaska?

What suffering? — AmadeusD

Invasion of privacy in itself causes suffering under Western jurisprudence and I would also argue just as a fact regardless of what our legal system says about it.

Which is why invasion of privacy is a crime. Of course, the suffering is once the victim knows about it.

I haven't updated my analysis of the military situation in a while as there hasn't been much to update.

There has been a war of attrition and there's not even any more even any talk of sending new weapons systems (much of my previous analysis being how the "next thing" sent to Ukraine isn't going to change fundamental dynamic of a war of attrition that Ukraine cannot win in any practical analysis).

However, there has been a true break through over the last couple of days.

This could be the starting of a new phase of manoeuvre warfare.

Genuinely, what reason is there to continue fighting? What could Ukraine possibly gain that would improve their bargaining positioning?

When a war is objectively lost, it's up to the leaders of the country to bite the bullet and ensure their soldiers aren't sacrificing their lives in vain. — Tzeentch

This has been true since essentially the first few months of the war, after the withdrawal of the Northern operation, that fighting to a better bargaining position is exceedingly unlikely and it has become simply more exceedingly unlikely since then.

The answer as to why? is the money.

Not just for elites but in terms of basic economic stability as well as soldiers getting paid.

In my view, people simply got used to the new system and people dying as well as the prospects of their own death.

A terrifying mix of sunk cost fallacy and defiance.

My basic philosophical view here, which seems disturbingly necessary to elaborate, is that we have a universal duty to protect children. We must do our best to protect children wherever and whoever they are. Most of the time we can't do much about the situation of children far away (except engage in very long and cumbersome institutional processes starting with voting and local political engagement).

However, in this case, the fact that a whole group of Finnish child welfare corporations have optimized their data processing to both steal information and allow for traceless impersonation of their corporate identity, is a situation in which simply spreading that information can help protect children far away.

For those who believe in a duty to protect children, it is very little time to make a report in whatever country you are in, and that may result in someone checking and finding something. It also can not possibly be a false alarm as this incarnation of a scheme is useful to anyone needing to deal with anti-fraud related to child trafficking to know about and so the justification for and execution steps for more thorough checking.

I reported this immediately to all the authorities here in Finland over 2 weeks ago, and there's now a Health Ministry investigation into these data breaches, but what has not happened is anyone phone me to explain how this is not as alarming as it seems to be; if they did I would repeat such reassurances here.

Well, its a good thing you’ve brought this to this forum. Once its in the hands of an obscure philosophy forum there is no end to the help such a highly influential internet place will provide. — DingoJones

This is public information, anyone can report it in any police reporting or child trafficking reporting system of their country; can usually be done easily and also anonymously. If this scheme perfect for trafficking children has been used to traffic children that may only be find-out-able by spreading the notice as far as possible until someone gets the notice and happens to be like "ah yeah I remember these guys and this Finnish company moving children around".

And if more then one notice of the same thing arrives, that just usually encourages more thorough checking of records and asking around, so there's no disadvantage.

We also don't really know all the personal details of even the members of the forum, much less any lurkers out there, maybe there are readers in law enforcement (that isn't corrupt) or anti-trafficking networks that can take more specific actions.

Which I was really puzzled by (maybe my sample of people was maybe really strange) until the genocide started, and what I had been experiencing in my little microcosm of family and former-friends and Finnish police (quite famous in Finland for being racist fascists) was suddenly on the scale of our whole Western society: People have seen movies in which we are emotional about a holocaust and do not accept the holocaust and do something about a holocaust, but that's something people do in movies (aka. famous actors no one should ever pretend to "be like" and try to share in their glory) and not "the real world" where you have to be realistic and accept things are the way they are.

Thank you , it's really appreciated.

Most members of our Western society, that I've talked to, are not in anyway disturbed by false accusations, and even less disturbed by the implication that if the accusation of defamation is false it's because there's sufficient evidence the money laundering is definitely real and police obviously haven't been investigating those actual crimes these 4 years.

People try to explain to me how of course corporate people laundering money will accuse me of defamation, and that of course police are going to cover for them, and of course if I then complain about police obviously covering up money laundering that of course police aren't going to like that and they have their buddy system and of course they'll harass me even more.

This is all after they've accepted my account of things is true due to my having actual evidence.

Basically explaining in minute detail how the corruption works truly believing that I just don't understand how the corruption works and that once I do then I'll be able to accept it, and are truly unable to understand that I don't accept the corruption. I'll try to reassure such people that I definitely get that the cops have a buddy system to shield each other from any sort of accountability for their own actions, but the difference in values in that I don't find that acceptable, and not that I haven't accepted yet because I don't understand it. And they'll just repeat to me how cops look out for each other and really don't want me pointing out they've been covering up money laundering, they'll really not like that you see.

And I can talk to these kinds of people basically as long as they want, and they simply can never accept that what they describe in detail and clearly identify as corrupt actions by police and prosecutors, I simply won't enable and tolerate. What's weird is that they truly believe that I'm just not understanding things, that I'm stubborn basically, and simply cannot see my point of view of seeing the corruption, understanding the corruption, and just not going to accept the corruption.

And it's really strange as we have so many media productions of whatever form in which fighting corruption is the central theme, so you'd think (at least I did think before) that people would see what the motivation is, even if they personally would keep their head down or indeed be happy to take a bribe. But if I point out these kinds of stories as an example of what I'm talking about (that I don't like corruption and therefore will do something about even at some cost to myself) the response is just "you're not in a movie!".

How could this possibly be BS?

Do you even formulate arguments before making claims? Same as the data system that is both a GDPR breach that happens to be ideal for child trafficking, you simply make contradictions and address zero points.

Not that you're persuadable by evidence and reason, but if others are curious, there is inaccuracies in my report of these events:

Police case number 5680/R/6414/22
Viman Tomi POL <TomidotVimanatpoliisidotfi> Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 7:26 AM

To: Eerik Wissenz <wissenzatgmaildotcom>
Hello Eerik,

The minimum punishment of the crime has to be over 4 months.

