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

81–90 of 279 posts

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

#81

Post by logicchains »

OKRainbowKid wrote: post #72
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…

"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 opposi…

I'm curious what goals the AfD has that are incompatible with the German constitution.

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

#82

Post by jand »

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…

"support or engage in terrorist or violent extremist offences"

What constitutes "support"? Hopefully your next government is OK with you back then liking the post of that one organization previously not classified as terroristic.

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

#83

Post by [deleted] »

wickedsight wrote: post #76
simianparrot wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#84

Post by wildrhythms »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #52
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.

What's the point of this comment? Some violence is justified. Violence against the Nazis was justified. The destruction of the Berlin Wall was justified. Jesus overturned the tables of the money exchangers, violently I suppose, and that was justified. The focus on the broad term 'violence' without any additional analysis is completely useless.

And it's interesting to me that when 'violence' is used on this specific topic, it seems to only be used to label the reaction of the protesters and not the underlying issue they're protesting about, which itself is also a form of violence.

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

#85

Post by buildfocus »

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 not similar to ministerial roles and civil servant positions in most governments? You don't vote for the commissioners directly, but your elected representative (leader of your government) does, and that's your path to express preferences & drive accountability. If you don't like the selection, take it up with them.

In the UK for example, the people elect members of parliament as their representatives, but MPs choose their party leaders, and the governing party leadership chooses its ministers without any public consultation or debate. What's the difference?

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

#87

Post by timrichard »

docdeek wrote: post #31
consp wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remind me please what eu wide referendum was ignored?

All of them? None of them? To my knowledge there have been plenty of referendums regarding the EU over the last half century but there has not been a single EU-wide referendum. There’s a list here (pp.5-6) of plenty of them which clearly notes that some EU countries have not held referendums. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2022/7293... Perhaps the other commenter was refering to the French, Dutch,…

> Perhaps the other commenter was refering to the French, Dutch, and Irish EU Constitution referendums that all failed. In the case of the two former members, they never went back to the people and found an alternate way to get what the EU wanted into practice. In the case of the Irish, they voted again until, it seems, they voted for the ‘right’ side of the issue.

And the playbook was almost followed in the UK following Brexit. For three years politicians and various interests called for a "confirmatory vote", or a "peoples' vote" (as if people didn't vote the first time round).

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

#88

Post by wickedsight »

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.

Dutch politician Pim Fortuijn was murdered by an environmental activist in 2002. I would say that's a bit more than a nuisance.

I agree that most climate activism is more nuisance than violent, but that doesn't mean violence doesn't happen.

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

#89

Post by OKRainbowKid »

logicchains wrote: post #81
OKRainbowKid wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 opposi…

I'm curious what goals the AfD has that are incompatible with the German constitution.

That is gonna be the central question of said process, if it is initiated.

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

#90

Post by nathanaldensr »

McDyver wrote: post #43
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…

How about politicians setting the standard for not fucking up the whole world and their fellow humans? Why must it be the people suffering the consequence of greedy politicians, who must be the ones behaving with the high moral compass? This seems to me like blaming the victims Edit to add: > You have to know how to suffer for what is important. With that principle, people who have the decisional power should "suffer…

We as a species have to figure out a fool-proof test for sociopathy at a specific threshold, beyond which those people are not allowed to hold public office. Without this, the power-hungry will always, in the end, rule over those who seek to avoid conflict.
Post reply on HN