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

EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

statewatch.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 279 posts

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#51

Post by throwaway48476 »

squigz wrote: post #41
throwaway48476 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politics across the world has ossified and become terrified of change. So they stick their heads in the sand.

Why do you think that is?

Globalization. If you're a rich person you spend most of your life in the company of other rich people across the world. If you're a politician you spend it with other politicians. It's natural for a person to feel some kind of group affinity for the people they interact with the most.

The result is they're even less connected to the societies they are nominally a part of. It also makes them much more invested in perpetuating the system and less receptive to society.

edit: This was intentional as it was thought that such a system would reduce international conflict.

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#52

Post by mytailorisrich »

johndunne wrote: post #18

From the article "Climate activism is on the rise, together with an increased willingness to use violence, marking a shift from environmental activism to environmental extremism" As far as I can tell, climate activists have been making a nuisance of themselves much more than a 'willingness to use violence.' I find this justification concerning, to say the least.

They have been using violence. Violence against property mostly but that's violence nonetheless. Throwing paint or other things at buildings and pieces of art in museums is violence (criminal damage is not peaceful protest).

But in the grand scheme of things this is indeed a weak justification.

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#53

Post by randunel »

johndunne wrote: post #18

From the article "Climate activism is on the rise, together with an increased willingness to use violence, marking a shift from environmental activism to environmental extremism" As far as I can tell, climate activists have been making a nuisance of themselves much more than a 'willingness to use violence.' I find this justification concerning, to say the least.

Isn't willingness to use violence exactly what makes peaceful protests efficient? If a protest has exactly 0 risks, why would anyone in a position of power mind it at all?

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#54

Post by germandiago »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #14

That's pretty crazy, it looks a lot like in Minority Report. Notice the reference to a "future criminal offence" and the phrase "leading to the belief" in the criteria: A “minimum materiality threshold”. This requires “objective and verifiable… information suggesting that a criminal offence, or future criminal offence, has a certain degree of seriousness.” A “basic indicative criterion”. This requires “objective, ver…

This looks to me, increasingly and clearly like the current people want to keep the power tight. Not the politicians necessarily, just the whole oligarchies that govern.

In my humble opinion, they have pushed Europe to a disaster if things do not get fixed in the next few years.

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#55

Post by squigz »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #51
squigz wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think that is?

Globalization. If you're a rich person you spend most of your life in the company of other rich people across the world. If you're a politician you spend it with other politicians. It's natural for a person to feel some kind of group affinity for the people they interact with the most. The result is they're even less connected to the societies they are nominally a part of. It also makes them much more invested in per…

> The result is they're even less connected to the societies they are nominally a part of. It also makes them much more invested in perpetuating the system and less receptive to society.

How might we start to fix that, do you think? I don't imagine globalization is going anywhere.

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#56

Post by throwaway48476 »

tokai wrote: post #45
throwaway48476 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politics across the world has ossified and become terrified of change. So they stick their heads in the sand.

It would be a pretty big change to outlaw afd, so how does that fit with your statement?

I don't think it would happen, it's a move of pure desperation without public concensus.

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#57

Post by logicchains »

bawolff wrote: post #37
jonathanstrange wrote: post #14

That's pretty crazy, it looks a lot like in Minority Report. Notice the reference to a "future criminal offence" and the phrase "leading to the belief" in the criteria: A “minimum materiality threshold”. This requires “objective and verifiable… information suggesting that a criminal offence, or future criminal offence, has a certain degree of seriousness.” A “basic indicative criterion”. This requires “objective, ver…

Minority report was about arresting people based on the word of psychics. There is a big difference between that and having evidence someone intends to commit a crime in the future. Of course it is possible to abuse such things, which is why its important to have reasonable definitions for these things.

It's not "evidence someone intends to commit a crime in the future", it's evidence "leading to a belief someone intends to commit a crime in the future". With no objective standard for that "belief".

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#58

Post by faggotbreath »

randunel wrote: post #53
johndunne wrote: post #18

From the article "Climate activism is on the rise, together with an increased willingness to use violence, marking a shift from environmental activism to environmental extremism" As far as I can tell, climate activists have been making a nuisance of themselves much more than a 'willingness to use violence.' I find this justification concerning, to say the least.

Isn't willingness to use violence exactly what makes peaceful protests efficient? If a protest has exactly 0 risks, why would anyone in a position of power mind it at all?

[dead]

Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing

#60

Post by davidguetta »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #14

That's pretty crazy, it looks a lot like in Minority Report. Notice the reference to a "future criminal offence" and the phrase "leading to the belief" in the criteria: A “minimum materiality threshold”. This requires “objective and verifiable… information suggesting that a criminal offence, or future criminal offence, has a certain degree of seriousness.” A “basic indicative criterion”. This requires “objective, ver…

I mean if someone is actively speaking of commiting a terror attack on some telegram channel it makes sense to not just ignore it because "he's not done it yet".

No absolute either in freedom or security is sustainable.

Post reply on HN