”1) häntä epäillään tai hänelle vaaditaan rangaistusta rikoksesta, josta ei ole säädetty lievempää rangaistusta kuin neljä kuukautta vankeutta”

Harassing communication says the following:

“1 a § (13.12.2013/879)

«Viestintärauhan rikkominen»
Joka häirintätarkoituksessa toistuvasti lähettää viestejä tai soittaa toiselle siten, että teko on omiaan aiheuttamaan tälle huomattavaa häiriötä tai haittaa, on tuomittava viestintärauhan rikkomisesta sakkoon tai vankeuteen enintään kuudeksi kuukaudeksi"

Meaning the minimum (which would have to be over 4 months) is a fine. The maximum potential punishment for harassing communication is six months.

Tomi Viman
Senior constable
Central Finland Police Department
Tampere police station
Sorinkatu 12, 33100, Tampere
puh. 0295 445 831 — The Official Public Record

What I was suspected for kept on changing, it started in 2021 as defamation, then at the time of the above email it was harassing communication, later it became stalking, and then changed back to defamation and harassing communication.

For anyone interested in evidence, the key parts are in the mentioned folder: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1SXU6VkygIWM14S4O-IQQUhlz41qYBjFH?usp=share_link

Which is a super abundance of evidence of money laundering and why 4 years later the investigation into me for defamation and harassing communication of my reporting and explaining how the money laundering worked to the auditor, corporate attorney and board members at the time, is obviously not a crime but reasonable suspicions to have and reasonable corporate actions to take. The harassing communication is from the corporation inviting me to negotiate and then my explaining things (at the time I hadn't compiled the evidence into PDF's so I'd explain each key point in texts or email as part of the negotiation) and then these messages (in a negotiation I was invited to) were just tallied up in a table as like 100 messages in January! That's harassment!

The police officer above even admitted (in a recorded call) that he didn't have copies of these messages, just knew I sent a certain number. Which also just completely insane, you can't "talk about evidence" that you have in your possession and police not review that evidence before creating the investigation. Reason my actual messages weren't submitted as evidence, nor collected by police, is that it's explaining all the crimes in the context of a back-and-forth negotiation.

Hence my explaining to police that they shouldn't create a mystery box.

I filed the reports of actual crime months before they put me under investigation, so they could have easily phoned me and understood what evidence actually exists.

Normally corporate crime is happening all the time, in many if not most corporations, but perpetrators don't create sufficient evidence. So, my understanding is police boldly assumed that this would be another case of corporate crime they can't do anything about because corporate people cover their asses. However, that's not some guarantee, obviously corporate people fuck it up every once and a while, so it's unclear to me why police decided best not to check what it actually is in this case. Hence constable Meletus helps us understand the police attitude in this affair.

This is the way.

↪boethius While we have found common ground on this point perhaps you can then understand I was merely pointing out you might be better trying to communicate in the style of Feynman, who you agree is a good communicator, than say...Derrida. — unimportant

The major difference is Feynman was paid for his work.

But beyond that critical aspect, there are also different levels to things.

There is a level of communication to lot's of people, whether propaganda or then this "good communication" to attempt to convey actual truths, and there is communication to arrive at those actual truths to begin with.

Not every Feynman "actual physics paper", much less most papers Feynman himself requires to develop his own understanding, are going to be masterworks of oration.

So, in order to have the level of Feynman lectures attempting to share what physics has learned with ordinary curious people, i.e. non-specialists, you must have first the level of Feynman the physics professor and researcher, of which most ordinary people would understand essentially nothing of what that's all about.

For our purposes here, my view is we are a community dedicated to that upper level of how knowledge is attained in the first place and how exactly do we know that it's knowledge. I am therefore mostly concerned with my statements here being actually true than convincing, and therefore also getting into all the complex aspects of the subjects we deal with.

Now, if I was employed by a political party to communicate with the masses, then I would attempt to create the Feynman lecture version of what I am confident is the truth.

It would be a whole new task.

Yes sure I agree now I read it again that I was agreeing with the point Hitler made and I did mean to agree with the point at the time now I reread the context.

As above, Hitler was a fantastic orator. — unimportant

Yes, the Hitler role in this conversation is more ironic than essential to the debate.

I think there is discussion to be had about charisma vs propaganda or if they are indeed one and the same. I don't think they necessarily are the same thing. There are charismatic people that do not speak propaganda but charismatic people often do speak propaganda. — unimportant

My criticism of propaganda is specifically insofar as we're referring to the sense that it is manipulative.

"Good propaganda", in the sense of effective in controlling public opinion in the short term, will also have plenty of elements that are in themselves elements of "good communication", by which I mean both good and effective (and not manipulative). Good propaganda will use plenty of actual facts, elements of logic and reasoning, clarity and well-spokenness, charisma and so on, insofar as it serves the overall manipulative objective.

We have an example of good propaganda with Hitler.

I'd propose an example of good communication as Feynman, exemplified in the Feynman lectures.

Both Hitler and Feynman are charismatic and use many of the same rhetorical methods. The difference being Hitler is trying to manipulate public opinion to conquer the whole world and liquidate whole classes of people he dislikes and breed a race of supermen, whereas Feynman is trying to convey actual truths about physics to those who are interested.

↪boethius I guess you are deliberately pushing the Hitler narrative to illustrate the problems with propaganda. — unimportant

Maybe just accept what happened.

You saw something you liked in a citation literally Hitler, original citation being:

The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success. — Adolf Hitler

And your use of this Hitler wisdom being:

unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention.
— Adolf Hitler

This is what I tried to tell boethius to perhaps allow his points to get across better but he dismissed it and continues with is disjointed ramblings. — unimportant

Which I get it: Hitler doesn't say only false things, and what he says here is true enough as far as propaganda is concerned. Most people in the West would agree with Hitler on this point and definitely the PR people of every major Western political party are going to harp on about "staying on message" exactly as Hitler prescribes.

