OK Boomers, good luck with that.
It's fun watching old people legislate on things they don't understand.
European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication
291–300 of 434 posts
Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
The world has a poor history on banning the application of math.
laughs in Mandarin Well, I shouldn’t do that. Suffice to say, it’s simply a fact that China bans VPNs, and pretty much everyone goes along with it. People fear jail. It’s hard (but not impossible) to imagine Europe and the US doing that. NordVPN is practically a household name, at least on YouTube.
President Pooh bans VPNs but pretty much everyone uses them and jumps over the great wall.
People just have a 'compliance' phone when authorities ask to rummage through it.
Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good luck with that - the genie's out of the bottle. End to end encryption is vital to the operations of modern businesses, it's not going anywhere anytime soon.
E2E encryption is? Or encryption in general? SSL is not E2E. The data isn’t encrypted at rest in most places. I want E2E encryption as much as the next person, but we need to make sure we’re honest about its use cases
The only distinction there is Client/Server vs Peer/Peer, peer discovery is a thing, but other than that it's fundamentally the same problem with the same solution(s).
Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fifth and sixth sentence of the article explicitly states the concern of child protection being used as an underhanded and emotional tactic. While I disagree with invoking child protection as a form of political blackmail, child protection is a legitimate concern. Several populations, of which children are one, are considered vulnerable to exploitation and legislation to reduce exploitation is legitimate. The pro…
> fundamental rights Genuine question because I never understand what people mean when they use that phrase: how is a right fundamental? Does the cold universe assign them to us or do a set of people agree such-and-such are fundamental. If the latter, were the same rights fundamental 20,000 years ago? (Because if they are fundamental, they should stretch back to early man… earlier than even 20,000 years ago)
We assign those rights as a society and, more relevantly here, as a political system. The people who draft our constitutions and (like for all political norms) those who create our political discourse have more influence in defining them than the general population, but these norms have to be agreed to by a fairly large swathe of society to be effective.
Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fifth and sixth sentence of the article explicitly states the concern of child protection being used as an underhanded and emotional tactic. While I disagree with invoking child protection as a form of political blackmail, child protection is a legitimate concern. Several populations, of which children are one, are considered vulnerable to exploitation and legislation to reduce exploitation is legitimate. The pro…
> fundamental rights Genuine question because I never understand what people mean when they use that phrase: how is a right fundamental? Does the cold universe assign them to us or do a set of people agree such-and-such are fundamental. If the latter, were the same rights fundamental 20,000 years ago? (Because if they are fundamental, they should stretch back to early man… earlier than even 20,000 years ago)
No rights are objectively fundamental. It's subjective. If people in power don't agree to act as though certain rights are fundamental, they cease to be enforced, even if lip service is paid.
Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
> fundamental rights Genuine question because I never understand what people mean when they use that phrase: how is a right fundamental? Does the cold universe assign them to us or do a set of people agree such-and-such are fundamental. If the latter, were the same rights fundamental 20,000 years ago? (Because if they are fundamental, they should stretch back to early man… earlier than even 20,000 years ago)
We assign those rights as a society and, more relevantly here, as a political system. The people who draft our constitutions and (like for all political norms) those who create our political discourse have more influence in defining them than the general population, but these norms have to be agreed to by a fairly large swathe of society to be effective.
> fairly large swathe of society
I don't think a majority necessarily carries power. The uber rich and intelligence agencies carry far more power than any mass of citizens.
Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication
#297I hear lots of amazing sounds (and accompanying self congratulation) from the EU when it comes to "human rights". Time and time again though, they prove they're not actually interested in human rights or interests of their own citizens.
Which means all their other cries of human rights about other issues are empty crocodile tears. Even when it may happen that the side they take is a good one from a human rights perspective, that's obviously purely by coincidence that it happens to align with their agenda.
Horrifying.
Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication
#298Full name list ECR: Bourgeois, Jurzyca, Kanko, Melbārde, Terheş, Van Overtveldt, Zīle NI: Beghin, Buschmann, Castaldo, Comín i Oliveres, Ferrara, Furore, Gemma, Giarrusso, Gyöngyösi, Pignedoli, Ponsatí Obiols, Puigdemont i Casamajó, Regimenti, Rondinelli, Rookmaker, Sinčić, Sonneborn, Vuolo PPE: Adamowicz, Ademov, Adinolfi Isabella, Alexandrov Yordanov, Amaro, Arias Echeverría, Arimont, Arłukowicz, Asimakopoulou, Băs…
Correction, the july 5 debate vote ECR: Aguilar, Berg, Berlato, Bielan, Bourgeois, Brudziński, Buxadé Villalba, Czarnecki, de la Pisa Carrión, Dzhambazki, Fidanza, Fiocchi, Fitto, Fotyga, Fragkos, Ilčić, Jaki, Jurgiel, Jurzyca, Kanko, Karski, Kempa, Kloc, Kopcińska, Krasnodębski, Kruk, Kuźmiuk, Legutko, Lundgren, Mazurek, Melbārde, Milazzo, Możdżanowska, Poręba, Procaccini, Rafalska, Ruissen, Rzońca, Saryusz-Wolski,…
> Renew
If my comma-counting shell game is correct, this makes for 89/98 MEPs in what used to be the liberal group (ALDE) before they joined up with LREM in favour. A pretty shameful display, but while I was in a way relieved to see that the five German (FDP) members of the group [1] are not appearing in the list, that does mean I'm not even sure who I could complain to (since it's not like we have other "pro-freedom" parties in the EP)...
[1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/search/advanced?count...
Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fifth and sixth sentence of the article explicitly states the concern of child protection being used as an underhanded and emotional tactic. While I disagree with invoking child protection as a form of political blackmail, child protection is a legitimate concern. Several populations, of which children are one, are considered vulnerable to exploitation and legislation to reduce exploitation is legitimate. The pro…
> fundamental rights Genuine question because I never understand what people mean when they use that phrase: how is a right fundamental? Does the cold universe assign them to us or do a set of people agree such-and-such are fundamental. If the latter, were the same rights fundamental 20,000 years ago? (Because if they are fundamental, they should stretch back to early man… earlier than even 20,000 years ago)
It assumes the geopolitical domination of a group who asserts the right as fundamental. In other words a world order.
Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is true.. not much to be done with the major providers are all in bed with the Feds. I mean, the telcos literally allow the Feds to port mirror all their traffic. End to end encryption on your own encrypted storage perhaps.
I'm not sure if "allow" is the right word here. Really the NSA can set up another Room 641A at any company they want regardless of that company's wishes and with a national security letter the company can be prevented from even telling anyone (like their customers or the media) about it. I was furious when Obama granted telecom companies immunity from prosecution for their role in the warrantless spying, but really i…
Perhaps, but if it became public that my telco was allowing NSA to backdoor comms, I’d say the devil made me do it, too.
https://www.propublica.org/article/nsa-spying-relies-on-atts...