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

71–80 of 279 posts

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

#71

Post by v7n »

generic92034 wrote: post #47
v7n wrote: post #36

The headline got me worried, but after reading the article it became clear that was purposeful with weasel words like "states can now collect". There seem to be no new databases or new actual mechanisms in place, it's just about the clarification of which kind of potential threats are encouraged to be entered into the already existent system. The criteria seems reasonable enough. If there is objective, verifiable inf…

> I would hope that this data is shared between the Union members now and in the future. If parliaments had decided that, my objections would be much lower. But the institutions just deciding for themselves seems to be potentially abusive. It is not like there would be no examples.

My understanding is that this has always been the intended purpose of this system and these guidelines are just about agreeing on a mutual interpretation of some dense legalese. If that's correct then I'm not too upset about this being handled in the Commission, but the issue remains important to me so I will partake in the outrage if I hear compelling enough arguments to do so.

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

#72

Post by OKRainbowKid »

aldsfh wrote: post #25
kranke155 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How silly. Orban and his fellows are the ones who engage in authoritarianism.

There is currently an initiative to forbid a political party, the AfD in Germany. This is not supported by the CDU, but by others. While I do not like the AfD, forbidding political parties that serve as an outlet for people who do not support the uniparty and their essentially identical policies seems to be one of the most totalitarian measures in postwar Germany. The SPD should instead examine why they themselves ar…

"uni party" is AFD lingo. And when that "outlet" has, in parts, goals that are incompatible with our constitution, then a discussion (and it's not much more at this stage) about a Verbotsprozess seems appropriate. To give some more context, the possibility to forbid parties that work against the foundations of our democracy is explicitly defined in the constitution, it is not a purely political move to silence opposition, as your seems to imply.

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

#73

Post by highcountess »

llm_trw wrote: post #48
rosmax_1337 wrote: post #6

This will be used to silence political dissent in the EU. The current rulers fear the change which could come about if they allow the political climate to shift in the direction which it is ready to.

And which direction is that? Because I find people are very upset about this until it's used on people they don't like - socialists or fascists - and then they are very happy it's being used to 'stop the slide into fascism/communism' until it's used on them again.

Yes. The tyrannical clan of the ruling class knows this method very well and uses it to great effect repeatedly and with apparently little to no reaction or pushback. It is not the only method or even class of manipulative and abusive methods. It is basically just a bait and switch at its core.

A famous example many here will likely still be able to associate with is “The Patriot act”, which should have really been called “The Hunt Patriots act”; in reality a kind of mop-up operation after the USA has already long ago been functionally and psychologically conquered without the people even realizing it, kind of like how people can one day find themselves wondering how they slid into a very abusive relationship little by little without realizing it or being able to take action to prevent it. The only difference being that many, definitely not most people haven’t even started asking themselves whether they are in an abusive relationship, let alone how they got there.

People still haven’t even realized that the whole premise of the EU is a tyrannical and hostile illegitimate imitation government. It has no legitimacy under its own claimed democratic principles, it’s the timeshare fraud of governance; sell a fantasy and good presentation, while reality is a fraudulent and destructive nightmare.

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

#74

Post by pelorat »

aldsfh wrote: post #25
kranke155 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How silly. Orban and his fellows are the ones who engage in authoritarianism.

There is currently an initiative to forbid a political party, the AfD in Germany. This is not supported by the CDU, but by others. While I do not like the AfD, forbidding political parties that serve as an outlet for people who do not support the uniparty and their essentially identical policies seems to be one of the most totalitarian measures in postwar Germany. The SPD should instead examine why they themselves ar…

Well, you might want to read the German constitution. In short is says; any group or political party whose goal is an upheaval of the current system of government can be declared unconstitutional.

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

#75

Post by [deleted] »

highcountess wrote: post #50
FollowingTheDao wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ghandi set the standard for effective peaceful protests. Most protests I see people doing are laughably useless. You have to know how to suffer for what is important. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mahatma-Gandhi/Resistan... "Thus was born satyagraha (“devotion to truth”), a new technique for redressing wrongs through inviting, rather than inflicting, suffering, for resisting adversaries without rancor and figh…

Pretty sure Jesus set that standard many centuries before Gandhi. If anything Gandhi was just taking inspiration from Jesus.

[deleted]

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

#76

Post by wickedsight »

simianparrot wrote: post #61
bawolff wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A "belief" that someone "may commit a future crime" is practically speaking psychic nonsense.

> “objective, verifiable information” leading to a belief

Is very different from 'a belief'.

What you're doing is wordsmithing this into something that sounds much worse than the actual text, which is textbook misinformation spreading.

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

#77

Post by flaterff »

pushupentry1219 wrote: post #34

Being a "Terrorist" is a badge of honour at this rate. The way they chop+change and broaden their definitions. Let's also not forget, Nelson Mandela was branded as a terrorist.

Eventually we will all be freedom fighters I mean terrorists.

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

#78

Post by tokai »

amiga386 wrote: post #64
aldsfh wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is currently an initiative to forbid a political party, the AfD in Germany. This is not supported by the CDU, but by others. While I do not like the AfD, forbidding political parties that serve as an outlet for people who do not support the uniparty and their essentially identical policies seems to be one of the most totalitarian measures in postwar Germany. The SPD should instead examine why they themselves ar…

Remember the last time Germany banned membership of specific political parties? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree

That's not the last time at all. They have banned parties regular since ww2 on the basis of Strafgesetzbuch section 86a.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a

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

#79

Post by wickedsight »

Dalewyn wrote: post #68
logicchains wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

As Richelieu once put it: "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."

Interestingly, this works both for how people interpret this law and how the law might interpret the writing of suspects.

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

#80

Post by medstrom »

ThalesX wrote: post #27
generic92034 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That stance ("ever been democratic") is a bit too strong for my taste. There are definitely issues with the EU parliament having no rights to propose laws or the amount of indirection between voters and some powerful institutions. But calling the EU not being democratic is going too far, in my eyes. Especially considering the setup as a confederation of sovereign countries, so the comparison to individual countries'…

> But calling the EU not being democratic is going too far I'm an EU citizen. I have minimal saying in who our commissioner is and what members of the cabinet get chosen. I have a vote which I give to whatever party. After that, the vote for commissioner is secret; I have no idea who voted for what. After that, the negociations for the cabinet are secret; I have no idea what the criteria are and what the plans are. I…

Is this different from your own government?
Post reply on HN