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

Undermining Democracy: The EU Commission's Controversial Push for Surveillance

dannymekic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 386 posts

Re: Undermining Democracy: The EU Commission's Controversial Push for Surveillance

#371

Post by hn_acker »

scott_w wrote: post #223
bondarchuk wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The proposal in question does regulate freedom of expression, as the gp said, because it proposes monitoring all communications of citizens. So their argument is not nonsense at all.

It’s nonsense because that’s not what the proposal is. It’s focused on CSAM. It’s a bad law but what you and GP are saying is pure tinfoil-hat-level nonsense.

Is it appropriate to say that it's focused on CSAM?

A and B implies B. Scan all chats and only look for CSAM implies scan all chats.

Moreoever, will the government actually just look for CSAM and ignore everything else? Does this law punish the government for looking for things other than CSAM? If not, then there's no reason to believe that "only look for CSAM" is true as long as "scan all chats" is true.

Re: Undermining Democracy: The EU Commission's Controversial Push for Surveillance

#372

Post by peoplefromibiza »

cbeach wrote: post #173
peoplefromibiza wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And no one elected this persons with so much power by the way. this is a very tired meme, they have been nominated and scrutinized by the people elected in what you called probably the best thing that we have in Europe i.e. the EU Parliament edit: elections solve none of the problems people think they solve. proof is governments are corrupt even though they are elected by the people. if the objections is "we can't…

In the U.K. we allow our elected representatives to “nominate and scrutinise” appointed positions in the House of Lords. The result is a bunch of dodgy appointments in exchange for political favours. The whole process reeks of corruption, but it’s tolerable because the Lords don’t have the power to originate or block law (although they can frustrate the process). The appointed EU Commission is much worse. The appoint…

> the result is a bunch of dodgy appointments in exchange for political favours. The whole process reeks of corruption

how elections can fix that?

suppose politicians are chosen directly by the people, a corruptor could simply pay the people who decides the single candidates for each electoral college or could buy the votes directly. it has happened before and it's also way cheaper and easier than getting an appointment in some room godfather style.

> For example, the EU Commission is responsible for coming up with all new EU Directives, setting budgets and representing the EU internationally

that's the norm everywhere. technicians make the rules, the Parliament job is to discuss and ratify them.

In Italy laws are not written by the Parliament, but there are so called "commissions" that work on budget, directives, proposals etc

it's always been like that since we invented modern democracies.

Re: Undermining Democracy: The EU Commission's Controversial Push for Surveillance

#373

Post by hn_acker »

hackandthink wrote: post #63
sofixa wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The most important one should be: Every citizen is free to express his opinion. And if their opinion is that, all Jews are subhuman and have to be exterminated? (real life example) Most EU countries have "hate speech" laws explicitly banning hate speech such as Nazis and Anti-Semites. Nobody sheds any tears over their opinions being restricted, and nobody should. Debating with pidgeons doesn't work.

I would not discuss with Nazis. If they are criminal they should be prosecuted. Otherwise I ignore them. Noam Chomsky - Should Neo-Nazis Be Allowed Free Speech? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui1vmS9Yz5M

> If they are criminal they should be prosecuted.

You should be a bit more careful about your word choice, since making hate speech a crime would make Neo-Nazis criminals.

Re: Undermining Democracy: The EU Commission's Controversial Push for Surveillance

#374

Post by peoplefromibiza »

blibble wrote: post #158
peoplefromibiza wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And no one elected this persons with so much power by the way. this is a very tired meme, they have been nominated and scrutinized by the people elected in what you called probably the best thing that we have in Europe i.e. the EU Parliament edit: elections solve none of the problems people think they solve. proof is governments are corrupt even though they are elected by the people. if the objections is "we can't…

> this is a very tired meme, they have been nominated and scrutinized by the people elected in what you called probably the best thing that we have in Europe i.e. the EU Parliament yes, in 2019 the Parliament were allowed to pick from a list of exactly one person (selected by another part of the EU)

the Parliament does the vetting, the countries Parliaments propose the candidates. It's all done by elected officials, what more do you want? the commission is a place for technicians, it's not a political entity.

it would be like electing the people in the HR department because the board of directors cast votes.

Re: Undermining Democracy: The EU Commission's Controversial Push for Surveillance

#375

Post by tpmoney »

Incipient wrote: post #352
tpmoney wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Banning any form of paid lobbying, sponsorship, etc. The problem with this is then the only people that are able to meet with / influence your representatives are the people that are independently wealthy enough to travel to them and take the time off from work to do so. If you can't pay someone to speak on your behalf, and you can't afford to take the time to speak for yourself, how do you get heard? Are you perso…

You're arguing that the problem is that only wealthy people will be able to speak to their representatives. That's the exact situation now, but worse. Today it's not a matter of convincing your rep. The wealthy just buy them. "here have 200k and swing that bill my way". That's just borderline bribery.

I'm arguing that wealthy people always have access to their representatives and the only way the non wealthy have anywhere close to a similar level of access is by the ability to pool their money and pay someone to advocate on their behalf. The ACLU can only do what it does because they can be paid to act on someone else's behalf full time.

>"here have 200k and swing that bill my way". That's just borderline bribery.

Agreed, and if you have evidence of that happening I'm sure there are plenty of people at the FBI and the FEC that would be quite interested in seeing it. But that's also not anywhere near the same as paying someone to lobby on your behalf.

