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

221–230 of 279 posts

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

#221

Post by leereeves »

rbanffy wrote: post #204
throwaway48476 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU is a canary in the mine and a case study in the slide towards authoritarianism that the US is not uniquely safe from.

I'd argue you have already crossed into that space a long time ago. Just observe the numerous transgressions by various police enforcement agencies. When you hire officers with tattooed swastikas, authoritarianism is kind of what you get. I grew up in a society where I was completely unaware of it, just because I was a white, middle-class, very caucasian, cishet male. I never feared a police stop. I have never feared…

> I have never feared the police would storm a party, show, or rave I was in and kill a dozen people.

What are you referring to here?

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

#222

Post by 123yawaworht456 »

poszlem wrote: post #17

[flagged]

the wages for the businesses the politicians and their donors own are driven way down, the value of the properties the politicians and their donors own are driven way up, and they're willing to sacrifice as many of your freedoms and your lives as they must to keep it up.

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

#223

Post by smashah »

gruez wrote: post #219
smashah wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back in the day, in a more localized times (i.e your life was somewhat controlled by those within your vicinity), if our "leaders" were tratiours, we would get the torches and pitchforks and march to their homes as the citizen's form of keeping leaders accountable. Post-enlightenment, we put down the torches and pitchforks, we outsourced the accountability function to the media/press. Shame and transparency were the…

>As soon as the likes of Rupert Murdoch/Roger Ailes etc. got involved in media, the press no longer wields the people's power, which was delegated to them, for the people. Instead the press selectively uses that power for ulterior aims - whether that's the Oil & Gas industry, the war machine, or for foreign interests. How does this square with the rise of insurgents like donald trump? He was basically snubbed by the…

Is it a surprise to you that I haven't fully encoded the current world order in one HN comment?

Just as the press usurped our power to block us out of it. Trump usurped the media's power (through his own showmanship) to block them out of it (this was the only reason CNN libs were mad really). At the end of the day Trump did the bidding of the common backgrounds interests so he was allowed to play the part:

- Sold $100s of billions of weapons to dictators (MIC) - His anti-china policy was solely to stop their EVs from taking over the gas car market in the US (Oil & Gas) - Escalated tensions in the middle east to keep netanyahu in power through the Abraham Weapons Deal and moving the US embassy illegally to Jerusalem (Foreign Interests)

The politicians, the media, they fall over, and fight amongst, each other to be top slave to these same various lobbies. The public are only there insofar to keep the facade in-tact, every 4 years people stand in line to larp as casting directors in the great pantomime. Most western states do not live in free, representative democracies - all the ones with significant sway have been totally usurped (in other countries we'd call it coups).

And unfortunately, the tech industry is now going in that direction (with YC now accepting MIC projects, lazy zero-alpha investors and VCs are crawling to the DoD infinite-money-glitch teat).

Read "Silent Coup" by Matt Kennard & Claire Provost[https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Silent_Coup/gjmvEAAAQ...]

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

#224

Post by rbanffy »

leereeves wrote: post #221
rbanffy wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue you have already crossed into that space a long time ago. Just observe the numerous transgressions by various police enforcement agencies. When you hire officers with tattooed swastikas, authoritarianism is kind of what you get. I grew up in a society where I was completely unaware of it, just because I was a white, middle-class, very caucasian, cishet male. I never feared a police stop. I have never feared…

> I have never feared the police would storm a party, show, or rave I was in and kill a dozen people. What are you referring to here?

A couple incidents in Brazil where the police stormed a party to arrest some individuals and ended up killing a couple dozen unarmed people (in addition to the people they were supposed to arrest).

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

#225

Post by aguaviva »

zxcb1 wrote: post #187
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…

The Nord Stream incident is attributed to Ukrainian ultranationalists by the WSJ ( https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/nord-stream-pipeline-explos... ) My personal pre-crime assessment is that a failed Ukraine would be devastating for the security of EU member states.

That's your attribution -- not the article's. Other than Zaluzhny (who does seem to be a bit of a loose canon; that's why Zelenskyy fired him after all) we have no information yet on who else was involved or their political affiliation as a group.

