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

391–400 of 425 posts

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

#391

Post by raverbashing »

revelio wrote: post #197
Hamuko wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EU has no army so it can't keep EU countries locked in if they don't want to stay.

They're working on raising an army actually: https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-leader-approve-defense-mi... "EU leaders approve updated military plan. The strategy envisions the creation of an EU rapid deployment force of up to 5,000 soldiers." However the EU doesn't need a physical army to stop a country leaving. It just needs sufficiently good control of local politics and law enforcement via loyalists in the coun…

> Anti-EU referendums in European countries are frequently ignored, even when in theory they are constitutionally binding

Yeah, that's why the UK didn't leave in the end right? lol. Does "Non-biding referendum" rings a bell?

> long track record of classifying true reports about their activities in the British press as "myths".

Ah yes the trustworthy British press saying German kids can't write to Santa because of GDPR. Yes

Yes, keep talking, I like to make a collection of anti-EU talking points (from Peter Thiel's think tank most likely).

For all the criticism the EU deserves, it's very telling when the narrative turns into manipulation

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

#392

Post by zajio1am »

stametseater wrote: post #338
JasonFruit wrote: post #331

A minor-seeming terminology quibble that has far-reaching effects: the chat control proposal does not belong in human society. People in democratic societies don't have different rights than those under other political systems; everyone has a right to speak freely and expect privacy in their communications, absent very specific situations where there is evidence that what is being discussed is unallowably dangerous t…

Natural rights are a kind of theology. There's no scientific evidence for their existence, they're just asserted to exist. The fact that such rights are not recognized in most countries means that for practical intents and purposes, they do not exist in those countries.

> Natural rights are a kind of theology. There's no scientific evidence for their existence, they're just asserted to exist.

You can say that for most moral statements.

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

#393

Post by wizzwizz4 »

dover wrote: post #352
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> California, Washington, Ireland, for example. You've just named countries. Pick one. Read the actual policy. It might surprise you. > then you need to argue this based on evidence, rather than simply assuming it. The fact that people only seem to have the same five examples to argue otherwise – versus the many hundreds of easily-accessible examples that show that men are (for whatever reason¹) more prone to violenc…

> You've just named countries. Pick one. Read the actual policy. It might surprise you. Sorry but this is just vague insinuation. You haven't given any hints as to what you believe will be a surprise. Could you enlighten me please? I mentioned those three regions because they have self-identification policies for "gender identity" that extend to prisons, and men who call themselves women are currently incarcerated in…

> Sorry but this is just vague insinuation. You haven't given any hints as to what you believe will be a surprise.

Well, I did say earlier:

> > and under policies that elevate "gender identity" over sex, will be believed.

> This does not apply to the actual policies I assume you're complaining about.

You misunderstand what "self-identification policies" are – or, at least, what current implementations look like. They don't "just believe" people: the processes for getting recognition can be quite convoluted.

> Okay then, please share your evidence?

I can't share the sum total of my relevant life experience, I'm afraid. You'll just have to make do with what I've already provided: the evidence from your own comments. As somebody who has researched this, and – presumably – is motivated to portray trans people in a bad light, you are not in possession of the statistical data I would expect to exist if trans women were statistically like men.

People like you pick at every single case you can to paint $insert_group_here in a bad light, but in this case, you can't even get enough data points to make a statistically-plausible argument – and neither can anybody else who argues the same as you. (I have absolutely no idea why you can't: I would expect you to be able to. Apparently, reality is even more biased than I am!)

> I'm sure you know they are male.

:eyeroll: I'm sure you can't even define "male" coherently, consistently, in a way that lines up with your ideological beliefs about what it is and isn't.

You know how I'm using words. I'm extending you the courtesy of accepting your language use: please return it.

> The same argument I made in other comments applies to these […] too

And by this argument, why have segregated prisons at all? Your original argument was about reducing harm… so why are you suddenly switching to a different argument, now that I've brought up the increased harm your proposal would cause?

You've got two different criteria now. Please weigh both situations (thing you're complaining about, and your alternative proposal) according to both criteria. Don't just pick and choose, otherwise I'll have to assume you're arguing in bad faith.

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

#394

Post by owisd »

Everything this site claims seems like an exaggeration when you actually follow the references through to the original proposal. Before a service needs to do anything at all the proposal would require an order from a judge where the government would need to present evidence in advance that they're likely to find CSAM and service providers only need to report back the specific material requested in the order. I'm not sure it's workable in this form either but hardly sounds like scope for mass surveillance.

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

#395

Post by IG_Semmelweiss »

pastacacioepepe wrote: post #374
IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If thought of something similar but comprehensive and far reaching, as follows: Any law voted yes by a politician would have: A 6mo cool off period, and in that interim periodthe following would apply: the law in question would be Tripled (3x) and both ways (I.e. retroactive and future) to the elected officials, his immediate parents, sons, and siblings, as soon as the law is passed. So if they pass a tax increase, t…

This feels just like punishing governments and their families for doing their jobs. We already have elections and law enforcement, thats all we need to "punish" corrupt officials. What we lack to make elections effective is more information available to the public about what they do and why they do it. More accountability and transparency, not punishment for their children if they want to tax big corps. The threat of…

That's what they want you to believe.