However, I disagree with the effectiveness of propaganda and so make the rebuttal ... as well as point out the clear fact that you're citing Hitler to make your point, as more a basic debate tactic.

But if we're talking about fundamentals, not caring what Hitler thinks about the subject, the problem with propaganda is that people resist being manipulated.

By definition you cannot want to be manipulated on the whole. By that I mean the difference between manipulation that is part of an overall consent, such as the manipulation of perception in seeing a movie, and a "manipulation overall" such as being tricked into seeing a movie that you don't want to see.

So, insofar as propaganda is manipulating public opinion, people resist that and so even if the cause really is good (which is difficult to tell if it's soaking in propaganda), and the propaganda achieves some actually good objectives, people will realize the methods of manipulation and undo the effect as well as lower their trust in your movement.

For, if people are going along with something because they've been manipulated then it's not because they are actually convinced, and sooner or later the contradictory beliefs will rise to the surface and all that time spent manipulating them will have far worse effects than having done nothing.

↪boethius Huh, interesting, so that is why you went silent on the other thread all of a sudden. I did wonder why you suddenly stopped commenting.

Didn't realize you were angry. — unimportant

The silence is not voluntary, and I mean to get back to that thread.

Certainly not angry about anything here.

I encountered this insane data breach that enables child trafficking globally, which I posted about in the lounge. Child trafficking does indeed make me angry, but I'm fairly confident no one here is a child trafficker.

Criticizing me for not following Hitler's advice I just find amusing.

But sure, the Hitler's criticism is fair if the goal is propaganda, which one is free to argue that all political persuasions should be simply focused on propaganda all the time; of course, I disagree with that, and would provide the counter-argument that propaganda (in the sense of manipulating public opinion) is always counter productive.

However, it obviously has some drawbacks citing Hitler as a role model generally speaking.

Just to update on this issue.

One of the data controllers actually doing their obligations under the GDPR is the Finnish Ministry for Social Affairs and Health, as they ultimately "own" government health and welfare data that would be sent to the data breach (i.e. into the possession of anonymous individuals in the US).

The ministry notified the Data Ombudsman within 72 hours as the law demands and continue their own "process", which hopefully is also what the law demands (further investigation into the breach by the data controller once notified, and then notifying victims of the data breach if there is risk to harm to their rights and freedoms). Which is what makes the GDPR such a potent law that it obliges reacting to risk and not proof of harm.

Under the GDPR, I can't leak your ID either intentionally or due to some security vulnerability and then sit back and claim no one's proven any harm has actually been done yet, and even if that is proven then no one's proven it was due to this particular data breach, and not some other breach or simple carelessness on the victims part.

The judges not reacting to such an obvious data breach that so obviously puts children's lives in danger (just allowing the child welfare corporations to be spoofed due to zero email security is incredibly dangerous), was already obvious corruption and judge participation in organized crime and child trafficking, but now it's even more obvious due to other government organs reacting the data breach.

Which pretty clearly establishes the corruption of the judges.

And how many perfectly legal companies are involved in child trafficking? — Sir2u

Yes, child trafficking is illegal.

Or, are there illegal groups acting as legal companies to commit crimes? — Sir2u

In this case the companies described in the OP are breaking the law, violating the GDPR, having zero email security on their official domain and then sending all their information to an anonymously owned parallel domain in the US.

So, they are legal structures, the companies themselves, but the companies and at least some people involved are doing illegal things. In the same way that you are legally a person, perhaps even a legal citizen of a country, but can go onto commit crimes nevertheless.

If you're in the US, the laws being violated are equivalent to HIPAA.

It would not be too strange to find an individual practitioner who doesn't know what they are doing, doesn't realize their alternative magnet based therapy falls under HIPAA if they request people's medical info to optimize the magnetic chakra pulses (i.e. just because you are practicing alternative medicine does not mean you can practice alternative laws), but if you found a whole group of corporations employing trained experts that weren't HIPAA compliant in super obvious ways, that's simply not credible to entertain as a incompetent accident. So I have no hesitation to make the accusation that the reason this corporate group setup their informations systems in a non-compliant way ideal for trafficking children, is because they are trafficking children.

Now, there is an investigation by one data controller involved, so we will presumably know more at some point.

To save you, perhaps others, a bit of time, you're confusing liability with actually being held accountable.

Liability is simply the potential to be held accountable and where. So discussions of liability are about what you could possibly be sued, fined or imprisoned for, and where exactly that can occur.

So where you will find no-liability is with sovereign immunity and its various extensions. For example that Trump cannot be sued for "official acts", or congress and parliament members can't be sued for the laws they pass, ambassadors running people over, are all manifestations of sovereign immunity.

But even so, there's then a confusing international legal system where people and states can nevertheless be held liable for acts they had sovereign immunity for within their own territory.

Who always has liability are regular people for what they do as well as regular corporations and their management, aka. board members (maybe somewhere there's special "sovereign" corporations that are not liable).

Now, even after the question of liability is perfectly clear, that doesn't mean accountability exists in practice.

As you note, corporations get away with a lot of shit all the time; however, the explanation for that is corruption of regulators and the legal system that's supposed to hold them to account, and not that they have no liability to begin with.

And even so, with corporations there's often some sort of process, a lawsuit does get heard after many years of legal wrangling but they manage to win by some subterfuge, or then they get some tiny inconsequential fine that's categorized as "the cost of doing business".

Someone who'e not liable at all for an action means there is no legal process of any kind that ever even begins. For example, in a liberal democracy you simply cannot sue parliamentarians for voting in a way you disagree with; members of parliament have zero liability for their votes on legislation.

