Live data from Hacker News

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

digitalcourage.social

281–290 of 377 posts

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

#281
post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, I'm no expert, but I do believe the law would be what would stop you. It could be poorly written, but then we should just rewrite it.

Police, in many countries, have already been found to violate the laws protecting surveillance systems that already exist. If a warrant doesn't stop them today, why do you think it will tomorrow?

I don't believe in "police" as a transnational group. I don't believe that the actions of police in some other country carries any information about the culture of police in mine.

If police use these systems outside of their intended and legally mandated forms, that must be dealt with. We do need effective police though. We do that with robust surveillance infrastructure for police queries in the database, possible even with a mandatory log of queries as part of discovery.

I don't have to "think" it will stop them, I can utilize the levers of democracy to check them.

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

#282
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…

I don’t think people are particularly against this. The kids are imploding and people dont care about a completely open internet as much.

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

#283
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…

I was told by a Brussels lobbyist a long time ago that the EU was by design made for them. I then was shocked how in your face it is within the EU walls.

In a sense citizens also have legitimate lobby groups, they are the political parties we know.

Foreign countries also lobby. Now recently what should worry Europeans is they don't bother anymore and just wipe the floor with the EU representative in front of everybody like Xi and Trump did last week.

So you can vote and lobby but I don't think it is enough today. We should first opt out of a lot of things and defend ourselves digitally:

- Buy some cheap LoRa devices and give some to your friends. Get into meshtastic and reticulum

- Buy some cheap HaLow WiFi devices and get into things like OpenWrt and B.A.T.M.A.N

- Self host as much as you can (It is worth doing just to avoid the Cloudflare " verify you are human" thing)

- Look back into things like Ethereum and good projects, they slowly made some real progress. Crypto is not only about price, annoying bitcoin bros and memecoins. It is still bad but banks and credit card companies are worst.

- Get some useful skills.

We have entered some kind of world war already and it will most likely include some ugly cyberattacks. In that context ChatControl matters much less and you can kill two birds with one stone.

I am still looking for a realistic solution to the email problem. If you have a suggestion I am really listening.

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

#284
post #76
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 UK has a petition website. It logs the signatory by constituency. Once a threshold os signatory has cross, the government has to respond and parliament will have to consider a debate on the topic.

This is the relevant petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/722903. The government's response so far is "lol no"

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

#285
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"...

Why not have one organization that collects $1 from everyone to fight on behalf?

Roughly, this is the Electronic Frontier Foundation (and comparable lobbying orgs in other countries.) However, an org like this doesn't have much power to compel individuals to give them $1.

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

#287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the same time, proponents have said that the whole idea of the database is to detect people with suspicious behavior. Also, this is still nothing like getting a warrant to a wire tap - any suspicion will reveal YEARS of private information about you to the investigators. Furthermore, knowing that this can be used to identify suspects, surely it will have an effect on peoples behaviors. They propose to include heal…

> How many boxes have to be ticked before a flag is raised If the proponents are right, an infinite amount. The information will never "raise a flag" since looking at it would require the flag to already have been raised (in the form of a warrant). > and how is that going to affect what you tell the psychiatrist about how you really feel? I think psychiatrists are already required to report you if they believe you're…

> If the proponents are right, an infinite amount. The information will never "raise a flag" since looking at it would require the flag to already have been raised (in the form of a warrant).

From the main critical opponent Justitia which consists of law professionals:

https://justitia-int.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Justitia...

"Samtidig lægger lovforslaget op til, at PET vil kunne træne maskinlæringsmodeller til at genkende mønstre i disse data. En sådan udvikling øger overvågningstrykket markant"

Translation: "At the same time, the bill proposes that PET will be able to train machine learning models to recognize patterns in this data. Such a development significantly increases surveillance pressure"

> I think psychiatrists are already required to report you if they believe you're a danger to others.

That is not my point. A psychiatrist will not report you just if they think you are schizophrenic or a psychopath. However, how will a machine learning model categorize you if it knows this information AND all your social media posts AND any other things that may be attributed to you, such as your browsing history showing that you are interested in how to make TATP? Add to this that there is no way to ensure data quality and that collected data in the database may be incorrectly attributed to you, e.g. other people posting incriminating stuff on your social media profile.

> This concern I sympathise with more, but I also have to imagine that this information bank could make it easier to investigate and convict this sort of misuse of power.

The people misusing the power will also be the people who know exactly what to do to not end up putting a trail of evidence in the database.

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

#288
post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don't bother looking into stuff because they know their opinion, and their vote, doesn't really matter. Treat people like children and they start acting like children. For some contrast Switzerland has a sort of defacto direct democracy in that citizens that obtain a relatively small number of votes can bring any issue they desire up for vote. And they have indeed brought issues like Basic Income with the sugg…

> That's something that would likely destroy any country that passed it What makes you say that?

Work deterrence, inflation, and the tremendous cost would devalue your own currency.

In general most people work jobs solely and exclusively for the $$$. If they didn't need that $$$ they'd have much greater power to negotiate wages. That sounds amazing in theory, but in reality - how much money would it take for you to go scrub toilets when you could otherwise sit and home and live a comfortable life with your family? Probably quite a lot to say the least. Or for a single young guy, how much would you need to pay him to work instead of him being able to play video games and chase tail all day, every day, if he wanted to? And if we're being honest - you can probably remove young as an adjective.

I did add "likely" because I used to be a huge advocate for basic income, but my view shifted on it overtime as I gained a greater appreciation for how economies, and even societies in general, function. Or that the large number of billionaires we have are largely due to accounting and speculation (read: total on-paper capitalization of stock market vastly exceeding the amount of money in existence), rather than them actually just making obscene amounts of money.

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

#289
post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You speak as if there is a perfect equivalence between morality and law, and that every action that can be done to increase the rate at which crimes are solved is a good thing. I think that is a bit simplistic and naive.

My comment may come off that way, but I don't think there is a perfect equivalence, no. And if anything, every person has a different set of morality. I come from a point of practicality and lack of chaos. It's bad enough that we all have different morality, but we have somehow through some semi-shared and semi-agreed process come up with a set of laws that we should all subscribe and be held-to. And on top of that,…

I strongly believe that a little bit of chaos is necessary to actually make progress in civil liberty. Being able to detect any and all crime is indistinguishable from an authoritarian regime.

There are many laws today which are unjust, and which I think it is morally fine to break even though you put yourself at risk of being prosecuted. There have also been many laws in the recent past which have been repealed, and which we today will say were unjust. For example, prohibition against being homosexual was a thing in many western democracies up until just a few decades ago. Imagine if that was still illegal and we had this level of surveillance?

I also think that drug laws is a good example of unjust prohibition. I do not think all drugs should be available on a commercial market, but I think that we should have regulated sales so people can choose what they want to put in their own bodies. While I of course don't condone of the violence associated with it, I think the current situation of drugs being available on hidden dark markets to motivated buyers is a necessary evil to allow people to exercise their right to bodily autonomy in an unjust legal framework.

There has to be fudge factor for a democracy to actually make progress, or else I fear that we end up in some status quo where anyone who wants to open their mouth and protest a law will be afraid to do so because they don't know what dirt the state has collected on them.

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

#290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not have one organization that collects $1 from everyone to fight on behalf?

Should we call the organization “government” and the fee “tax”? It’s not a bad idea but it’s funny we need a funded people’s organisation to represent us to the democratic government! I wonder if we need direct voting rights (for legislation etc) - now that we live in the internet age it may be feasible. Not sure how else to have the many overwhelming the few.

like a peoples’ line item veto online?
Post reply on HN