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

141–150 of 279 posts

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

#141

Post by zo1 »

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.

Have you not seen how they're already starting to redefine various very benign but anti-government groups as "terrorists"? Next thing you know, just being a part of that group becomes 'objective, verifiable information" that makes them "believe" that you "may commit" some crime?

And pretty much anything, with a semblance of plausibility or causal inference can be used as "objective, verifiable information". They just need to define that property as a) verifiable, b)objective and c) somehow implies some bad other property or future event.

There's a reason that programming is hard, and even harder when you have to use normal non-programming-language constructs.

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

#142

Post by jandrewrogers »

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.

> Let's also not forget, Nelson Mandela was branded as a terrorist.

Mandela was the leader of MK[0], an organization which publicly undertook a campaign of bombing and sabotage. Whatever you think of Mandela or his reasons, labeling him a "terrorist" seems a lot more defensible than most.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMkhonto_weSizwe

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

#143

Post by NekkoDroid »

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?

No? A strike also doesn't need to have "willingness to use violence" cuz there are non-violent ways to disrupt.

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

#144

Post by hulitu »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #128
germandiago wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Corruption is cultural.

Are there cultures without corruption ? (no i'm not asking about headhunters in Papua New Guinea)

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

#145

Post by jonathanstrange »

wickedsight wrote: post #116
boffinAudio wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This type of information is already being used to prevent crimes. People get arrested for planning robberies or murders all the time. Those investigations start based on beliefs that are based on 'objective, verifiable information'. After that intent has to be proven in court with evidence that has been found during an investigation. In many cases it also leads to a case being dismissed because no evidence is found.…

There is no mention of probable cause and oversight by a judge. The way this is phrased doesn't even meet the standards for normal police investigations. It's basically a carte blanche for surveillance and secret suspect lists on which nearly anyone can be put.

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

#146

Post by tokai »

amiga386 wrote: post #129
tokai wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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._...

It was very obviously that you were going for a specific comparison. Thats usually the reason why people misrepresent things.

The article literally has a list of political groups that were banned on the basis on the law.

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

#147

Post by yunohn »

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.

Wait, you seriously think that agent provocateurs are a hoax? Literally not sure how to reply, you could just google it?

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

#148

Post by gillesjacobs »

generic92034 wrote: post #20
fdfgyu wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

Unelected commissioners draft laws, while elected MEPs rubber-stamp with barely any changes. The Council's backroom deals make smoke-filled rooms look transparent. Try explaining the Ordinary Legislative Procedure to the average voter - you can't.

And let's not forget the ritual of ignoring referendums that don't align with the "ever closer union" mantra. When lobbyists have more sway than citizens, you've got a problem. The EU is a masterclass in obfuscating accountability behind layers of bureaucracy. It's democracy laundering, plain and simple.

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

#149

Post by OKRainbowKid »

logicchains wrote: post #119
OKRainbowKid wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Sorry, I meant what goals does the AfD have that are alleged to be incompatible with the German constitution.

I'm not interested in participating in a discussion on that topic, I'm sure you can find plenty of material using a search engine of your choice.

I apologize if you're genuinely interested, but I really have 0 desire to respond to sealioning.

EDIT: For starters https://afd-verbot.de/beweise?category=demokratiefeindlichke... seems to have a comprehensive list of potential evidence. The site and material are German though.

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

#150

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

TomK32 wrote: post #132
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…

The AfD has a serious right-wing problem and doesn't want to clean up their act. Banning the party might lead to failure as with the NPD (which since renamed itself) but it's worth a try and in parallel axing their funding like just happened earlier this year with the NPD should be attempted. I disagree with your "totalitarian measure" comment, it is the AfD who are not compatible with the German constitution and the…

If the people want AfD, is not a clear indicator that either something is wrong with Germany's highest law or its interpretation? The benefit of there being being AfD in the open is that it would be in the open. Is it a good idea to keep things hidden?
Post reply on HN