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

121–130 of 279 posts

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

#121

Post by concordDance »

rosmax_1337 wrote: post #69
llm_trw wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Site guidelines prevent me from elaborating further. Have a good day. :-)

Bringing up immigration is indeed probably a good method of generating a lot of heat and very little light.

There are places one can calmly discuss even the most abhorrent of ideas like giving parents the right of infanticide or banning home ownership or requiring parents to swap their baby for a random one without anyone getting heated, but this isn't one of them.

Maybe it was 10 years ago? I dunno.

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

#122

Post by throwaway48476 »

squigz wrote: post #93
throwaway48476 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's a correlation between inequality and political stability and absent some kind of societal shift, taxes. But this is very reductive.

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

#123

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

pelorat wrote: post #74
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…

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.

Does replacing CSU/CDU via elections counts as upheaval of the current system of government?

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

#124

Post by FollowingTheDao »

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.

I agree, but was hoping to avoid religion.

But I am sad to see that bringing up Ghandi here even leads to downvotes of my original comment.

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

#125

Post by zo1 »

davidguetta wrote: post #108
throwaway48476 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which govs ? There's like every year at least 10 terror attacks which are stopped by intelligences agency in France alone so AFAIk it's just not true

Committing crazy violence and "terrorist"-like incidents is ridiculously easy. I'm still trying to process and figure out why it doesn't happen more often everywhere, all the time. Even if you expand it to include government-level backing and support, it should be happening more and yet it isn't. Why.

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

#126

Post by komali2 »

llm_trw wrote: post #44
yunohn wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, sadly this is a common tactic by the incumbent corruption (politicians, corporations, otherwise) to make the protestors seem dangerous. Nothing new, but maybe it hasn’t been exposed at home as much as it has been abroad.

There is no need to bring in agent provocateurs in this day and age. Both anti-fa and fa are a bunch of meth heads looking for an excuse to bash someone's head in. They are perfectly happy to start violence if the police doesn't actively stop them.

I'm an antifascist and not a meth head. Nearly every protest I've been to has been peaceful. Sometimes the cops try to instigate violence by kettling or shoving people around really aggressively, but well trained protest leaders have people prepped for this and push hardline pacifism - well all know what happens when the cops "get the green light."

Typically when shit kicks off, it's an agent provocateur. Not always, but typically: https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-helped-ignite-george-floyd-rio...

There was similar in Oakland, some white kids from who tf knows where were trying to break windows, and everyone around was shouting for them to fuck off and knock it off.

Recently nazis and right wingers were allowed to do whatever they want as cops stood by and watched them beat up college protesters. https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/16/us/ucla-student-protests-... At one point one shouted "we're here to finish what Hitler started" https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/uclas-unholy-alliance/

Agent provocateurs are going to become more and more necessary to "justify" the violence against protesters as protesters become more educated on pacifist strategies.

The Anarchist Cookbook (new version) https://www.foodnotbombs.net/anarchist_cookbook.html is free to read and gets into the effectiveness of peaceful protest and direct action, and the counter-effectiveness of violence.

How to Blow Up a Pipeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Blow_Up_a_Pipeline takes a slightly different perspective, analyzing the possible necessity of extremely limited, targeted destruction of property, that strives to be completely disassociated from the greater movement so that the benefits of the destruction (such as disrupted oil supply, plus attention) can be combined with the opportunity for the greater movement to condemn the action.

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

#127

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

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.

The problem is, and always has been, that you can pick a new round of ideals on your next turn in life and, as you grow older, you recognize that most of those ideals are, and I will generalize here, not ideal. The funny part is that most groups would want to tell you that their particular set of ideas are worth dying for. As is often the case, it seems to be only the rank and file and the young is doing the dying part though.

With that out of the way, maybe ideals is too charged of a word. Maybe the right word here is: priorities.

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

#128

Post by throwaway48476 »

germandiago wrote: post #109
throwaway48476 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well, Idk. What I see is... it is in big part our fault but in another part people from outside... trying to get their nose, which, I would say, at the end, that it is enabled by corruption, which... is also our fault anyways.

Corruption is cultural. There's a correlation between petty corruption and political corruption.

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

#129

Post by amiga386 »

tokai wrote: post #78
amiga386 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I was imprecise in saying "the last time", I was aiming for a specific comparison.

Also, I'm fairly sure Strafgesetzbuch section 86a is not what bans parties and membership of them, but censors their symbols and imagery. The Basic Law (Grundgesetz) article 21(2) is what bans parties.

For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Germany_v._...

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

#130

Post by exe34 »

concordDance wrote: post #95
jand wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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...

At the very least you're connected via metadata, so Project Insight will still be interested in you.
Post reply on HN