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

The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

mullvad.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 425 posts

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#111

Post by dover »

concordDance wrote: post #107
orbisvicis wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you think it'd be better to ratify the most vile proposal while the ideals of freedom still have majority reign? To create a fiasco so enduring it won't soon be forgotten? And before tools of mass manipulation become any more technologically sophisticated? If I'm reading [1] correctly, we're just picking up momentum down a decades-long slippery slope. 1. https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/FIW_…

I expect initially only those who are unpopular and unlikely to be defended by the public will be prosecuted. Then over time more political enemies (probably starting with "trans women aren't women" activists) will be prosecuted and the slow slide begins...

[flagged]

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#112

Post by [deleted] »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #36
jay_kyburz wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a really dumb thing to say and it really undermines the power of every day people to have a say in how our world is run. The Government is our voice and our strength, and we are going to need that voice heard and our will exercised in the coming years. We need to stop undermining our governments, we need to get money out of politics, and we need to sort out our democracies.

Unless you can actually address what I wrote, explain why it is a "really dumb thing to say", I'll chalk that up to you being bewildered and terrified by the truth in what I say. That's okay, many people are completely subservient to authority, dependent on the government, want to be ruled and protected. I pass no moral judgement in my comment, merely explain why the EU is desperate to surveil their own citizens.

[deleted]

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#113

Post by revelio »

1123581321 wrote: post #25
Spivak wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is only true if you give up once it passes. Then you only have to win once to get it repealed.

I don't see the EU repealing much. How can there be an expectation of a fruitful campaign to accomplish that? Would it require a sea change in the outlook of the ruling blocs of MPs? Asking sincerely.

The MEPs don't have the right to change EU law. So it doesn't matter even if they were all voted out and replaced. The commission does what it wants, it's not really a democratic system.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#114

Post by revelio »

Jensson wrote: post #72
cryptonector wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP means that the dictator only needs to win without violence once, but the rebels -while it's true that they only need to win once- may have to resort to violence because the dictator certainly will resort to violence to crush its opposition.

In the case of EU the member states would just leave if the union starts becoming too corrupt. Until they create a no-leave rule there isn't much to worry about. When they create a no-leave rule then we should start worry, since then EU is heading towards becoming USA.

Ah yes because we saw how easy it is to leave the EU for the UK even though it still has its own currency.

Realistically current EU countries are locked in. They aren't allowed to reintroduce their own currency, but doing so is step one towards leaving.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#115

Post by totetsu »

kurthr wrote: post #56
photochemsyn wrote: post #30

Suggested alternative: The "End Political Corruption Proposal" "Given that political corruption is rife in European countries, with great detriments to the healthy function of government, all politicians in positions where they may be engaging in corrupt behavior must submit to 24-7 audio and video surveillance, which will be piped over public platforms for crowdsourcing of corruption detection. All personal communic…

While you're at it there should be a 1 year look back. So if you want to run for election you have to start recording a year earlier so we can compare your actions to that of the other Big Brother^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d candidates. I do suspect that having a hot spouse and active sex life would become a significant advantage when running.

A lot more of this kind of tongue kissing going on I suspect https://i.imgur.com/w85Pwzb.gifv

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#116

Post by andrewstuart »

niemenmaa wrote: post #105
andrewstuart wrote: post #81

I haven’t read the post. Don’t tell me, it’s to “protect the children”, the excuse under which all draconian citizen monitoring laws are introduced.

Indeed. Subheading of the proposal is "laying down rules to prevent and combat child sexual abuse".

Yeah that’s how they brought in the draconian monitoring laws in Australia.

“To protect the children”….. no one can argue with it without sounding like a pedophile.

And it always comes with an assurance that the dramatic power overreach will never be used for anything else but hunting pedophiles.

But it’s never too long until they’re using it to hunt copyright breakers and all sorts or ordinary crime.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#117

Post by niemenmaa »

This link has been discussed earlier in [0], Chat Control posts that have gained traction are for e.g. [1] and [2]. Patrick Breyer has a good summary and timeline of this proposal and its history [3]

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35094627

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31329368

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29066894

[3] https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#118

Post by ajsnigrutin »

photochemsyn wrote: post #30

Suggested alternative: The "End Political Corruption Proposal" "Given that political corruption is rife in European countries, with great detriments to the healthy function of government, all politicians in positions where they may be engaging in corrupt behavior must submit to 24-7 audio and video surveillance, which will be piped over public platforms for crowdsourcing of corruption detection. All personal communic…

I'm totally fine with raising their paychecks by a factor of 10 for their loss of privacy if we implement this... the amount of money we'd save elswhere dur to less corruption would be a few orders of magnitude higher.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#119

Post by realjhol »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #32
throwawaylinux wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because any government's primary objective is to secure the power of the government, and most governments including western "democratic" ones view their people as the biggest threat to that objective. Which they are right about, mind you.

This is a really dumb thing to say and it really undermines the power of every day people to have a say in how our world is run. The Government is our voice and our strength, and we are going to need that voice heard and our will exercised in the coming years. We need to stop undermining our governments, we need to get money out of politics, and we need to sort out our democracies.

How can you possibly be this naive?

In reality it's always Michel's Iron law of Oligarchy. It doesn't matter what political system you think you have. In the end what you have is always an oligarchy.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#120

Post by revelio »

rsync wrote: post #94
TOMDM wrote: post #2

This is especially important in the age of LLM's. Large scale surveillance while abusive and harmful has historically been limited in scale by the ability of those in control to trawl through data. Automated "moderation" of dragnet communications collection with modern AI holds the potential for a scale of abusive privacy invasion at unprecedented scales.

Interesting… I was thinking the opposite… My personal ability to generate millions of real-looking messages has now exploded and I wonder how these proposed structures will function if everyone sends each other 1k suspicious messages every minute of every day ? Maybe attach a zip-bomb to every message just for good measure?

You won't be able to do that. Spam filtering exists and mostly isn't based on message contents looking real or not.
Post reply on HN