Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Many countries that said no to ChatControl in 2024 are now undecided

digitalcourage.social

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 377 posts

Re: Many countries that said no to ChatControl in 2024 are now undecided

#121

Post by betaby »

LexiMax wrote: post #55
RegnisGnaw wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China has shown the world the way and most countries likes it.

They seem to be missing a critical piece - for the horrors that China inflicted on its own population, it also become a preeminent world power and pulled millions out of poverty. What seems to be happening elsewhere is an organized robbery of state institutions by politicians and oligarchs, with oppression and censorship used to keep people from pointing out the obvious. Maybe they're not paying attention to the part…

> pulled millions out of poverty

but firstly the policies of the very same party put millions into poverty and famine

Re: Many countries that said no to ChatControl in 2024 are now undecided

#122

Post by [deleted] »

afarah1 wrote: post #50
McDyver wrote: post #30

They make it really difficult to fight any of this. You have to, individually - find a representative, their contact info, state your case, hope it's the correct person, hope your mail doesn't go unnoticed, hope that it will be properly read, hope it changes their mind. This is "lobbying" by the people in a disorganised way, trying to fight organised lobbying. This is a barrier that puts lots of people off, even if t…

Same for any legislation piece. A law that costs 100M people $1 and benefits 100 people with $1M. Would be, as you noted, costly to oppose, not worth the $1 nor the time. And at the same time, very profitable for the 100 to spend hundreds of thousands and great effort lobbying for. It's just the power structure of any representative legislature. "In vain do we fly to the many"...

[deleted]

Re: Many countries that said no to ChatControl in 2024 are now undecided

#123

Post by pcrh »

McDyver wrote: post #30

They make it really difficult to fight any of this. You have to, individually - find a representative, their contact info, state your case, hope it's the correct person, hope your mail doesn't go unnoticed, hope that it will be properly read, hope it changes their mind. This is "lobbying" by the people in a disorganised way, trying to fight organised lobbying. This is a barrier that puts lots of people off, even if t…

On the other hand, elected politicians (senators, MPs, etc) are supposed to represent what the populus wants, else be ejected.

So in theory, they should be paying as much heed to lobbyists as to their constituents.

The question arises, then, as to why they do not. There's no ground swell of public opinion in favour of being continually monitored.

Re: Many countries that said no to ChatControl in 2024 are now undecided

#125

Post by arlort »

graemep wrote: post #27
RamblingCTO wrote: post #20

I really don't get it. It's against the German constitution and yet there are still politicians pushing for that, again and again. We should make it mandatory that when something is clearly against the constitution you loose your job as a politician. It won't work anyway. It's the same spiel wasting so much money and time. Do we know which lobby group/party is pushing for that yet again?

Is it clearly against the constitution? What happens when the constitution clashes with EU law? Can the constitution be amended and is it likely if there is a clash with EU law on this issue? Enormous pressure can be brought to bear in politicians over something like this. The most prominent British politician to oppose the Online Safety Act in the UK is being labelled as "helping people like Jimmy Saville" by the go…

> What happens when the constitution clashes with EU law?

Usually a standoff based on whether the EU was delegated authority on the topic. If the delegation happened then EU law has precedence but depending on the topic national constitutional courts might ignore that which becomes a constitutional crisis

In this specific case it's much more likely that the ECJ shoots down the chat control part of the law before it gets to that anyway

Re: Many countries that said no to ChatControl in 2024 are now undecided

#126

Post by cobbzilla »

miohtama wrote: post #113
McDyver wrote: post #30

They make it really difficult to fight any of this. You have to, individually - find a representative, their contact info, state your case, hope it's the correct person, hope your mail doesn't go unnoticed, hope that it will be properly read, hope it changes their mind. This is "lobbying" by the people in a disorganised way, trying to fight organised lobbying. This is a barrier that puts lots of people off, even if t…

The only way to stop it is to have positive rights written in law, like right to online privacy and privacy of communications.

Historically, the window to enshrine broad positive rights like those is only briefly open in the wake of a revolution, civil war, or at best significant civil unrest. It’s not a pleasant future to look forward to, we all have a lot of work to do!

Re: Many countries that said no to ChatControl in 2024 are now undecided

#127

Post by mystraline »

miohtama wrote: post #113
McDyver wrote: post #30

They make it really difficult to fight any of this. You have to, individually - find a representative, their contact info, state your case, hope it's the correct person, hope your mail doesn't go unnoticed, hope that it will be properly read, hope it changes their mind. This is "lobbying" by the people in a disorganised way, trying to fight organised lobbying. This is a barrier that puts lots of people off, even if t…

The only way to stop it is to have positive rights written in law, like right to online privacy and privacy of communications.

Yes, like the Soviet Union.

Whereas the West has predominantly negative rights, the USSR had positive rights. And due to their campaign, even got the UN declaration of human rights to mostly include USSR's positive rights.

https://spice.fsi.stanford.edu/docs/regional_perspectives_on...

Part of USSR constition indicating positive rights: https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons02....

Women and men have equal rights in the USSR.

Citizens of the USSR of different races and nationalities have equal rights.

Citizens of the USSR have the right to work (that is, to guaranteed employment and pay in accordance wit the quantity and quality of their work, and not below the state-established minimum), including the right to choose their trade or profession, type of job and work in accordance with their inclinations, abilities, training and education, with due account of the needs of society.

Citizens of the USSR have the right to rest and leisure.

Now, that isn't to say the USSR was blameless. We know it wasn't. However, we can take their successes and failures in what we propose and build next. Negative and positive rights both are needed. But the West is allergic to those.

Re: Many countries that said no to ChatControl in 2024 are now undecided

#128

Post by mvieira38 »

crumpled wrote: post #106
mvieira38 wrote: post #75

Selfhosting Matrix might be a solution if this passes. The surveillance is to be installed at the app level, imposed on the distributing companies (say, the Signal front-end), this is not a ban on. But if you're booting up your own application, it might at the very least be a legal grey area whether or not you need to implement chat control, so you could just not and the data will still be E2EE in travel for now. Eas…

It's not a solution if it passes with "Client-side scanning". Basically a AI bot watching your screen all day. You're gonna need a whole secure deviant device.

If that passes it's over for the european internet, IMO. I would just shut off all personal online devices completely and go banking and work only on a cheap Xiaomi

Re: Many countries that said no to ChatControl in 2024 are now undecided

#129

Post by consp »

jeltz wrote: post #32
exasperaited wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has been given the name "Chat Control" by its detractors, no?

Yeah, it's real name is CSAR.

The fact it's named after a know autocrat (squint your eyes to view the name) should give you enough to think about.

Let's hope the opponents are from a small village of resistance and have some magic potion because it's going to be needed.

Re: Many countries that said no to ChatControl in 2024 are now undecided

#130

Post by prophesi »

kpcyrd wrote: post #120
prophesi wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there are actionable items in that manifesto, and was written during the RSA munitions debate.

The actionable items are "write code" and "build systems". The cypherpunk scene is still alive and evolving, but it's fairly niche, and a tough environment for people driven by external validation while 'things are well'. But there are still people around making sure the necessary pieces are in place in case they become necessary.

The privacy-preserving systems have been built and are finally making it into the mainstream, only to be uprooted by politics. Not that we no longer need to build more of such systems, but the root of the issue lies elsewhere.
Post reply on HN