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

The disguised return of EU Chat Control

reclaimthenet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 354 posts

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#191

Post by trallnag »

This shady approach of trying it again and again is so disgusting to me. Just be upfront about. If you will do it anyway at some point, just fucking do it. It's not like other countries like China that are much further than we are in this regard are in constant turmoil over it. I guess we won't be either.

Instead we take a moral high ground over Russia banning and blocking what are basically non-compliant messaging platforms and pushing Russian citizens to Max, which is controlled by the government. All the while these legislations in Europe will lead to the same end result.

How am I supposed to to argue against chat control in Russia when we are doing it too, just with a different twist.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#192

Post by pcrh »

realusername wrote: post #155
karhuton wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

”2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right EXCEPT such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” Are we r…

It depends the version of the declaration, the french one has zero exception listed.

It's the same in French (obviously), though equally this does not permit mass surveillance:

>Article 8 de la Convention européenne de sauvegarde des droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales:

>Droit au respect de la vie privée et familiale

>1. Toute personne a droit au respect de sa vie privée et familiale, de son domicile et de sa correspondance.

>2. Il ne peut y avoir ingérence d'une autorité publique dans l'exercice de ce droit que pour autant que cette ingérence est prévue par la loi et qu'elle constitue une mesure qui, dans une société démocratique, est nécessaire à la sécurité nationale, à la sûreté publique, au bien-être économique du pays, à la défense de l'ordre et à la prévention des infractions pénales, à la protection de la santé ou de la morale, ou à la protection des droits et libertés d'autrui.

—

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#193

Post by binary132 »

iso1631 wrote: post #122
binary132 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what a ludicrously insane take. how can you not believe in privacy? do you think what you do in your home should be private, or do you think it’s fine for someone to put cameras in there? If you do, please feel free to invite them to do so; do not feel free to invite them to put cameras in my home.

Whether you or I want it or not is irrelevant Over the last 5000 years it's been very rare for plebs to have any privacy. For a brief period from ww2 through to the early 21st century power shifted to the plebs, but since the 1980s that power has shifted back to the feudal barons, and our rights will eventually regress. But the SP500 will be at record highs so everyone will be told they should be happy.

What I’m taking issue with is that you said you never really cared about privacy. I care about my family’s privacy. I’m not asking you to care about yours. I’m sorry you’ve given up on something that wasn’t important to you anyway, or whatever.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#194

Post by b59831 »

eptcyka wrote: post #84
josteink wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So they’re asking American companies to repeal the first amendment rights of American citizens on all websites accessible in the EU. How this not a declaration of war?

I was under the impression that the strong and independent Americans had thicker skin than this.

[dead]

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#195

Post by Muromec »

binary132 wrote: post #50
FranzFerdiNaN wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gotta make sure you aren’t saying the wrong things, like criticising rich and powerful people.

people have been doing that for a long time, but the level of urgency from the system hasn’t been at this level.

The urgency comes from having the actual war on the East side of the EU and whatever the hell is happening down South with refugees and what not. Then in the EU proper -- sabotage acts, ammunition dumps being blown up, cabels cut and drones flying above the military bases hosting nuclear fucking warheads, Chinese and r===an spyies in the parliament, armed nazis in the military, etc, etc.

The shit has hit the fan about a decade ago already and not calming down at all, but intelligence gathering capability of secret services of all EU countries are being continiously degraded, because everything is E2E by default and money flows are obscured too.

Nobody likes to see shit being on fire and having all the dashboards down.

Another happening happens, the services are asked why they didn't prevent it or report it being likely -- what do they answer? "We can't read the damn messages, so we can't know if there is a cell that plans to do it again".

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#196

Post by thewebguyd »

phba wrote: post #185
thewebguyd wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are monied interests and special interest groups behind it. No matter who is at the head, it will continue to be pushed by these interests. Europol, Julie Cordua (CEO of Thorn), Cathal Delaney, former Europol who now is on Thorn's board, Alan Parker, billionaire and founder of the Oak Foundation that's been bankrolling the fake charities lobbying for chat control, Chris Cohn, another billionaire and hedge fund…

Adding to that from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_(organization) : > Thorn works with a group of technology partners who serve the organization as members of the Technology Task Force. The goal of the program includes developing technological barriers and initiatives to ensure the safety of children online and deter sexual predators on the Internet. > Various corporate members of the task force include Facebook…

Worth noting that Thorn also makes scanning software and would stand to profit greatly from chat control.

As with all these types of legislation, always follow the money.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#197

Post by SunshineTheCat »

latchup wrote: post #97
josteink wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So they’re asking American companies to repeal the first amendment rights of American citizens on all websites accessible in the EU. How this not a declaration of war?

I am going to assume your question is genuine and not rethorical hyperbole. Every sovereign nation has legal supremacy over its own territory. Any company doing business in the EU, no matter its origin, must follow EU laws inside the EU . However, these laws do not apply anywhere else (unless specified by some sort of treaty), so they are not forced to comply with them in the US when dealing with US customers. If the…

I mean this (mostly) as a joke, however, I kinda wish US businesses would just firewall off the EU at this point (yes, I know this would mean losing some customers/marketshare and thus would never happen).

But the near daily proposals getting tossed out in their desperate attempt to turn their countries into daycare centers is just annoying to people trying to build things for other adults.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#198

Post by pcrh »

naIak wrote: post #177
pcrh wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, or perhaps not, but its now a democracy, not a fascist dictatorship.

Cool, but it's anything but libertarian, which is what we were discussing in this thread. Regarding democracy, we have pretty severe failings, which you won't hear about because the EU is busy with Poland/Hungary/other conservative countries.

It isn't specifically "libertarian" to accuse some governmental systems as being criminal.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#199

Post by Muromec »

blibble wrote: post #79
andybak wrote: post #35

This is an asymmetric conflict. The factions who want this to pass have more resources, time and background influence and can keep pushing this until they get lucky. And once in place repealing it will be tremendously difficult. How does society resolve this kind of abuse of the democratic process? It is a dynamic that is repeated in many areas.

> And once in place repealing it will be tremendously difficult. as in: not possible the EU parliament can't legislate to remove it, at least not without permission from the two organs (commission, council) that keep pushing this EU parliament is the only legislature in the world that needs permission to legislate

>EU parliament is the only legislature in the world that needs permission to legislate

It makes sense, because EU law is mostly technical stuff that commission has to draft and all the national governments have to agree to.

With the commission being elected by the parliament itself and vote of no confidence being a thing, it's not like the parliament doesn't have power -- the power is intentionally nerfed to not overreach where national governments don't want it to.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#200

Post by Muromec »

pcrh wrote: post #180
Muromec wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way it's written and the way ECHR court works, the government has to actually argue it's way, not just say "national secirity". ECHR court however can't repeal the law, only fine the governmemt for actual violation of convention rights.

Is there any mechanism for preventing the introduction of a law that violates the ECHR? It would seem obvious that that should be the case, no?

Not under ECHR, which has twice as much signatories as EU has members and the other half is twice less chill compared to the EU.

I don't remember whether the EU top court can repeal EU laws, but general answer is no. It's politics -- if the government is full shitheads that somebody voted for and then haven't protested hard enough to boot out -- then they can ignore constitution, jail judges, behead journalists in a forest and send army to shoot at protesters of the wrong kind.

Post reply on HN