EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing • Hacker News Board

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

#231

Post by germandiago » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 2:45 PM UTC

throwaway48476 wrote: post #165

hulitu wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The definition of corruption is also cultural. From an individual perspective there are places with relatively more or less corruption.

There are actually multiple ways to be corrupt.

Some of the most well behaved and civilized cultures in the world, again in my opinion and only my opinion, had a double standard when they went out of their domains.

I am guessing that is alao human nature, though, but I find that somewhat corrupted behavior. It is fair to say that before mindsets were also different and should be adapted to the times before giving an extensive opinion on this.

But human and double standards, no matter the place or culture in the world, is quite common. I think things have improved in that sense but we are still very far from perfection, which does not exist anyway.

Also, and from my experience, you see more real humans in the face of scarcity. It is like the instincts pop up more quickly when there is less abundance in the environment.

It is not a matter of materialistic things available only though, but it is something that it affects definitely human behavior. Put in other words and in harsh vocabulary: just because someone looks good, it does not mean they are. Sometimes, conveesely, a desperate person could do things we would label as bad and probably the only thing that happened is that we saw those two people in very different contexts...

It is a complicated topic, but from Eruope to Asia (where I lived over a decade) and since the country where I have been most of the time is somewhat poorer (also cultirally different) you can see very different behaviors for similar situations or things that are very bad in Europe are somewhat ok here.

The topic of lying is one of those. For people here, it is not really important to stick to their word that much (except for family-related stuff). It is ok also to use lies as a tool to give excuses. I do not mean noone does that. Everyone has done some of that. What I mean is that for them there is no bad in doing it in that way, for me it would be a bad-looking thing I'd rather avoid most of the time.

This happens with so many things...

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

#232

Post by rbanffy » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 2:46 PM UTC

t-3 wrote: post #35

kranke155 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How silly. Orban and his fellows are the ones who engage in authoritarianism.

Is Hungary no longer part of the EU?

It's almost getting to that point. Poland was also sanctioned a couple years back if my memory doesn't fail me.

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

#233

Post by rbanffy » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 2:48 PM UTC

concordDance wrote: post #107

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.

> Because I find people Are you sure these are the same individuals? I can imagine them being different members of a nebulous group where different people talk louder at different times.

The justification is that the group they oppose is against the democratic values they espouse and, therefore, must be violently suppressed by any means necessary, in order to protect their democracy. "Communism/socialism" is usually a straw-man used in those cases.

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

#234

Post by timrichard » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 2:49 PM UTC

buildfocus wrote: post #220

timrichard wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK, politicians will often U-turn if they sense that a policy will make them unpopular and make the next election harder to fight. Governments can and do get punished on polling day every five years. Sunak paid for his unpopularity and the record of his government. Could any EU voters do anything about Ursula getting a second term? (and once again she was the only name on the ballot and then only just scraped…

Again, this is not different to local democratic processes. Voters typically cannot directly stop somebody being named leader of their party or given a specific role within government for multiple terms. If you dislike them, you pressure your elected representative to change that. Almost all representative democracy is accountability through a representative, not directly through control of government internals & pos…

Again, my point was that even though we only have one direct representative, the governing party as a whole will be punished in the next election if they become deeply unpopular. If your rulemakers are immune to voter displeasure, it isn't a healthy democracy. You said "if you dislike them, you pressure your elected representative to change that". If as an EU citizen you are angry with the performance and direction of Ursula and the Commission, there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

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

#235

Post by rbanffy » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 2:51 PM UTC

ThalesX wrote: post #27

generic92034 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 I'm an EU citizen. I have minimal saying in who our commissioner is and what members of the cabinet get chosen. I have a vote which I give to whatever party. After that, the vote for commissioner is secret; I have no idea who voted for what. After that, the negociations for the cabinet are secret; I have no idea what the criteria are and what the plans are. I…

> I have minimal saying in who our commissioner is and what members of the cabinet get chosen.

We get to vote for our country representatives, who then vote for the MEPs. I don't think there is any EU-wide rule that prevents the MEP nomination process from being open - that'd be country-specific legislation.