The world is a lot bigger than that, the EU is a small part of it. — Sir2u

Ok, well keep looking in the rest of the the big ol' world for a place where limited liability corporations don't have a board of directors.

Maybe not an EU corporation but as you said, this is supposedly, according to your reference of the US and children being taken into Finland from somewhere else. affecting the whole world. — Sir2u

Yeah I guess keep looking outside the EU if there's even one example of your claim.

Maybe you could look into the Vatican, they rarely answer to anyone. — Sir2u

The Vatican is not a limited liability corporation.

Wow, bit of a comedown from: — Sir2u

There's no comedown. Compromising people's data is itself harmful. If you disagree send me your ID, medical information, anything other data you'd consider private.

This harmful act of compromising child data in combination with zero security implemented allowing anyone to misrepresent these corporations anywhere in the world, even more harmful things can be done.

Since anyone could misrepresent this fraudulent corporation anywhere in the world, the only way to find that maybe to diffuse notice of this information vulnerability.

So I ask again, is there any evidence of any of these crimes being commited through the methods you are explaining. — Sir2u

There's evidence of other crimes involving (beyond the reckless GDPR breaches) these corporations are involved in Finland, as I've mentioned several times. It's not public information yet.

Now, as I've stated many times, the only way to see if this insecure system has been used for abductions elsewhere in the world is through getting the notice out.

Some bodies have been responsive to my notice and are investigating right now, which would usually indicate they found something preliminary, but I don't have more details and it is extremely normal that I would not be kept appraised of any investigation details (as I'm a private person).

All I can do (vis-a-vis child abductions and trafficking in other countries) is create a notice that a child welfare corporation (actually 2 of them) can easily be impersonated in a data setup ideal for child trafficking, and describe what this vulnerability allows.

I've been pretty clear with this message: DATA breaches are themselves harmful, there's other evidence of wrongdoing in Finland that is private information currently, and this completely unsecured and non-compliant setup can be used for a long list of crimes.

I have no issue providing a lot of analysis of these basic points because it's possible such analysis encourages someone to send the notice themselves in their own country, leading to records being checked and potentially child trafficking being frustrated.

For example, it may matter to someone that incompetence is really not a good explanation for why a non-compliant system would be setup in the first place, by an entire corporate group of child welfare corporations. If you're not familiar with how corporations work, what the laws are, how liability works, if limited liability corporations even have any management, etc. then it maybe difficult to evaluate.

How this all applies to the subject of the OP, is that the companies concerned definitely have a board of directors and by not implementing the GDPR those board members make themselves personally liable to be sued by any victims of the data breach for their negligence as well as being fined by the state; fines up to 10 - 20 million Euros, but even a 1 million Euro fine would be a lot of money for the typical professional on a corporate board.

To make and operate a limited liability company you typically need lawyers to do a lot of things, board members typically concern themselves with how much money they could be liable for if the company is run negligently (as well as breaking what laws could land them in prison), and then typically seek advice, typically starting with lawyers, to be confident that won't happen. For, nothing obliges anyone to sit on the board of a corporation, so if you thought it was all reckless improvisation you can just resign and your legal problems are solved if you haven't caused any damages yet.

The rational reason to join the board of a corporation dealing with sensitive information and not have the slightest concern that even step 1 of information security has been carried out, that no information expert of any kind has been involved in designing and implementing information systems and their supervision, would be to commit crimes with this non-compliant information system.

The other explanation available would be being irrational and taking on massive liabilities without knowing the first thing of how a corporation should be managed, not seeking to know from anyone who does know, and just flying by the seat of your pants in taking responsibility for processes as sensitive and critical and prone to litigation as child welfare and protection processes.

There is no legitimate and rational business process that would lead a corporate board to implement information systems for sensitive information in a way that clearly and obviously violates the law in literally step 1 of their implementation (non-transparent ownership and ownership by an individual of the domain used to process children's information, and zero email security on the domain that is officially owned allowing impersonation) and compromises people's private information and put children's lives in danger of these information vulnerabilities being exploitable to impersonate Finnish child welfare and protection to fraudulently gain custody of children anywhere in the world.

You might say that "well, me and my friends would definitely be that reckless and stupid if we ran a corporation" but that begs the question of are you and your friends running a corporation right now, not to mention a corporation that houses vulnerable children?

More relevantly to the matter at hand, even if someone was genuinely unconcerned with liability of any kind and would go through similar events with zero sense of possibly being held accountable for one's actions, that is not a good defence for others breaking the law in such situations.

Standing up in court and saying "Well, Jimbo over there doesn't give a shit about the law, would break exactly the same laws I did without a second thought, he's just that much of a fucking madlad, and never in a million years would it even cross his mind that the law even exists, much less could even potentially lead to some sort of accountability for the consequences of his own actions; therefore, gentlemen, ladies, as Jimbo has no sense of responsibility and genuinely feels he could never be held accountable for his actions in a similar situation, no matter how reckless and damaging they are, I too should not be held accountable. I rest my case." I guess has some sort of logic to it, could persuade some people (definitely some members of our little philosophic community), but mileage may vary.

To save time for anyone interested in how things actually work.

All companies of all forms are liable. The type of company determines who is liable. A single proprietor and partnerships usually have unlimited liability for the owner(s) / manager(s).

Why limited liability (.ltd) corporations are so common is because, as the name suggests, liability is limited. What this means is that the managers of a limited liability company, even less the shareholders, are not personally liable for the decisions they make on behalf of the company (such as in day-to-day management typically by the managing-director, in board meetings by board directors, and in shareholder meetings by shareholders).

The basic meaning of this is that a limited liability company can go bankrupt and no one involved is personally on the hook to pay the outstanding debts.

There is, however, a critical caveat to be off the hook for debts or other damages the company has caused others, which is exercising "due care". Due care is basically a catch all for not being criminal or a complete moron basically.

