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

231–240 of 425 posts

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

#231

Post by anonyfox »

geysersam wrote: post #226
raverbashing wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who elected those guys anyway? EP elections are well publicized and every EU citizen has the right to vote on it "Every five years EU citizens choose who represents them in the European Parliament, the directly-elected institution that defends their interests in the EU decision-making process. The next European elections will take place in 2024."

Of course. I always vote in the EP election. I just find it incredible that when the results are in the people at the top are some guys I've never heard or seen before. And I don't believe I'm uncommonly ill-infomed. Moving power further away from the electorate should be a last resort for issues that can simply not be handled on the local level.

> I just find it incredible that when the results are in the people at the top are some guys I've never heard or seen before. And I don't believe I'm uncommonly ill-infomed.

that may happen when many separate countries merge their candidate pools to form a single parliament, and its up to the parties to distribute their seats - I would think that an exact representation of members from all countries within the available seats for the party would be hard to achieve, though.

> Moving power further away from the electorate should be a last resort for issues that can simply not be handled on the local level.

This is true to some extend, however you have to somehow ensure that all individual pieces work in a collaborative mode and support each other, because once you get in competitive mode, its a race to the bottom for everyone.

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

#232

Post by anonyfox »

0xy wrote: post #65
maxilevi wrote: post #7

Why every 12 months the European Commission comes up with a total dumb and authoritarian proposal and we have to actively fight it? It’s just tiring

Because EU residents allowed them to continue to legislate themselves into irrelevancy. Nobody spoke against GDPR, which is an utterly toothless annoyance. GDPR achieved nothing notable for data security and privacy, except by spamming cookie prompts and training users to accept anything. The EU is an incompetent, lumbering, bureaucratic hellscape. It expanded FAR beyond its original remit of a customs union, and in…

The most important critique of GDPR is actually that its not enforced more often/strictly and that the maximum damages are _still_ too low to make many companies actually care.

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

#234

Post by mrangle »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #204
roenxi wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Why do you think 'whataboutism' is a bad thing? It is comparison. Comparison is a fine tool for reasoning about policy. Not the end of the conversation, but something to consider. 2. The corruption of EU politicians is a major concern. If they think so little of privacy that they are willing to vote for laws like this, then they should certainly have to defend why they get any privacy at all. Corruption in governm…

In the US whataboutism is used to justify current crimes because in the past someone else did not get charged. It is a way to dismiss current crimes made by 'my side' because 'whatabout' that time 'your side' got off. It ends up reducing what can be criticized to the lowest common denominator, because you can't criticize anybody if anybody had every done it before.

That's false. Whataboutism, in its traditional and non-negative sense, is the long-standing assurance of equal-enough application of the law as a defense against Bananaism.

See, I can make up truly stupid neologisms as well. But at least mine isn't an effort to subvert foundational democratic norms.

Because unequal application of the law isn't law.

Whataboutism's necessity increases as the parties and potential charges under scrutiny are ever more alike.

In Whataboutism's novel sense, it is a brain-dead effort to try to get away using the law as a politicized cudgel.

You can tell by the need to invent a new word in order to describe an old concept.

Insofar as their is not any legal jeopardy involved, my explanation still applies however adjusted.

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

#235

Post by ransom1538 »

maxilevi wrote: post #7

Why every 12 months the European Commission comes up with a total dumb and authoritarian proposal and we have to actively fight it? It’s just tiring

Yes. Then. For the next decade on HN we are reminded, during almost every thread "This is against European Commission title X". Well, too bad for them, all my products strictly adhere to Congolese law for data privacy and Ecquadorian law for data retention. Since we are randomly deciding which counties laws we should abide by - yet don't live in.

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

#236

Post by mrangle »

soueuls wrote: post #230

No idea why people still consider European countries to be democratic. People are elected sure, but they are all pretty much socialists, it’s not like you can really choose. Candidates who have different worldview don’t have access to media. Oh, and last time we got a say about whether we wanted to wanted to abide by the European constitution we said « no » at 55% Apparently it did not make any difference whatsoever.…

Even North Korea calls itself a democracy.