Re: Undermining Democracy: The EU Commission's Controversial Push for Surveillance

#376

Post by cbeach »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #372
cbeach wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the U.K. we allow our elected representatives to “nominate and scrutinise” appointed positions in the House of Lords. The result is a bunch of dodgy appointments in exchange for political favours. The whole process reeks of corruption, but it’s tolerable because the Lords don’t have the power to originate or block law (although they can frustrate the process). The appointed EU Commission is much worse. The appoint…

> the result is a bunch of dodgy appointments in exchange for political favours. The whole process reeks of corruption how elections can fix that? suppose politicians are chosen directly by the people, a corruptor could simply pay the people who decides the single candidates for each electoral college or could buy the votes directly. it has happened before and it's also way cheaper and easier than getting an appointm…

> a corruptor could simply pay the people who decides the single candidates for each electoral college or could buy the votes directly

Corruption is hard to conceal if your strategy is to literally approach a majority of the electorate and try to bribe them directly!

> that's the norm everywhere. technicians make the rules, the Parliament job is to discuss and ratify them.

In that case, the question is: is the EU Commission staffed with good technicians?

My field is computer science and I can assure you the EU's digital laws are egregiously incompetant.

Re: Undermining Democracy: The EU Commission's Controversial Push for Surveillance

#377

Post by freeopinion »

try_the_bass wrote: post #273
freeopinion wrote: post #112

I would be interested in learning the thoughts of those who have thought deeply about the role of anonymity in democracy. I am intrigued how often people with the attitude that if you aren't don't anything wrong you shouldn't mind being observed apply that philosophy in only one direction. I see people who are upset that Snowden would leak and provide visibility into government actions, but don't blink that the revea…

> I have an intuition that personal privacy is important in maintaining democracy. I don't think this is true. People need social pressure of some kind to cooperate. It could be positive pressures like getting positive feedback from peers, or negative feedback in the form of shame from peers. Authenticity is important here, to ensure that one's peers can provide accurate feedback (both positive and negative). Anonymi…

Not all anonymous behavior is antisocial. Take, for example, people who sheltered Jews during WWII. I suppose by some definition this is antisocial if you define "antisocial" as bucking local society. But by that definition democracy always leads to antisocial outcomes.

This quote from George Bernard Shaw highlights the value of some "antisocial" behavior and seems like a rather democratic ideal:

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”

Some people can be publicly unreasonable. We have unpleasant names and consequences for such people, as you demonstrate. Other people can be privately unreasonable.

If all progress depends on the unreasonable man, isn't there value in facilitating cowards to be unreasonable? Obviously a great deal of damage is also done by unreasonable people. But I suspect that the balance of a few heros outweighs the many villains and it is better to err on the side of individual privacy.

I just wonder why I promote individual privacy while discouraging government privacy. What arguments can be made for or against that seeming contradiction?

Re: Undermining Democracy: The EU Commission's Controversial Push for Surveillance

#378

Post by freeopinion »

mcpackieh wrote: post #184
freeopinion wrote: post #112

I would be interested in learning the thoughts of those who have thought deeply about the role of anonymity in democracy. I am intrigued how often people with the attitude that if you aren't don't anything wrong you shouldn't mind being observed apply that philosophy in only one direction. I see people who are upset that Snowden would leak and provide visibility into government actions, but don't blink that the revea…

> I am intrigued how often people with the attitude that if you aren't don't anything wrong you shouldn't mind being observed apply that philosophy in only one direction. I see people who are upset that Snowden would leak and provide visibility into government actions, but don't blink that the revealed actions were actually the government spying on its own citizens. So governments are entitled to privacy, but their c…

Thank you. I appreciate the effort.

Counter point: You characterize military actions as "defense", but personal actions as "war". If individuals are not permitted to defend themselves, neither should governments be allowed to wage war.

In fact, individuals are allowed to defend themselves. Even something as simple as a door lock is a means of defense. Are they not allowed to keep their lock combination secret? I think this is the type of secrecy most people are willing to afford the government. They don't want everyone to know the launch codes for the nuclear weapons.

But let's take some different examples. I think that the government should have to disclose how much they pay to develop a new park. I don't think I should have to disclose how much I paid for my new patio. But if I don't disclose that information, how can we be sure the lumber supply store is paying its fair share of taxes?

I think the government should have to disclose that they produced and distributed specific propaganda. I don't think I should have to disclose the same. Is that fair?

Re: Undermining Democracy: The EU Commission's Controversial Push for Surveillance

#380

Post by jimmner »

kypro wrote: post #95
api wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like over the past 10 years there has been a global retreat from freedom and democracy. China is returning to at least a superficially softer version of Maoism. Russia has returned to Stalinism. The Middle East never had much of a liberal tradition but it’s certainly not gained any ground. The US is flirting with populist strong man rule with Trump and RFK. South America seems to keep oscillating between aut…

> One problem might be that we teach everyone about the dangers of fanatical explosive totalitarian movements like Hitlerism and Stalinism but not enough about “softer” creeping authoritarianism that is less easy to identify or oppose. Both are a risk but the strong man cult type is easier to mobilize people against. This is entirely the problem in my opinion. When you talk to Europeans you'll notice they tend to be…

> And there is an ugly righteousness developing here too. I'm finding it increasingly difficult to defend people's right to dislike Islam or be homophobic, for example. A lot of Europeans genuinely believe these views are so evil that people deserve to be punished for holding them.

Indeed, and I find it quite strange that it's usually the same people blindly defending Islam as are fighting homophobia. If they'd taken even a cursory glance at what Islam actually preaches, they'd see it's one of the most homophobic religions out there.

Post reply on HN