As you may imagine, if you've been embezzling money out of the corporation you can be held personally responsible for that, likewise if you cause damages due to negligence you can be held responsible for that.

Where the liability is limited is for bad outcomes of business decisions that were legal and did make some sense at the time, such as taking out debts to launch a product and that product just doesn't sell leading to bankruptcy.

Since we're talking about Finland, this manifests in the law as the first and only duty of management:

PART I: GENERAL PRINCIPLES, INCORPORATION AND SHARES
Chapter 1: Main principles of company operations and application of this Act
Section 8: Duty of the management

The management of the company shall act with due care and promote the interests of the
company. — Limited Liability Companies Act

As for the idea corporations don't need a board of directors at all, we'll soon see if there's even one country in the world where this is true, but in Finland it is definitely not true:

Chapter 6: Management and representation of a company
Section 1: Management of a company

A company shall have a board of directors. It may also have a managing director and a
supervisory board. — Limited Liability Companies Act

Section 8 Members: deputy members and chairperson of the board of directors

There shall be between one and five regular members of the board of directors, unless otherwise provided in the articles of association. If there are fewer than three members, there shall be at least one deputy member of the board of directors. The provisions of this Act on a member also apply to a deputy member. — Limited Liability Companies Act

Do you really think that this applies international? — Sir2u

Let's just start with the EU as qualifying as "international".

Can you name one EU limited liability corporation that does not have a board of directors?

Have you any idea how many countries have massive companies without a single member on the board of directors. — Sir2u

Please inform me. Can you start by naming just one massive limited liability corporation that has no board of directors?

And that does not include a bunch of oversees companies that operate internationally and are not liable to nor answer to anyone. — Sir2u

Again can you name one oversees company of whatever form (limited liability, partnership, single proprietor) that are "not liable to nor answer to anyone"?

But we're talking about Finland, so after answering these questions please clarify how it relates to Finland.

Are you saying companies in Finland are not liable to anyone in Finland?

As for the rest of what you wrote, it still does not answer the question! — Sir2u

I did answer your question.

Compromising someone's data, violating the law that is the GDPR and a bunch of other laws, is by definition harmful and causes suffering (one must worry how one's data maybe abused).

If you disagree, just DM me your ID, medical history, anything else you consider legally private information, thus making the point that you don't feel others having a copy of your sensitive information is in anyway harmful.

Other forms of harm have also occurred but I can't so easily disclose specific details of individual cases at this time, hence to focus on the legal violations that can be demonstrated using only publicly available information.

Since the information setup can be used to steal information and create fraudulent child transfer processes anywhere in the world, the only way to discover fraud in other countries, especially poorer countries with less robust systems, is that a victim of the fraud encounters this notice.

There is no possible downside to spreading the information, in particular to authorities in different countries who can check if they are possibly a victim of a scheme involving the fraudulent representation of these companies we are talking about.

This is what I tried to tell boethius to perhaps allow his points to get across better but he dismissed it and continues with is disjointed ramblings. — unimportant

I'm not a propagandist, I'm first and foremost here to subject my own analysis to critical scrutiny. The worlds of ethics, concepts and facts is quite varied, diverse and complex and so any one thing is often related to a great many other things; and so maybe literally Hitler literally describing his propaganda methods of choice isn't the best guide to explore and understand matters.

But I guess thank-you for outing yourself as a self described propagandist following Hitler's advice and footsteps.

Also notable, you confirm your unwillingness to engage in critical debate by mentioning and criticizing me but not using the forum's mention link that would automatically inform me of your comment. You want to criticize me without being sure I have the opportunity to address your criticism and yet you call me bad faith?

Remarkable.

As to the question of why government criminal conspiracies and networks so often involve pedophilia, I would not attribute most of that to the machinations of intelligence operations, though of course that happens too, but crime is anyways happening all the time and intelligence agencies are involved in very little of it overall.

The reason pedophilia and government corruption (or large institution corruption such as the Catholic Church) is so associated I would argue is not simply confirmation bias that such scandals get the most attention, but that such conspiracies are the most stable and so survive the longest with the most advantages both against legitimate law enforcement as well as other criminal conspiracies wanting to dominate the same processes but for different criminal reasons.

For, the major weakness of a criminal conspiracy over time is its internal coherence. For example, even if the criminal conspiracy under consideration is well run with no leaks or weaknesses, for example just embezzling government money in a super sophisticated way or then compromising border security to run drugs and these sorts of crimes, the criminal involved may anyways get caught doing other crime, then they find themselves faced with doing time and have the option of using their leverage of their knowledge of this other organized crime they are involved in. Criminals are not necessarily the most stable and law-abiding of people and so often it's this extracurricular crime that gets criminals in trouble and motivates them to rat on their criminal colleagues.

So there are these accidental weaknesses in most criminal schemes which there is not really any good way to prevent.

The exception to this rule is pedophilia. It's very unlikely for someone to confess to being involved in pedophilia and child rape in order to avoid prosecution of other offences.

So accidental discovery of a pedophile network is unlikely due to chance encounters with law enforcement about other fucked up shit the members of the conspiracy do in their spare time.

Then there's intra-conspiracy extortion. Another pathway to breaking up a criminal conspiracy is when members of the conspiracy start extorting each other. The means of extortion in a criminal scheme is simply threatening doing the above and going and cutting a deal with law enforcement. Even if this doesn't happen, this lowers the trust and mutual respect required for team work to happen effectively, so even if the ratting out doesn't happen the conspiracy will likely cease to function effectively (members may start destroying evidence and making sure not to create new evidence so they are squeaky clean).

For the same reason someone is unlikely to confess to pedophilia and raping children to plead down other offences, they are also unlikely to threaten to do so.

In other words, pedophilia and child rape are crimes that form the long term basis for trust based cooperation.

