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

EU Commission doesn't understand what's written in its own chat control bill

mullvad.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 219 posts

Re: EU Commission doesn't understand what's written in its own chat control bill

#151

Post by tablespoon »

jwalton wrote: post #131
tablespoon wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Don't trust old-school typewriters and the postal system either. Letters are routinely opened and typewriters can be matched. For example, the Stasi (secret police of the former GDR - German "Democratic" Republic) had an archive of type samples of all sold models of typewriters for re-identification of political pamphlets. That's theoretical. I highly doubt anyone extends that much effort to target typewriters anym…

> That's theoretical. I would agree, but then I also would have agreed with this sentiment about much of what Snowden revealed. If you want to be paranoid, may as well go all in.

> I would agree, but then I also would have agreed with this sentiment about much of what Snowden revealed. If you want to be paranoid, may as well go all in.

What Snowden revealed is way more believable than the government continuing to invest tons of effort into profiling typewriters. The whole thing with Snowden was that his leaks confirmed a lot of things reasonable people speculated.

Re: EU Commission doesn't understand what's written in its own chat control bill

#153

Post by somenameforme »

mananaysiempre wrote: post #128
rfrey wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I misreading, or are you arguing that people are more free to protest in Russia than in Paris?

No, I’m not. What I’m saying is that as long as laws on protests are being followed in full (which in the case of Russia means we’re... somewhere in the late 90s, probably? early 00s at most), the authorities in Paris seem to have much wider latitude to stop people from protesting than would be allowed by the Russian constitution, and that latitude was exercised as recently as 2018. That doesn’t mean the French syste…

> "Maybe I’m just too unwilling to believe in a reasonable government, I don’t know."

Even if somehow there were a genuinely benevolent socially minded government willing to put society above all of their personal interests (including, even getting elected) - it would be unwise to support potentially oppressive powers. Because sooner or later, that government will be replaced by one that will be happy to exploit those powers for wrongful purpose.

Re: EU Commission doesn't understand what's written in its own chat control bill

#154

Post by somenameforme »

hgsgm wrote: post #136
robopsychology wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay to put it another way the constitution is uncodified and weak - parliament can change constitutional laws at a whim due to no separation of powers and no-one could sit down and write it out anyway. So it's a pretty weird constitution if you can call it that, and many legal scholars argue it isn't one. https://www.jstor.org/stable/764688

$51 is an expensive citation.

https://sci-hub.ru/https://www.jstor.org/stable/764688

Re: EU Commission doesn't understand what's written in its own chat control bill

#155

Post by zabzonk »

mananaysiempre wrote: post #128
rfrey wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I misreading, or are you arguing that people are more free to protest in Russia than in Paris?

No, I’m not. What I’m saying is that as long as laws on protests are being followed in full (which in the case of Russia means we’re... somewhere in the late 90s, probably? early 00s at most), the authorities in Paris seem to have much wider latitude to stop people from protesting than would be allowed by the Russian constitution, and that latitude was exercised as recently as 2018. That doesn’t mean the French syste…

> every post-Soviet human rights activist up in arms

there don't seem to many RUSSIANS of this description around at the moment (not that i would blame them).

Re: EU Commission doesn't understand what's written in its own chat control bill

#156

Post by dmix »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #115
mananaysiempre wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Russian student studying in Paris, it was a terrifying realization that the mayor can, apparently, prohibit any and all mass protests by simply issuing a decree, no higher authority needed. (This was in 2018 IIRC.) This is apparently part of the anti-terrorist law or something? I dunno, and nobody seemed to care except for the participants of the protests that were happening at the time. Compared to the constant…

> As a Russian student studying in Paris, it was a terrifying realization that the mayor can, apparently, prohibit any and all mass protests by simply issuing a decree, no higher authority needed. (This was in 2018 IIRC.) This is apparently part of the anti-terrorist law or something? I dunno, and nobody seemed to care except for the participants of the protests that were happening at the time. That's because the gov…

It’s to easy to explain away this stuff as merely gov deception fooling people. But I’ve seen far too many well educated people on HN making arguments in favour of this stuff. They always have their pet emergencies that are unlike other times in history requiring compromise now and a naive trust in the good intentions of local politicians, who often do care about some real present issue, but lack the capacity to see the longer term consequences and wider picture.

The fact they are more often religiously promoted by people often from EU countries or wealthier cities in the US is a signal but that doesn’t mean they were merely fooled by bad actors in gov hiding stuff. They could just as often see a consistent positive stability in their own local community, then immediately rationalize/correlate that to the popular mantras of the well intentioned local politicians… regardless if such that positive state is a stagnated legacy of prior success, claiming issues in other regions that their country/community never really experienced is because x gov policy (ie, using the absence of negatives to rationalize some norm, regardless if it’s been tested IRL), or merely positives happening in spite of their own govs policies.

Gov policy making / promotion is far too complex and multilayered to dismiss it outright as intentioned manipulative and planned.

Re: EU Commission doesn't understand what's written in its own chat control bill

#157

Post by [deleted] »

tephra wrote: post #38
mongol wrote: post #36

The podcast episode in Svenska Dagbladet (which is otherwise a very good podcast) was infuriating because the opponent and the host did not catch on to her ridiculous statements about encryption. She really needs to meet a journalist that can cross-examine her statements about this. She got away too easy there.

Knowing the opponent he indeed caught on but with 30 minutes (and most of that spent with Ylva) there's only so much you can do.

[deleted]

Re: EU Commission doesn't understand what's written in its own chat control bill

#158

Post by candiodari »

actually_a_dog wrote: post #16
lwhi wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I don’t see any facts coming from you, either.

That's because the premise the EU Commission (and you, by extension) you are defending is so utterly ridiculous that it doesn't really need argumenting that it's bad.

The point the EU Commission is defending here is the need to spy on every word, every bit of interaction you have on the internet. You know, "to protect the children".

I mean, if you truly think like this, how about you give me a live dump of you traffic, desktop, cell phone, ... everything, along with all encryption keys, passwords, etc. You know "so I can check you're not a pedophile". Because that's what this is about.

Re: EU Commission doesn't understand what's written in its own chat control bill

#159

Post by mdekkers »

908B64B197 wrote: post #70
dahwolf wrote: post #65

Software is flexible which seems to result in our human rights being equally flexible. Imagine the police regularly raiding your apartment without announcement. The post office opening all your mail. Storage box companies searching your unit. You wouldn't be OK with that. You're innocent until proven guilty and a search requires a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing and an approved warrant. Private communication is pr…

Lots of places don't have strong constitutional protections, for anything. Not that long ago, the government in Canada started freezing citizen's bank accounts on suspicions they donated small amounts to a certain peaceful organization organizing protests the government didn't like. They just decided to suspend the constitution (because that's a thing over there?). But what's interesting to see is people from Europe…

> 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.

Plenty of Americans do just that, a friend of mine got his USA certificate of un-citizenship last week

Re: EU Commission doesn't understand what's written in its own chat control bill

#160

Post by kabes »

> “Next summer, all the scanning taking place right now of child sex will be banned within the EU. That is, if we don’t have special legislation that allows it.”

Ah, the good old child sex card. We keep on losing our privacy in its name, but never do I see a number of how many children are actually being saved by the surveillance apparatus.

Post reply on HN