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

151–160 of 279 posts

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

#151

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#152

Post by lo_zamoyski »

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.

It makes sense to pay attention to what is being pathologized by the EU establishment, because that can make you a target.

However, interestingly, if you look at US Department of State travel advisories, note those for the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and Sweden and compare those with Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary, for example. One element is that the very policies that the EU is pursuing contribute to the anxieties motivating such fears of terrorism.

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

#153

Post by personomas »

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.

[dead]

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

#154

Post by rbanffy »

How is the notion of conspiracy to commit a crime framed in the US legal system (including entrapment) and what would be the provisions against overreach in those cases?

I remember not so long ago a couple people were arrested for conspiring to kidnap a governor in the US. They never actually committed the crime though.

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

#155

Post by Rinzler89 »

morkalork wrote: post #117
Rinzler89 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Sometimes they are not protesters I don't have the source at hand but I remember reading that in Germany, plain clothes police inserted themselves into the group of climate protestors and start throwing rocks at the riot police, in order to give them legal justification to engage the protestors. Don't know if this is the truth, but since this has also happened in my country in the past, I wouldn't be surprised that…

Agent provocateurs! I hate that police have been caught doing this crap before because now at every single protest, if there's any stupid violence like a random innocent businesses having their windows smashed, the knee jerk reaction is "It was Agent provocateurs!". There's kids out there who live in some magical fairytale land where every protestor is always 100% innocent and isn't open to even discussing what's hap…

Unfortunately when crowds go berserk and riots happen, it's very difficult to get solid proof on who exactly started it and identify that person since the tend to cover their faces.

And even if by a miracle you do manage to get the face of that person and submit it to law enforcement, if they happened to be part of one of the intelligence agencies like it was in my country, the government would turn a blind eye and pretend they cant identify that person in order to protect them.

Throwing LEOs under the bus, even if they're guilty of something, is not something most government leaders are rushing to do since they need LEOs on their side in order to enforce the laws and maintain their positions in society, and it's not a good idea to piss off those in charge of the guns and surveillance capabilities and turn them against you.

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

#156

Post by amiga386 »

tokai wrote: post #146
amiga386 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The article has a list of parties whose symbols were banned by that law. Strafgesetzbuch section 86a bans the symbols of "unconstitutional parties".

But what bans the parties? Who decides parties are unconstitutional? That is Grundgesetz article 21(2):

    Parties that, by reason of their aims or the behaviour of their adherents, seek to undermine or abolish the free democratic basic order or to endanger the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany shall be unconstitutional. The Federal Constitutional Court shall rule on the question of unconstitutionality.

    Parteien, die nach ihren Zielen oder nach dem Verhalten ihrer Anhänger darauf ausgehen, die freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung zu beeinträchtigen oder zu beseitigen oder den Bestand der Bundesrepublik Deutschland zu gefährden, sind verfassungswidrig. Über die Frage der Verfassungswidrigkeit entscheidet das Bundesverfassungsgericht.

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

#157

Post by llm_trw »

komali2 wrote: post #126
llm_trw wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

To use a real world example: of the three men that were shot by Kyle Rittenhouse all were felons with extensive records of drug use and prison terms for everything from domestic violence, statutory rape to false imprisonment.

If you randomly shoot at a anti-fa rally and hit 100% meth heads and felons there's an issue with anti-fa rallies.

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

#158

Post by dotnet00 »

FollowingTheDao wrote: post #135
dotnet00 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Invoking Gandhi's satyagrahas should always come with all the caveats that made the movement successful. It wasn't merely the act of peaceful protest that won India's independence, but the fact that it happened in the backdrop of WW2. Britain had to be much more careful to not risk escalating things into a full-blown revolt. Then, at the end of the war, they needed to focus their resources towards rebuilding.

Agree, but he started his work in South Africa with great success. I was just revealing that there are different ways to protest that entail people sacrificing now a little so they do not have to sacrifice a lot in the future. But I will also argue, imagine if he did nothing?

My intent wasn't to say that Gandhi and satyagraha had no contribution, and I agree that there are better ways to protest than harassing people trying to survive and throwing beans on paintings. I just wanted to emphasize that part of the reason satyagraha remained mainly peaceful was that even the people being protested against couldn't risk it turning violent.

> But I will also argue, imagine if he did nothing?

I think that India would still have gotten independence a few years later, since either way, I don't think post-WW2 Britain had the capacity to hold on to India. However, I do believe that Gandhi's efforts ended up playing a significant role in creating a more unified national identity and helped to foster values that have allowed India to be a mostly stable democracy, in stark contrast to many of its neighbors. So, if he had done nothing, I figure that India might've fragmented into smaller countries with too much conflict to amount to much on the global stage.

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

#159

Post by diggan »

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?

> Isn't willingness to use violence exactly what makes peaceful protests efficient?

Maybe I misunderstand what you mean, but generally people who participate in peaceful protests isn't willing to use violence, then they'd be a part of a different type of protest. That's not to say there are groups within peaceful protests that are willing to use violence, but it isn't the norm.

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

#160

Post by llm_trw »

yunohn wrote: post #147
llm_trw wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm sure they were needed in the 90s and 00s.

Today there are enough meth heads that the only thing police need to do for violence at a rally to explode is nothing.

Post reply on HN