Through a process analogous to evolution and natural selection it is therefore pedophilia based conspiracies that have an advantage for long term survival. The potential effectiveness of any cooperative venture is directly proportional to mutual trust. Take a military unit where people trust each other implicitly and absolutely compared to a military unit where everyone suspects everyone else of being either dangerously incompetent or even enemy spies; the former organization can attain high levels of effectiveness while the latter not so much.

So, over the decades, if a pedophilia and child rape ring within government survives it will become more, rather than less, robust and stable over time. The pedophilia and child rape ring will be acutely aware of who threatens them and they can use their existing positions, power and connections with organized crime outside government to remove or otherwise neuter those threats. They cannot only use their network to rape children, but make lot's of money in selling that service to others but also just any criminal scheme that the are in a position to execute on, such as simply embezzling government money, taking bribes, protecting the drug trade and taking a cut, and so on.

Since they can have high confidence the other pedophiles in their network are exceedingly unlikely to confess to child rape, they can work in a highly organized, methodological and long term fashion.

Criminal conspiracies that do not solve the classic prisoner dilemma and variations or intra-conspiracy extortion dilemma (which is just a threatening the prisoner dilemma to maximize gain within the conspiracy) described above, will be unstable and ephemeral. The other long term basis for criminal conspiracy, as Vin Diesel in Fast and the Furious informs us, is "family", but this criminal foundation has the weakness of everyone involved being obviously linked whereas pedophilia does not have this weakness. An entire government process could be completely filled with pedophiles and it would not be obvious that there is a connection between anyone, much less everyone, arousing natural suspicion, compared to a situation in which everyone involved, from police and prosecutors to judges and witnesses etc., are apart of the same family, which would seem curious to most people; so pedophile networks even have an advantage over family based criminal networks.

If you have a long term advantage, over time you will likely dominate the space concerned. Of course that doesn't mean any given pedophile that launches into crime has an advantage, just the smart ones that manage to build a cooperative network and get over the first hurdles in doing so.

Also, to address the point of why they have an email setup with zero security, both on their official website and this anonymously owned .com domain that they process emails on, but exploiting this vulnerability to send fraudulent email would take some computer skills, this is not a paradox of contradiction but easily compatible.

Corporate crime is almost always committed with layers of plausible deniability built in. Even if negligence is not a defence to allow criminal processes under your supervision, it's still better to be facing negligence charges than co-conspirator charges.

"Oh I'm just dumb, I didn't think" is still better to be able to say than facing clear and unequivocal participation in a criminal scheme.

So, in this case, if the key criminal role of the management of these corporations is to create the vulnerabilities in the first place and then those vulnerabilities can be exploited by criminals committing the criminal acts themselves that have some degree of criminal separation, then this maintains some plausible deniability that the vulnerabilities are created intentionally to participate in human trafficking.

What is meant by "degree of criminal separation" is that the criminals who then actually make fraudulent emails and actually go traffic the children are working for someone (who in turn maybe working for someone) up to a top boss that can then deal directly with criminal corporate managers in Finland. The "criminal laborours", for lack of a better term, would then not need to even know that the vulnerabilities were created intentionally for the criminal operation to function, but for all they know they are exploiting accidental vulnerabilities. Criminal management in Finland can then be compensated in off-shore accounts or with other money laundering methods.

Likewise, people who actually work for the child welfare corporation in Finland can be completely unaware that information they handle is being stolen for the purposes of human trafficking. For example, you can setup parallel devices that download all the information and you could even tell your employee about these parallel devices and that they stay in the office as a backup; indeed, you could explain that as precisely due to the sensitive nature of the processes this is a necessary security measure in case they lose their device.

As importantly as all that, Finland is a high technology sophistication country, so everyone who does anything remotely professional has degrees and certificates and so on. You need training and a certification to work as a waiter/tress in a restaurant.

Description of the training

You will graduate as a waiter/waitress from the Further Vocational Qualification in Restaurant Customer Service. During the training, you will learn to describe, recommend, sell and serve restaurant food and beverage products. You will be able to serve customers in a spontaneous, friendly and responsible way and to act in accordance with the company’s business idea and service culture.

You will also be able to explain to customers the ingredients and preparation methods of the food dishes sold. You will be able to serve customers with special dietary requirements and to process payment instruments. You will learn to make sales accounts and operate profitably, as well as to use various working methods, appliances and equipment. — Waiter/waitress training, Omnia.fi

So if you need training and certification to be waiter/tress at a restaurant, imagine how much training and certification software engineers have who build GDPR compliant systems for handling ID, medical and court information have. A lot.

In this sort of professionalized environment it creates a further problem of how to recruit a competent software engineer into your criminal conspiracy.

Your choices are:

1. Hire competent and non-criminal competency and try to carry out your criminal scheme behind their back. But this creates the enormous risk that the slightest thing that goes wrong, a single error message or someone making contact to report some odd thing on their network (such as a bounded email or information transfer or what have you), could result in an investigation and immediate uncovering up crime. If you higher some actual IT firm that dates responsibility for the data, they may do their jobs. Even if you circumvent their policies they may change policies at anytime in a way that reveals the previous circumvention.

Really this choice is a non-starter since if you have the skills to defeat highly trained forensic data experts that work for companies that actually manage ID, medical and legal information, then you have the skills to do things yourself.

2. Recruit a expert into your criminal conspiracy. Problem here is that easier said than done. Information experts don't necessarily need the extra cash, if they did they might not choose child trafficking as their extracurricular criminal activity of choice. Furthermore, even if you did find such an expert to setup and manage your network in a way that was not obviously in violation of the GDPR and participate in carrying out and covering up all the criminal activity, you'd be working for them as they would know everything, have backups of everything and possess all the leverage they could possibly want to rat you out. Such a person could extort you at anytime for any amount, so playing things out you may end up losing your cut and still be ratted out, so what's even the point of doing crime in that case? So, hard to find such a candidate and even if one did exist you may want to stay in charge of your criminal operation which requires staying in control of the data systems necessary to carry out the crimes in question, leading to the last and best option if you are not yourself an computer and information expert of some kind.