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

#237

Post by dover »

defrost wrote: post #222
dover wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> women prisoners raped and impregnated by male guards This is why in the UK, women's prisons have a policy where at least 50% of prison officers must be female, and only female officers are allowed to conduct intimate searches where needed, to mitigate against the risk of sexual abuse by males. That there is an existing, mitigated risk of male sexual predation from prison staff, does not justify further increasing t…

So ... you've no actual official link to back up your "non hypothetical" story .. no per capita figures on women in prison being raped by either guards or other inmates (other women or trans)? That seems odd to say the least.

Is it your claim that this doesn't happen?

Here are some search terms for you, these are examples of men in women's prisons who have sexually assaulted or raped women inmates while incarcerated: Janiah Monroe, Karen White, Ramel Blount.

None of these men should have been there in the first place, of course.

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

#238

Post by defrost »

dover wrote: post #237
defrost wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So ... you've no actual official link to back up your "non hypothetical" story .. no per capita figures on women in prison being raped by either guards or other inmates (other women or trans)? That seems odd to say the least.

Is it your claim that this doesn't happen? Here are some search terms for you, these are examples of men in women's prisons who have sexually assaulted or raped women inmates while incarcerated: Janiah Monroe, Karen White, Ramel Blount. None of these men should have been there in the first place, of course.

Clearly (to anyone conversant in English) I am not claiming no such thing has happened.

I am asking how frequently this happens and, in hard risk terms, how does it compare to the risks faced by inmates of being raped by other women or by prison guards.

I assume you are not claiming these events do not happen.

So again I ask - do you have any relevant links re: comparative frequency, absolute occurrence, etc.

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

#239

Post by faeyanpiraat »

revelio wrote: post #184
faeyanpiraat wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't use current spam filters to fight against this, provided the system is implemented correctly. Let's assume you send 1000 automated messages periodically, and they contain a mixed bag of normal looking (so that your genuine comms could hide in plain sight) and malicious messages (to make their detection systems sweat). All the messages are sent from the same origin (e.g.: a messaging app capable of this), wi…

Again, that's not how spam filters actually work in the real world. They hardly care about message contents. They care about how many spam reports users file and those are weighed against non-reported messages for any stable identity like phone number, sending domain name, etc. Spam meanwhile is defined as messages users don't want. If users can't tell the difference between spam and non-spam then, by definition, the…

Oh sorry, I missed a part, and you are misunderstanding me.

I understand you know how real world spam filters work, but this is a different use case.

I'm not trying to generate spam, I'm talking about an IM app, where you have your contacts, and you can talk with each other and only see the legit messages.

I can elaborate, but please continue in a non-adversarial way if possible.

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

#240

Post by wizzwizz4 »

defrost wrote: post #238
dover wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it your claim that this doesn't happen? Here are some search terms for you, these are examples of men in women's prisons who have sexually assaulted or raped women inmates while incarcerated: Janiah Monroe, Karen White, Ramel Blount. None of these men should have been there in the first place, of course.

Clearly (to anyone conversant in English) I am not claiming no such thing has happened. I am asking how frequently this happens and, in hard risk terms, how does it compare to the risks faced by inmates of being raped by other women or by prison guards. I assume you are not claiming these events do not happen. So again I ask - do you have any relevant links re: comparative frequency, absolute occurrence, etc.

I'm not convinced there have been more than five cases. Everyone cites the same ones.

I would expect there to be more, given base rate – but if there were, I'd expect those cases to be yelled about, which they aren't. (That leaves open the possibility that trans people are significantly less likely to assault others… Given the correlation between being trans and autistic, and the tendency for autistic people to be highly moral, that's not a hugely far-fetched theory, but it wouldn't explain such a large discrepancy.)

Post reply on HN