There are proposals to impose censorship on material being shared digitally between individuals by means of requiring that computers (including snoop phones) contain a specific nonfree program which would check for forbidden communications before end-to-end encryption goes to work. That system design is called "client-side scanning".

For me, the first argument against this is self-evident: nonfree software is unjust and requiring any nonfree software is inexcusable.

The second argument is monitoring of people's private communications is tyranny, and that once the system exists it will surely be used to censor political views.

However, to persuade officials who don't care about those human rights issues, neither the unjustice of nonfree software nor that of privacy will suffice. Other arguments are needed.

Here are some practical arguments against mandating client-side scanning.

*It's right to probe UNRWA's problems &mdash yet what would replace it? Its critics have no answer.*

Swatting has extended to various right-wing US officials and politicians.

Swatting is a dangerous form of violence, and its existence is a blot on our society. It used to be focused on people hated by right-wingers, and that often led the SWAT thugs (often right-wing themselves) to shoot first without noting that there was nothing wrong.

Now that the victims may be themselves right-wing, thugs may learn the habit of considering there may be nothing actually wrong, before they shoot anyone.

The NSA gets Americans' location data without any sort of warrant by buying it from data brokers.

The NSA kept this secret, and Senator Wyden had to block a nomination to extract the admission that the NSA does this. I presume he knew this for a fact, from secret sources he was allowed to see, but in order to take action to stop the practice he needed something he could lawfully cite.

The NSA currently says it "minimizes" such collection, which means doing no more than it finds "necessary" for whatever goal it is working on. How much is that? We don't know.

We do know there is danger that a year from now the US will have a dictator nominally called "president", a dictator that cooperates with Putin and whose supporters include state officials who seek to repress abortion and women who get abortions. What will the NSA and other government agencies do then, with the location data they can obtain?

Of course, we should do our best to make sure that the wrecker loses to Biden again, and we should prepare to crush the coup that he already encourages his followers to mount.

But this should also remind us that it is unacceptable for the systems we use to keep track of our activities. The most sensitive personal data is about details:

• Where did you go?
• What did you do there?
• Who did you communicate with (and what was said)?

We must put an end to tracking and collection of people's sensitive activity data except based on specific warrants to authorize such collection.

Many young Britons can't afford the education needed to get a good job. A substantial number can't afford the costs of working, such as clothing and commuting.

I suppose the latter will eventually compel employers to offer higher wages. But the education problem won't solve itself that way.