3. You improvise the data processing setup in such a way that allows your criminal partners to use out-of-country cyber criminals to carry out the crimes exploiting the security vulnerabilities, without even knowing this is by design. Cyber criminals are of course available for higher globally; the issue above is finding someone actually qualified in Finland for data GDPR compliance that you will trust with a birds-eye view of the whole scheme. With very little IT skills you can setup an official website with Wordpress (what this "corporate group" we are discussing actually does) and have zero email security opening the door to be fraudulently misrepresented by your criminal partners elsewhere (also what they actually do). Likewise, with very little IT skills you can setup email on another domain that is registered outside the EU (and so far less compliance checklists to go through as just an "private person"), in this case to an anonymous individual in the US, and so simply bring all the data outside the EU and GDPR scrutiny of even the service provider (and entirely outside the supervision of any competent IT company, which is not even involved at all). Suspicious logs maybe subtle, such as downloading information to suspicious devices and making the occasional odd contact to legitimate conversation (a fraudulent conversation could be a mix of actual emails that don't contain crime and fraudulent emails to pass the criminal information).

This irregular and non-compliant setup will still be noticed by police, prosecutors and judges in charge of the legal cases of these child protection process, but they can be compromised in various ways (from bribes to extortion).

Unlike hiring some highly skilled IT person that would have all the information, have the skills to launder their cut and disappear if needs be, but most importantly be the single most valuable person to any actual police investigation, having backups of all the data and communications etc. (possibly also recordings and other things competent IT people can easily do), compromised officials are far more easy to control, can have very little knowledge of what the scheme even is (just that if they don't do what they're told they won't get their money ... as well as arrested or even murdered, capiche), and would have little to no leverage if ever there's a legitimate investigation, so you can be more confident they really do work for you and not the other way around.

In fact, my guess would be this kind of criminal enterprise starts in the public sector by high-up pedophile officials, such as your typical Finnish appellate judge, who then slowly grow their criminal conspiracy over the years, maybe starting small with just covering up child rape crimes purchased on the "normal" blackmarket, creating a clique of officials that carry out and then coverup rape crimes against children while also then creating relationships and links with organized crime; at some point it is realized a lot more money could be made by everyone and a lot more children could be raped by those involved if the government say ... I don't know, ... just spit balling here ... contracted out child protection tasks to a private corporation that can operate without scrutiny (normally social workers in Finland work directly for the government so therefore use information systems managed by and overseen by the government IT people with all sorts of robust systems and scrutiny in place).

It would be difficult to conceive of and execute on this plan purely from the private sector (we're going to setup this company and this non-compliant GDPR system to do crime, then get government contracts and simply assume anyone who needs to be compromised can be compromised at any given time), but would be easy to conceive up and execute on from the point of view of public officials that have both a birds-eye-view and means of compromising the processes involved and are already involved in this kind of crime and now want to streamline things. This transfer of government money to a private corporation dealing in highly sensitive processes with essentially zero public supervision of what they are doing, also enables your more ordinary embezzling and laundering of government funds.

Furthermore, often red flag reports go to some choke point, so only that point needs to be compromised to reassure everyone below them that "nothing to see here" for the scheme to go unnoticed (so even if lots of people may notice a red flag that doesn't mean they all must be compromised). If you are unfamiliar with how the internet works and how the GDPR works and just find it odd that this company uses an email that has no corresponding website, and is not their official website, if some judge, or police chief or data controller told you that they know already, not to worry about it, most people wouldn't think further about it as it's "not my problem anymore". In fact, most people when encountering an irregularity outside their domain of expertise can be just confidently told the irregularity is in fact a good thing and required for greater security of these highly sensitive processes. So, police or other government employed child welfare officers involved could be just told things are done this way for "added security"; they'd have little way to know that makes no sense and their usual habit would be to not discuss their cases so it would be unlikely to randomly come up in conversation with people who would find that problematic (so from their perspective they carried out their anti-fraud training, reported out an email discrepancy as is their training, their job is done on that).

To take targets of the scheme in foreign countries, for example, in getting an email error message of some kind (say you write back to a fraudulent email and it bounces) you could be phoned up and told any number of things that will in fact increase your confidence this error message represents more rather than less security: for example that precisely because it's highly sensitive child information that this easily triggers all sorts of security systems that then make these sorts of error messages so that we can be sure everything is working as intended, or then simply the system is down precisely because the information is so sensitive and everything is regularly audited! Which is an essentially unsolvable problem in security that all anti-fraud warnings can themselves be transformed by fraudsters into an advantage when dealing with untrained people (a la "we're special, this whole process is special, therefore special things happen in these special processes and you can trust our special knowledge to guide you through this special day, and then once you know what we know you'll be special too").

Is there any actual evidence that any children have suffered because of what you explained? — Sir2u

First of all, compromising people's data is itself harmful, which then, in itself, causes the suffering of needing to worry about how one's data could be used for ill, once one is made aware of the data breach (as required under the GDPR). If you knew your ID and medical history was stolen that would cause suffering even if the data theft is never exploited to commit further crimes against you.

Of course, I am aware your meaning is suffering beyond compromising the data in itself, but I just want to fully clarify that violating people's privacy, sending their data to the some anonymous individual, is harmful and causes suffering in itself.

This totally illegal setup has been running for at least 7 years compromising hundreds, likely thousands of people's data, so really not good.

Further crimes against children by the network involving the above company have also been committed; however, I can't as easily report on confidential information of ongoing investigations and / or court cases.

The data breach part of this criminal network, however, is public information so anyone can re-publish it anywhere and draw attention to it.

As to what exactly these corporations and their criminal network are doing; I only have insight into a small part.

However, what I can say about the whole is that there is no legitimate business process that would result in this sort of information processing setup.