The NS2 bombing was stupid, but it wasn't terrorism.

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

#226

Post by jeffhuys »

rbanffy wrote: post #203
PeterisP wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Radical parties gaining mass support is an indication that the centrist parties which should be 'more reasonable' are deliberately ignoring some major factor which a lot of the voters care about. Anyone looking at the rise of AfD should also look at the example of Denmark, which some years earlier had also seen a strong rise of radical alt-right parties, but once the centrists switched their stance against immigratio…

> deliberately ignoring some major factor which a lot of the voters care about. Is it that so, or is it that hate-based shallow arguments appeal to a particular audience more than "more reasonable" policies or discourse? > once the centrists switched their stance against immigration Then the far-right would have won and turned the political mainstream into xenophobes. Not a great outcome for the society as a whole. W…

Either way, banning a political party is just going to feed the flame.

Also, speech you hate ≠ hate speech.

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

#227

Post by rbanffy »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #206
rbanffy wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue you have already crossed into that space a long time ago. Just observe the numerous transgressions by various police enforcement agencies. When you hire officers with tattooed swastikas, authoritarianism is kind of what you get. I grew up in a society where I was completely unaware of it, just because I was a white, middle-class, very caucasian, cishet male. I never feared a police stop. I have never feared…

I don't understand your point, if there is one.

The point is the US is already quite authoritarian, with sweeping surveillance laws (enacted as a reaction to 911), illegal renditions and extrajudicial executions (outside the US), where discretionary power allows police abuse against minorities that is far more frequent than it is in the EU, but, since the people affected are the most disenfranchised minorities, there is little incentive to keep it under control.

The US has far more pressing issues than the EU.

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

#228

Post by rbanffy »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #26
poszlem wrote: post #17

[flagged]

People might use that integration to topple the powers that be, too dangerous.

It's indeed very dangerous to have the people choose their government if it's not the one we've been used to.

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

#229

Post by gruez »

smashah wrote: post #223
gruez wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As soon as the likes of Rupert Murdoch/Roger Ailes etc. got involved in media, the press no longer wields the people's power, which was delegated to them, for the people. Instead the press selectively uses that power for ulterior aims - whether that's the Oil & Gas industry, the war machine, or for foreign interests. How does this square with the rise of insurgents like donald trump? He was basically snubbed by the…

Is it a surprise to you that I haven't fully encoded the current world order in one HN comment? Just as the press usurped our power to block us out of it. Trump usurped the media's power (through his own showmanship) to block them out of it (this was the only reason CNN libs were mad really). At the end of the day Trump did the bidding of the common backgrounds interests so he was allowed to play the part: - Sold $10…

>- Sold $100s of billions of weapons to dictators (MIC) - His anti-china policy was solely to stop their EVs from taking over the gas car market in the US (Oil & Gas) - Escalated tensions in the middle east to keep netanyahu in power through the Abraham Weapons Deal and moving the US embassy illegally to Jerusalem (Foreign Interests)

Feels like for each of these, you can weave an alternate story with another set of benefactors if the opposite action was taken. For instance, his being pro china would benefit corporate interests through globalization, allowing multinationals to bleed the rust belt even more. Or that signing the Iran deal actually means Russia benefits somehow (dunno, maybe so their client state/ally isn't sanctioned anymore?) and trump is in the pockets of Russian oligarchs. Point is, no matter what policies get enacted, there's going to be someone benefiting, which means you can accuse the people in charge for doing "the bidding of the common backgrounds interests". Even something that should be an unalloyed good (eg. FTC outlawing noncompetes) can be cynically written off as "that's just them throwing us a bone to keep us placated".

To put another way, what would convince you that your theory is false? A full socialist revolution?

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

#230

Post by rbanffy »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #123
pelorat wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No. Democratic elections are part of the system of government. If the AfD wants to significantly hinder democratic representation via elections, reduce the ability of non-native Germans to vote, or reduce the power of elected representatives, then it is acting against the system of government and must be outlawed.
Post reply on HN