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

91–100 of 279 posts

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

#91

Post by teddyh »

squigz wrote: post #38
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…

Devotion to one's ideals despite suffering for them is admirable, but not an option for many people. They have children to take care of, families to provide for. They just want to live their lives without inviting more pain into it. That is not something I'm going to hold against people or laugh at them for.

If you are not prepared to sacrifice anything at all for your ideals, you by definition consider your ideals to be worthless.

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

#92

Post by nick486 »

llm_trw wrote: post #40

To quote some of the people I know who would be impacted the most by this: > Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. If they'd not spend the last 10 years purging the old guard who they called free speech fanatics they'd have someone in their corner. Now I just have the world tiniest violin for them. Or to use much better words than mine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUqytjlHNIM

>> Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

I love this line. Its like a riff on the old radio Yerevan joke.

> Q: What is the difference between the Constitutions of the USA and USSR? Both guarantee freedom of speech.

> A: Yes, and the US Constitution also guarantees freedom after speech.

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

#93

Post by squigz »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #62
squigz wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Idk, it depends on what you want to happen. When dealing with complexity tooling usually helps. I tend to think instead of redacting documents when FOIAd everything should be public by default. We could have graph tools that markup the connections and make the world more comprehensible.

Well I'm curious what you think, so really it depends on what you want to happen, which presumably would include fixing this:

> 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.

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

#94

Post by throwaway48476 »

germandiago wrote: post #54
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.

The disaster started 40 years ago and is only now breaking through.

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

#95

Post by concordDance »

jand wrote: post #82
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.

I wonder if arguing against someone who says "Group X eats babies with kitten sauce!" would count as supporting Group X...

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

#97

Post by throwaway48476 »

davidguetta wrote: post #60
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.

The likelihood of someone saying on telgram they will commit a terrorist act is inversely proportional to the likelihood they will commit a terrorist attack.

Governments are very good at catching the talkers but hopeless at catching the doers. Going after talkers generally is very useful for creating an atmosphere of fear as well.

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

#98

Post by squigz »

teddyh wrote: post #91
squigz wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Devotion to one's ideals despite suffering for them is admirable, but not an option for many people. They have children to take care of, families to provide for. They just want to live their lives without inviting more pain into it. That is not something I'm going to hold against people or laugh at them for.

If you are not prepared to sacrifice anything at all for your ideals, you by definition consider your ideals to be worthless.

Of course, a more generous reading of my comment would have you realize I didn't mean literally anything, just as GP didn't mean something as relatively simple as giving up meat.

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

#99

Post by hcfman »

fdfgyu wrote: post #12
generic92034 wrote: post #3

Protecting democracy by evading democratic processes. If they are not trusting the parliaments to come up with the right decisions, what are they protecting then?

When has the EU ever been democratic? Brussels has lost, but ignored every referendum for the last 20 years.

Precisely. The Netherlands has this way of fighting organisated crime that they call an intervention. This is organised by groups of government organisations like the police, council etc. If they want to do illegal things they use weak civilian individuals, likely people they were able blackmail.

There are no rules as to what an intervention can be and zero accountability. They will and have obstructed justice all the way to the courts, loosing evidence etc from the illegal activities their proxies have done. Welcome to the new world.

Apparently Belgium and Germany now also use this approach.

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

#100

Post by boffinAudio »

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.

No it isn't. This "objective, verifiable information" is an open door to using misinformation to frame innocent people of crimes they have not committed.
Post reply on HN