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

#236

Post by rbanffy » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 2:57 PM UTC

generic92034 wrote: post #185

gillesjacobs wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Whe…

The commissioners are not elected directly by the populace, just like ministers in any government I know of are not directly elected by the populace (and other powerful officials, too). The level of indirection is greater in a confederation of countries compared to a single country. The MEP usually do not "rubber-stamp with barely any changes". There often is considerable change applied to the original proposals, by…

> way tighter EU integration of the member countries, which currently seems highly unlikely in the given political climate.

A real shame, if you ask me. The EU is the crowning achievement of human politics, and a step for a single government representing every human being democratically, with equal rights across national borders.

Just to think the member countries never managed more than a couple decades without engaging in wars between them is a statement of the value of this organisation. Imperfect as it is, it has prevented countless avoidable deaths and brought unprecedented peace to its members.

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

#237

Post by leereeves » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 2:58 PM UTC

rbanffy wrote: post #224

leereeves wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

Was that related to the US or EU?

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

#238

Post by OKRainbowKid » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 3:03 PM UTC

throw100321 wrote: post #197

komali2 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chomsky, so far as I'm aware, has never written "Uniparty." What he generally seems to be referring to when he says "One Party System" is the enthrallment of the USA government to capitalist interests. "Uniparty," as in that exact word, is very much a Trumpean era creation, brought back into popularity by right wing q-anon aligned USA presidential candidate (I believe candidate?) Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Someone's usage…

Chomsky say exactly the same without using the term. What does Wikipedia say? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniparty "Supporters of the 2000 Green Party presidential bid of Ralph Nader used the term extensively, and Nader himself called the prevailing political structure a 'corporate uniparty' in his 2002 book Crashing the Party." Pinning this term the right is the usual tactic to outlaw the term and remove it from t…

We are now 3 comments deep into talking about the term in the context of the US. The thread and the original comments were about Germany. Can you explain to us how the former relates to the latter? Germany has a much more diverse set of parties. However, terms similar to "uniparty" are used by AFD (and perhaps BSW) to refer to "all the regular" (read: democratic) parties, that they stand in fundamental opposition to.

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

#239

Post by amiga386 » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 3:05 PM UTC

aniviacat wrote: post #217

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

Yeah, it was pretty bad when the Germans voted a totalitarian party into power. We should prevent that from happening again. Now... how would we go about that? By doing the same thing as last time; wait until the party takes over?

I'd suggest by tackling the issues affecting the common folk, in earnest. Let them see you have a solution for their problems and it is working.

Otherwise, the loud idiots with simple-sounding solutions (that don't work) will gain power.

In the case of the Weimar Republic, it was fucked over by the victors of WW1 imposing a crippling financial burden on it. So, don't wreck your enemies so hard, you might create a monster.

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

#240

Post by smashah » Thu, Oct 03, 2024, 3:09 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #229

smashah wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

I'm not so arrogant as to claim the world as it is as "my theory". If you choose to gormlessly debate reality that's up to you. If you choose to see some things and not others, well that's your theory of living you can debate with yourself also.

If you were to ask me what I want. I want consistency and honesty. If politicians want to do the bidding of lobbies then don't waste our time with the quadrennial dog and pony show. If the press/media refuses to keep the powerful to account then just give us our torches and pitchforks back. If the justice system can be abused by people with power and money to squash the little guy then just rename it to something else. If international law only applies to what the status quo considers subhumans then just get rid of the ICC/ICJ and the entire concept of International Law. If profit motive is more important than the continuation of life on earth then just say so and stop paying useless consultants millions of dollars while the world burns and allow people who care about the climate to escalate as they see fit. If corporations are allowed to massacre people with their negligence and the "justice system" does nothing to hold them to account then just allow the people to do the same to negligent corporations. This whole setup of one side can always do the bad thing yet the other side always needs to politely go through "the right channels" to get an ounce of recourse is tiring. It's either "law & order" or the "law of the jungle" for all of us or none of us.