Government is NOT a job. Government is Public Service. Emphasis on 'service'

If you are not ready to do your service or duty, you are not fit to work in government.

The honor and duty of being a king came with the downside of the risks (beheading) to you and to your royal family, if you did a particularly bad job.

Current government officials have all the upside (revolving door) with almost zero downside. Some plebs break into congress and they get their pants in a jiffy.

We need to make them accountable. Them, and their families.

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

#396

Post by themitigating »

blitzar wrote: post #366
themitigating wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does the second act have to do with corruption or information that is useful for the public?

If a lawmaker creates a law to make something illegal, sends police to prosecute the population doing said thing, affirms that arresting people for having a cup of coffee is absolutely the intention of writing the law - that is perfectly reasonable. If at the same time they are breaking the law they created - that is corruption . For the people prosecuted for said crime with trials pending, it is information that is…

how is that corruption?

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

#397

Post by themitigating »

JacobThreeThree wrote: post #283
themitigating wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does the second act have to do with corruption or information that is useful for the public?

When a government official doesn't abide by his own lockdown rules, that's corruption.

why?

If a politician votes for a law that reduces the speed limit to 50mph then is caught speeding is that corruption?

I think corruption is when someone abuses their position of power. This isn't abuse they just violated their own rules.

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

#398

Post by 908B64B197 »

JasonFruit wrote: post #331

A minor-seeming terminology quibble that has far-reaching effects: the chat control proposal does not belong in human society. People in democratic societies don't have different rights than those under other political systems; everyone has a right to speak freely and expect privacy in their communications, absent very specific situations where there is evidence that what is being discussed is unallowably dangerous t…

> People in democratic societies don't have different rights than those under other political systems; everyone has a right to speak freely and expect privacy in their communications, absent very specific situations where there is evidence that what is being discussed is unallowably dangerous to others, i.e. criminal. To tie rights to democracy not only ignores the rights of people in other systems, it makes those rights sound like arbitrary gifts of the government rather than intrinsic features of humanity.

That, sadly, is a uniquely American concept. I fully agree that these truths are self-evident and universal.

But what's interesting to see is people from Europe and Commonwealth nations voting with their feet and deciding that they too want these freedoms (which they are entitled to!). Here in the Bay it seems there's a constant interest from EU nationals to move to America (judging by the volume of applications we get). But I've never heard anyone interested to do the reverse.

Top destination for EU nationals in Academia was... right here in the US [0].

So it does seem these ideals are appealing to the young, educated and smart people in Europe. Interesting to speculate what impact the policies imposed by these non-elected EU bureaucrats will have on this demographic.

[0] http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/the-global-bra...

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

#399

Post by revelio »

gpderetta wrote: post #211
revelio wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how it works, at all. History should make this clear! By the time a regime reaches "existential threat" level it's too late. You're already far gone, any and all political opposition has been driven underground and the regime has loyalists in place in all institutions and positions of power. There is no way to organize any resistance because attempts to do so are crushed immediately, the press is controlle…

Mate, if you think the propaganda is only on one side, I don't know what to tell you.

Where did I say there's only propaganda on one side?

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

#400

Post by revelio »

raverbashing wrote: post #391
revelio wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're working on raising an army actually: https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-leader-approve-defense-mi... "EU leaders approve updated military plan. The strategy envisions the creation of an EU rapid deployment force of up to 5,000 soldiers." However the EU doesn't need a physical army to stop a country leaving. It just needs sufficiently good control of local politics and law enforcement via loyalists in the coun…

> Anti-EU referendums in European countries are frequently ignored, even when in theory they are constitutionally binding Yeah, that's why the UK didn't leave in the end right? lol. Does "Non-biding referendum" rings a bell? > long track record of classifying true reports about their activities in the British press as "myths". Ah yes the trustworthy British press saying German kids can't write to Santa because of GDP…

>> Yeah, that's why the UK didn't leave in the end right? lol.

UK was the first where it wasn't ignored. After the vote I remember being told several times by Europeans they didn't really believe it'd ever be implemented, exactly due to the track record of European countries in ignoring referendums that didn't go the EU's way.

Even then it was a very close run thing. The Remainers in Parliament were willing to create a constitutional crisis to try and get the referendum overturned a.k.a. the "People's Vote", and were holding the government hostage to get that. It was only a a lucky break (the Lib Dem leader going full delusional) that allowed Johnson to break the deadlock, go the country and allow the electorate to purge the Remainer MPs who had lied to their voters about their true position. But make no mistake, that was the worst constitutional crisis the UK experienced in living memory.

>> Ah yes the trustworthy British press saying German kids can't write to Santa because of GDPR

That story came from the German press and was correct:

https://www.welt.de/kmpkt/article183978370/Weihnachtsmarkt-i...

You see how easily you're manipulated by the EU? They've convinced you and others that if the press criticizes the EU the press must be lying. But it's almost never the case.

The EU has taken down their myths site now. It was trash. Not only totally focused on the British press, but I remember quite clearly flicking through them back when the site was live and noticing that all of them were admitted to be true, with the "debunking" (such as it was) being always along the lines of, "this is true but it's justified" or "we prefer an alternative interpretation", or "we don't phrase it like that".

Post reply on HN