These are corporations that can only exist with boards of qualified corporate managers liable for what the corporation does.

Chapter 22: Damages
Section 1: Management’s liability for damages

A member of the board of directors, a member of the supervisory board and the managing director
is liable to compensate for any injury or damage that they have, in violation of the duty of care
referred to in chapter 1, section 8, while in office, intentionally or through negligence caused to
the company.

A member of the board of directors, a member of the supervisory board and the managing director
is likewise liable to compensate for any injury or damage that they have, by violating other
provisions of this Act or the articles of association, while in office, intentionally or through
negligence caused to the company, a shareholder or a third party.

If the injury or damage has been caused by violating this Act in some other manner than by
merely violating the principles referred to in chapter 1, or if the injury or damage has been caused
by violating the provisions of the articles of association, it is deemed to have been caused through
negligence, unless the person liable proves that they have acted with due care. The same
provision applies to injury or damage that has been caused by an act to the benefit of a related
party. (512/2019) — Limited Liability Companies Act

The last thing you want to do as a corporate manager is be involved in breaking the law, as that's always by definition intentional or negligent violation of your duty of care.

Violating the GDPR, even in subtle ways, has famously large consequences:

GDPR fines are administrative penalties that can be imposed on organizations that violate the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). These fines can be substantial, reaching up to 4% of a company's annual global turnover or €20 million, whichever is higher, for serious infringements. There are two tiers of fines, with the lower tier reaching up to 2% of annual revenue or €10 million.

Fines Structure:
Tier 1: Up to 2% of annual global turnover or €10 million, whichever is higher.
Tier 2: Up to 4% of annual global turnover or €20 million, whichever is higher. — Google GDPR fine summary

So any corporate manager, even more-so for something as serious as child welfare services, will know about the GDPR, informed by their lawyer or then it being constantly in the news. It was the absolute biggest news in EU corporate management for years, while it was debated, then passed, then the 2 years before coming into force and then the constant high-stakes legal cases resulting from the GDPR.

The first thing a corporate lawyer will tell you as a corporate member of the board is that implementing the GDPR for processing sensitive information requires expertise, having regular data audits, and no expert consultant or data auditor of any kind would not immediately identify all the serious security concerns in themselves of the data setup described in the OP as well as the long list of GDPR violations. This is really basic stuff.

But that's anyways how corporations work, that liability is transferred to qualified experts about as much as possible (so that the corporate managers cannot be held responsible for intentionally or negligently causing harm if they hired an expert to do it; an expert that then has insurance to cover their own negligent damages they might cause; why everything get's so expensive so quickly doing things the corporate way).

Ignorance is not a defence of corporate board responsibilities (such as to avoid being fined and / or sued under the GDPR) and it's simply not a hypothesis in this case worth entertaining.

Any legitimate corporation that is created to handle incredibly sensitive information will have at least 1 board member talk to their lawyer to go over the liability of the position which will result in immediately identifying handling the data as a major source of liability and disagreeing with a plan to just have somebody improvise the whole thing ... and also remain anonymous for the part where they improvise the email setup in the US.

A typical legitimate board member of this kind of corporation, if it were legitimate, would be very accomplished in their career, regularly consult with their own legal council about legal issues and take their responsibilities of due care seriously.

In addition to that, these corporations do government contracts to provide social services, so there would be another round of due diligence (and supposed to be regular review) from the government to get these contracts.

Point being, the hypothesis that a corporate board of child welfare company "accidentally" created a data processing setup that happens to be ideal for trafficking children is super amazingly implausible, and anyways is not a defence for the GDPR breaches as well as any damages that occur anywhere in the world. For, this setup makes the board members of these corporations not just liable to whoever's data they handled but also to anyone that is damaged by their child corporate welfare corporations having zero security measure implemented to avoid fraudulent emails representing their corporation.

"Limited Liability Companies Act" and "we didn't know about the GDPR" are not remotely plausible legal defences for corporate board members.

Therefore, we can be extremely confident this data processing setup was created and then shielded from scrutiny for the purposes of committing crimes (which there's specific evidence of more crimes than the criminally negligent data handling, but the above is another way to arrive at the same conclusion).

That it can be used to impersonate Finnish child welfare services and gain custody of and traffic children anywhere in the entire world is reason to disperse the notice as widely as possible (which if you live in a country, you can do; most countries have reporting channels, even anonymously, and just sending the notice could intercept a child being trafficked right now).

Such child abduction and trafficking crime can also be committed without even involving the corporations that created these vulnerabilities; any cyber criminal can discover these vulnerabilities and then exploit the with their criminal network.

Various documentaries have been made about similar practices taking place in the Netherlands, and political parties have tried to garner attention for it. Predictably, the political establishment isn't interested. I wonder why? — Tzeentch

In this case, that their email not even corresponding to their official domain and instead a 404 error page is red flag that anyone with anti-fraud training would discover pretty much immediately.

So we can be sure that government officials (police, prosecutors, judges, bureaucrats of various kinds) are involved in covering up this illegal operation, either because they are in on it or then manipulated by others who are in on it to ignore the red flags.

Doesn't need to be an intelligence operation though.

All I can say is that western intelligence agencies like the CIA, MI6 and Mossad have been linked at various points in time and on multiple occasions to global pedophile networks.

Too crazy to be true(?). — Tzeentch

Absolutely not too crazy to be true and we have abundant evidence this happens.

However, at the moment nothing requires involvement of intelligence agencies to explain. Just "regular crime" also happens of, for example, pedophiles making a child protection agency and then making money in organized crime and compromising public officials to shield their organizations from scrutiny; once enough public officials are compromised then other public officials that weren't involved in the original crime tend to conclude they need to help coverup the incredibly embarrassing truth in order to protect their own political future, so the coverup tends to sprawl out precisely due to it being uncovered if it has reached a critical mass.