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

Mullvad's campaign against EU chat control

mullvad.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 107 posts

Re: Mullvad's campaign against EU chat control

#31

Post by Macha »

lofaszvanitt wrote: post #29

The problem is there are no reports on what counter terrorism units achieved, how many potential attacks they thwarted because it would jepoardize their work, at least that's the mantra. So it's a you have to believe us that these measures is a must situation. The problem is, that the silicon we use in everyday hardware is a black box. Same applies to online services. We do not even know how Youtube's and other big s…

If we look at the number of terrorism incidents in Sweden Vs say the number of times a public official got in trouble for abusing state power as well, then the two conclusions is that either the existing mechanisms are sufficient for thwarting terrorism or the threat of terrorism is overplayed to begin with

Re: Mullvad's campaign against EU chat control

#32

Post by KptMarchewa »

outime wrote: post #4

To be honest I'm not very hopeful. The average Joe really is gullible - just drop some terrorism, children and nowadays some "preventing misinformation" bs (which of course has never and will never be twisted to fit government's needs at the time) to the mix and people will accept it. Nevertheless I support these campaigns since I'm more than happy to be proven wrong.

I've never seen bottom up support for those type of measures. They are also universally unpopular: https://european-pirateparty.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/c...

No amount of terrorist or pedophile arguments have changed it.

People don't accept it - at worst they are apathetic. This type of campaigns - and getting some media on our side will help.

Re: Mullvad's campaign against EU chat control

#33

Post by matthewdgreen »

I am currently reading through all of the legislation to try to figure out what the latest version of this actually requires from providers. Early versions talked about scanning for "grooming behavior" in textual conversations, but then also required that there would be no mass-scanning of communications: this seems obviously contradictory. What's frustrating about these laws is how vague everything is: I wish there were more high-quality summaries of the current legislation's terms. (If they exist, please post them here.)

Re: Mullvad's campaign against EU chat control

#34

Post by seanw444 »

dsign wrote: post #30

Ha! I probably should get a mullvad account just to support them (even if I use my own VPN). Something that is not discussed much in Sweden is surveillance via the bank system. Banks have access to customers' transaction information and use it for two purposes: the "useful" feature of telling their customer how many of their purchases were e.g. food vs entertainment or house rent, and--of course--for advertising thei…

Make Monero popular (doomer wojack)

Re: Mullvad's campaign against EU chat control

#35

Post by outime »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #19
outime wrote: post #4

To be honest I'm not very hopeful. The average Joe really is gullible - just drop some terrorism, children and nowadays some "preventing misinformation" bs (which of course has never and will never be twisted to fit government's needs at the time) to the mix and people will accept it. Nevertheless I support these campaigns since I'm more than happy to be proven wrong.

Are they gullible or pragmatic? I appreciate the concern here but at the end of the day these laws hardly affect the average Joe so why should he care? There is some wisdom in not worring about future hypotheticals until they actually happen.

>Are they gullible or pragmatic?

Gullible. Pragmatic would be a person who doesn't worry about completely made up things - not the case.

>these laws hardly affect the average Joe so why should he care

That's where I completely disagree and I encourage you to read more about how this is an overreach. I won't link anything specific to prevent nitpicking but googling "chat control summary" should bring some ideas at least.

>There is some wisdom in not worring about future hypotheticals until they actually happen

Well this isn't a hypothetical, it's another step towards overreach and should be at least exposed. It's literally the boiling frog apologue [1]. When it actually happens we may already be burned alive - metaphorically speaking, hopefully - and there won't be much else left to do.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

Re: Mullvad's campaign against EU chat control

#37

Post by viereier »

lofaszvanitt wrote: post #29

The problem is there are no reports on what counter terrorism units achieved, how many potential attacks they thwarted because it would jepoardize their work, at least that's the mantra. So it's a you have to believe us that these measures is a must situation. The problem is, that the silicon we use in everyday hardware is a black box. Same applies to online services. We do not even know how Youtube's and other big s…

[flagged]

Re: Mullvad's campaign against EU chat control

#38

Post by f_devd »

Zak wrote: post #24

There are an unusual number of comments from new accounts making disingenuous arguments on this post. I wonder who is behind the astroturfing. The answer to "what else should we do about bad people doing bad things?" is, of course how we usually catch people doing bad things: old-fashioned detective work. It involves taking reports of suspicious or illegal acts, interviewing witnesses and associates, requesting court…

> I wonder who is behind the astroturfing

I noticed the same thing, but this really is a strange one since there isn't an obvious single party which would desire this legislation (from my limited view).

External state-actors (e.g. China for proxy-policing), or non-democratic internal politicians/leaders (EU/EEA neo-facists?), is the only thing I can imagine.

Re: Mullvad's campaign against EU chat control

#40

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

outime wrote: post #35
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they gullible or pragmatic? I appreciate the concern here but at the end of the day these laws hardly affect the average Joe so why should he care? There is some wisdom in not worring about future hypotheticals until they actually happen.

>Are they gullible or pragmatic? Gullible. Pragmatic would be a person who doesn't worry about completely made up things - not the case. >these laws hardly affect the average Joe so why should he care That's where I completely disagree and I encourage you to read more about how this is an overreach. I won't link anything specific to prevent nitpicking but googling "chat control summary" should bring some ideas at lea…

> Pragmatic would be a person who doesn't worry about completely made up things - not the case.

They are completely made up things though. As an example: Climate change is not made up since it is affecting us now. Assuming what a future government might do is purely hypothetical though. I could draw a hypothetical that these laws will create world peace and stop nuclear war with the same amount of authority. Both are possible.

Post reply on HN