Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

patrick-breyer.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 434 posts

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#311

Post by dane-pgp »

jollybean wrote: post #229
pcrh wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU has a lot of carrot for countries like Poland or Lithuania. Even longer term members such as Belgium, etc, that don't have such history with the Soviets know they are better off being in the EU than splintered.

What is the 'carrot' for Spain, France, Italy that goes beyond what the EEC provided? Why would a 'really great trade agreement' not provide 'most, if not all of the carrot' with respect to economic upsides? Does the EU political apparatus an ECJ, i.e. beyond comprehensive trade agreements, provide carrots?

Well, one carrot for Spain was the assistance it received during the last financial crisis[0], and France probably likes being able to project its influence onto neighbouring countries through its position in the EU.

Less reductively, I think that a major benefit of a political union is that it gives some degree of democratic legitimacy to decisions made about difficult region-wide issues like trade policy, consumer protection, immigration, the environment, and anti-trust law, to name but a few.

All of those matters could in theory be settled via multi-lateral treaties, but they would probably be hard to reach flexible compromises over while still being overseen by representatives voted for by the public with a mandate for deciding on those supranational issues.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_debt_crisis#Spain

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#312

Post by WalterBright »

WalterBright wrote: post #309
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #287

Earlier 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)

> how is a right fundamental? They are inalienable and bestowed by their Creator. I.e. they are part of the innate nature of human beings. Governments can either protect those rights or abrogate them - it cannot invent them. And yes, they stretch back to when humans became human. Though it took a while for people to formally recognize them.

How do we know what those fundamental rights are? By observing what happens to societies that have various formulations of rights. The societies that thrive are closer to the mark than societies that are mired in misery, despair, and death.

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#313

Post by irrational »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #287
II2II wrote: post #281

Earlier 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)

Thanks for asking this. I’ve wondered the same things. The answers so far don’t seem to really answer the question well, which makes me wonder if this is just one of those phrases that people banter about without considering if it actually means anything.

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#314

Post by pyuser583 »

cvwright wrote: post #157
BelenusMordred wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The metadata hosted on Facebook's servers is worth more than the actual content.

People keep repeating this trope about metadata being worth more than content. Where does this come from? I can understand that metadata is valuable -- of course it is. You can learn a lot from metadata. But more valuable than the actual content ? Give me a break. Something can be bad without being literally the worst thing ever. Pointless exaggeration like this does nothing for the cause of privacy.

Metadata is highly structured, standardized, and easily understandable by machines. Content is not.

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#315

Post by WalterBright »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #302
briefcomment wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Excellent point. So I’ll ignore “fundamental right” next time I read it. I note that the United States uses “inalienable rights”, meaning ones which can’t be given or taken away. The only things that can’t be given or taken from me without a lobotomy are my education and internal thoughts and beliefs (that includes things like self-worth and dignity).

You have a right to liberty regardless of whether you are enslaved or free.

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#316

Post by dane-pgp »

Aerroon wrote: post #224
gorjusborg wrote: post #33

Can this be true? I'm having a hard time understanding how they can stand for internet privacy and legal mass surveillance simultaneously.

As a reminder of what the EU has done previously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive > According to the Data Retention Directive, EU member states had to store citizens' telecommunications data for a minimum of six months and at most twenty-four months. And they knew that this was illegal. They did it anyway. Same political body that now talks about protecting privacy.

> In September 2005, during the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Council, a plenary session was held concerning the retention of telecommunications data, chaired by the UK's Home Secretary.

Maybe the values of British society really are different from those of the rest of Europe... Anyway, there should be less of a push within the EU for introducing these illegal directives now.

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#317

Post by dane-pgp »

candiodari wrote: post #182
em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because politicians want to look tough on child abuse.

Really? Child abuse stats are dropping like a stone. It's getting so bad that truly ridiculous things are being treated as child abuse, like for example a not-quite-divorce. Not "a bad divorce". Not "parents fighting". Not divorced. Separated (meaning living apart for whatever reason, without getting legally divorced). I'd say for what time period, but there is literally no time period given . When kids are asked any…

As with terrorism, if the bad thing is happening more, the government says "We need more power to stop this!", and if the bad thing is happening less, the government says "Look at what we've achieved with these powers! Obviously they are working, so give us more!".

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#319

Post by pyuser583 »

estaseuropano wrote: post #231
throwaways885 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As somebody who was somewhat in-favour of Brexit (not popular here, admittedly), my view is that it's easier to fight for privacy against just the UK government, rather than the entire EU bloc. I think if an entity as powerful as the EU puts this into legislation, it's game over. I have a similar view on federal laws in the United States - they don't tend to repeal federal surveillance laws without violence.

But every member has a veto. You never needed to convince 28 countries, you only needed to convince your own government to vote against. Plenty of laws stuck in limbo because one country doesn't like it - but exactly zero laws on the books that sosme country really hates.

That’s systems leads to compromises and quod pro quos. That’s not as likely with just one nation state.

If Country A wanted strong privacy laws and Country B wanted strong surveillance laws, and both have a veto, then you’ll get paralysis or a compromise.

Right now it seems the EU has neither strong encryption as the norm nor a massive surveillance system. Just what one would expect when any nation can veto a law.

Now that the UK is independent, it no longer has the paralysis/compromise/status quo dilemma.

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#320

Post by Cosmin_C »

rrix2 wrote: post #183
fsflover wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you care about it, switch to Librem 5 or Pinephone.

Neither of these can access the financial services provided by my bank nor the infrastructure provided by my city

This is worrying. I always thought about this since I have long-standing user experience with privacy-related stuffs and the more you block, the less you can use. But being unable to access financial services or city infrastructure provided by your city makes me think that either these services are terrible or the privacy phones are breaking something. Case in which I am most curious to find out what exactly are they breaking and how are those things both essential and privacy related? - I'm unsure if my sentence makes sense, English is not my first language.
Post reply on HN