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

251–260 of 425 posts

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

#251

Post by shadowgovt »

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 know he was American and not European, but "When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself public property." ~Thomas Jefferson

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

#252

Post by wizzwizz4 »

dover wrote: post #242
crashmat wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

just because there are (very) bad apples in a group doesn't mean that the entire group purely and only exists to take advantage of others. By your logic cis women also should be imprisoned for their identity because cisgender women have sexually assaulted others in prison

> bad apples The full expression this term is taken from is: "a few bad apples rot the whole barrel". Women don't know in advance who the bad apples are amongst men, so in contexts where women are particularly vulnerable to predation from such men, the whole barrel must be considered as being rotten. This is why we have sex-segregated spaces.

But why draw the boundary there? Men are a problem because of the society that lets them do what they want. Society doesn't treat trans women like men – and, largely, it does treat trans men like men. Isn't it dangerous to have trans men – many of whom will have testosterone running through their systems – in vulnerable women's spaces?

Treating someone who seems like a woman, acts like a woman, is at risk from the gender-based violence inflicted upon women… as a man… is making people safer, how exactly?

How would you even determine which women to exclude? If someone's saying "hey, I'm trans, I'll leave if my existence makes you uncomfortable", they're clearly not one of the Evil™ Ones… so are you proposing to check everyone who enters these spaces? Oh, but wait, the state of medical treatment is actually pretty good, these days. Better make that a thorough check. (No. Just, no.)

And how is it a good idea to put trans men in with women victims of (usually male-perpetrated) domestic violence? Isn't the whole point of the "women's spaces" thing to avoid that? (Or do you propose to just ban all trans people from support services entirely?)

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

#253

Post by defrost »

dover wrote: post #247
defrost wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even one case of women prisoners being raped by men who are incarcerated in a women's prisons is sufficient to show that this recent experiment in removing this safeguarding measure for women inmates has been a failure, and must be abandoned. That we have several documented cases already only supports this point further.

Any instance of inmates being abused by other inmates or by guards in a prison system is a violation of duty of care.

I absolutely agree that measures should be in place to eliminate such abuse and to uphold duty of care.

You have failed to demonstrate that trans people in prisons pose any additional risk over and above what already exists - measures put in place should stop same sex abuse and guard abuse equally as well as they stop trans abuse of others (or, indeed abuse of trans by others - which you have blindly overlooked).

That abuse does occur highlights a failure of protective measures overall - and the incidence of abuse by trans prisoners appears to be the very least of the actual incidents that actually occur.

Unless, of course, you can actually link to actual comparative numbers.

Otherwise you are just engaged in blinkered and selective pearl clutching.

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

#254

Post by zirgs »

revelio wrote: post #220
zirgs wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Montenegro's banking system works. They aren't part of the ECB.

They never formally joined the Eurozone to begin with, they just allow the Euro to circulate and accept it for payment. It's not even legal tender there, in theory. The integration issues are more to do with how the banking systems of formally Eurozone integrated countries are wired up to the ECB and how countries come to rely on it for "liquidity" (money printing to pay for expensive large government). Also note tha…

A leaving country could keep using the Euro while working on the transition back to their own currency. When the USSR collapsed - its former members continued to use Soviet rubles for some time until they transitioned to their own currencies.

So yeah - if a country really wanted to leave - a shared currency would not stop it.

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

#255

Post by b112 »

cafeinux wrote: post #221
cft wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't even need to raise it that much. One can implement onlyfans.com business model when their electorate pays to them for access to their cam feeds.

The richer would be the ones that do things on their livefeed that attract people. Do you want politicians orgies? Because that's how you get politicians orgies. The poorer politicians would be the perfectly honest and completely boring ones, not a great way to encourage honesty.

Do you want politicians orgies?

Now wait, let not be too hasty here. We should whiteboard this out. There are a lot of moving parts, and shutting down an idea too soon, would be wrong.

So to start, uh, just wondering, which politicians? Also, what would they be wearing?

Again, only asking for an accurate framing here.

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

#256

Post by jckahn »

tlongo wrote: post #122

Does the proposal include chat services that are run by corporations only? If so, how will that prevent people from setting up their own chat infrastructure for child-abuse purposes? Besides that, how about educating people on how to do exactly that: Set up their own chat service. That would put control in the hands of those people who are not only responsible for protecting children but also have the most leverage t…

I’m very interested to see how this will affect https://chitchatter.im/, a serverless, self-hostable chat app I built. Would it be exempt from this EU proposal?

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

#257

Post by tvink »

MikeGale wrote: post #51

Facebook does this already. Not only posts and comments but also messages between two people. The system is used to hide content, change content, shadow ban and the like. Even by its own standards it's typically used incorrectly, but most users have no workable way to appeal. The content reviewed is often visible to low paid workers in various countries. Similar systems have been infiltrated by hostile governments. (…

"does this" is maybe a little misleading here. Facebook has their own platform which they monitor. Like or not, that's something very different than mandating that every system should have a backdoor.

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

#258

Post by dreen »

Supermancho wrote: post #47
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…

> Suggested alternative: The "End Political Corruption Proposal" I'm probably in the minority on HN, but I think this is a good thing. It should be a matter of course, in a democratic society. Free speech doesn't live solely in digital communication (universally owned by some company) any more than it does in the classified ads in a newspaper.

I'm with you. For the duration of you holding public office there should be no expectation of privacy.

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

#259

Post by taink »

lenkite wrote: post #205
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Singapore System - their ministers are the highest paid in the world and it (apparently) makes a difference.

Singapore remains an authoritarian state, not a democracy. It allowed for massive progress in a difficult political climate but it does so at the cost of a good amount of political freedoms. That might be fine, but not in all cultures.

I also challenge the notion that higher pay leads to less corruption. If so, then why are Denmark, Finland, New Zealand and Norway ranked higher in the corruption perception index[1], when they are paid much, much less annually (especially Finland)[2]?

[1] https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2022 (https://archive.ph/fabjP)

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_salaries_of_heads_of_s... (https://archive.ph/XGbpO)

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

#260

Post by dover »

defrost wrote: post #253
dover wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even one case of women prisoners being raped by men who are incarcerated in a women's prisons is sufficient to show that this recent experiment in removing this safeguarding measure for women inmates has been a failure, and must be abandoned. That we have several documented cases already only supports this point further.

Any instance of inmates being abused by other inmates or by guards in a prison system is a violation of duty of care. I absolutely agree that measures should be in place to eliminate such abuse and to uphold duty of care. You have failed to demonstrate that trans people in prisons pose any additional risk over and above what already exists - measures put in place should stop same sex abuse and guard abuse equally as…

I'm talking about men in women's prisons. Any man can call himself a woman, and under policies that elevate "gender identity" over sex, will be believed. Effectively making women's prisons mixed-sex environments.

Sex-segregation of prisons (and other spaces where women are vulnerable) exists for good reason: the safety and dignity of women. The need for this has been well-documented since the 19th century, when reformers campaigned for improvements to prison conditions, including making them separated by sex. Elizabeth Fry in particular kept extensive diaries of the horrors that women had to endure in mixed-sex prisons.

This isn't "pearl clutching", as you put it, it is based on significant evidence of the risk men pose to women. Evidence that has since been added to with these cases I've cited, that resulted from prison authorities deciding to reintroduce mixed-sex environments.

On the flip side, you've presented no argument whatsoever as to why men should be incarcerated in women's prisons. You appear to have simply assumed that this should be the case, and are basing your rhetoric upon this assumption.

Post reply on HN