Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't see anything in the intersection of "desirable", "status quo" and "complete surveillance", can you think of some examples?
Cellular telephony. Electronic banking. Both have been "status quo" for decades, and subject pretty much everyone in the western world to significant, continuous surveillance. We can discuss whether it's desirable, but it's been like this for a while and people very much like benefits both provide.
Europe's New War on Privacy
71–80 of 83 posts
Re: Europe's New War on Privacy
#72> We value your privacy > UnHerd and our 5403 technology partners ask you to consent to the use of cookies to store/access and process personal data on your device. Oh, okay.
Re: Europe's New War on Privacy
#73Secondly: the death of EU cannot come soon enough. 10 years ago euroskeptics like me were wrongfully called "russophiles" (lmao), even though I'm from a country that is constantly threatened by Russia with drones, propaganda, etc. (RO for one's curiosity). Ironically enough, for those coming from ex-communists countries, EU sure looks increasingly like USSR, but with blue instead of red. It's infinitely better than communism, sure, but the optics and path of EU resemble those of USSR in it's "wellbeing of workers"(and other socio-cultural issues) propaganda phase(the irony is Russia here, obviously).
History never repeats, but it rhymes. And a calcified supranational institution delves into authoritarianism in the later stages of its existence. Reform never happens, and if it does, it’s at face value. It’s much “easier” (for the people in those institutions) to double-down on the status quo position rather than reform; and obviously it becomes increasingly harder for the vast majority of people to voice their opinions or concerns, especially those not aligned with the status quo. (* Key difference here is NATO which is US-led and EU which is still Western Europe-led; US is still a functional democracy unlike EU institutions)
Although it’s not really a very complex topic and the causal factors are relatively simple (at least to identify, solutions are much harder to propose [mainly due to the mentioned constant double-downing]), it would take a long time to explain/convince why the existence of the “current” EU is detrimental to Europeans (at least to the people not aligned with the status-quo). So-called benefits stopped at the common market treaty (EEC) iteration of the EU. Security is not and should not be in the EU’s purview, we have NATO for that. And the most obvious issues that the EU keeps worsening are socio-cultural positions that either (1) dilute the differences between different nations (2) [in case (1) was not a “problem” due to shared values] directly propose completely different values and/or positions. There’s no “objective morality” debate to be had here, democracy does not inherently mean choosing the most “scientific”/“moral”/(any other metric) position in policy: it simply means choosing what the majority of people want (If you want to change policy: change people’s minds). The double-downing of the “EU regime” is usually defended with the rhetoric that it does so in the name of “democracy”, “morality”, “tolerance”, “objective wellbeing of society”, etc. but there’s no mechanism for true democracy if the EU undermines/punishes the will of individual nations on the pretext that “it does not conform to EU-wide proposed policy”. This leads to “multi-step” issues and other regional conflicts between interests of nations (the winning bloc [usually the wealthier one] gets to basically impose policy on the smaller one).
I’m quite off-topic on the subject of privacy, but my key point is this: don’t expect things to get better; or at least not without a huge cost. Recent pullbacks from the EU regarding the DSA/AI Act/GDPR are done so out of necessity: the EU is losing ground massively (= money) in the tech space due to stupid policies made by dumb bureaucrats. Half-assed “reforms” like these will not make huge improvements (mainly due to the unchanged fiscal policies [which are going to get worse: upcoming euro stablecoin]) but will keep the EU afloat amongst those who can’t see the sinking ship. Oh, you like privacy? Well, expect it to get worse, as eID is surely coming for all citizens in the name of safety (which has been eroded due to “our” [i.e. regime’s] stupid policies).
Finally, as I foresee some will keep replying with “Russian ”, let me just say this: pray the downfall of the EU won’t be an opportunity for Russia to do anything. At this rate in the regional conflict, Russia doesn’t look good long-term, but if history has tried to teach us anything, it is that Russia’s unpredictable.
Re: Europe's New War on Privacy
#74> We value your privacy > UnHerd and our 5403 technology partners ask you to consent to the use of cookies to store/access and process personal data on your device. Oh, okay.
‘We value your privacy’ has to be one of most doublespeaky phrases in modern world.
Re: Europe's New War on Privacy
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's always a tradeoff. Nothing is ever going to have zero benefit Realizing that is the first step to having any kind of productive discourse, much less a chance of influencing the outcome. It's also the step I see most commenters in discussions on this and related topics here, are unable to take. But then, the follow-up step is: > the problem is that these laws use the marginal benefit as an excuse to institute s…
The removal of out-dated privacy offers great benefits. Why not begin to invest and develop technology to scan people's brains and leverage the supreme protection advantages for the nation state by its complete elimination ? Mandate that every resident of the EU wear a certified, union-approved, scanning head-band that monitors the resident's brain for violent, racist, subversive or even "offensive" thoughts using st…
Re: Europe's New War on Privacy
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh, I don't know, I feel like "is complete population surveillance a net good?" has been answered a million times, I'm not sure we need to go into it from first principles.
"Complete population surveillance" is an ill-defined category; depending on how you slice it, it's something very undesirable, or a status quo we've been living in for the past couple decades.
Re: Europe's New War on Privacy
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cellular telephony. Electronic banking. Both have been "status quo" for decades, and subject pretty much everyone in the western world to significant, continuous surveillance. We can discuss whether it's desirable, but it's been like this for a while and people very much like benefits both provide.
I'm fairly sure I definitely don't want to be surveilled by my phone, yep.
Re: Europe's New War on Privacy
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's still a law in Denmark, despite being rendered illegal in the EU, and likewise in national courts. It was last used to convict a murderer of the murder of Emilie Meng ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Emilie_Meng ). At the time, he had kidnapped a 13 year old girl (IIRC), that he had sexually assaulted for 24+ hours, and various dashcam recordings were used to piece together what had happened. He was als…
I'm sorry but this whole thing stinks - The data was collected in 2016, and was used in 2023 - a retention period of 7 years, way longer than the specified maximum of 2 - I'd argue that the basis of lawmaking is weighing the advantages versus the costs - supplying partial evidence in a case once a decade does not meet the requirements for introducing mass surveillance with infinite retention The police work was slopp…
Normally, when there's an ongoing police investigation, the police can either request and retain a copy of the data, or request the holder of the data retain it until "further notice". I'm assuming that's what was going on here.
"If he was, I'd argue the dragnet-collected evidence is only circumstantial."
The phone logging was not conclusive evidence, only used to establish that he had been in the area. They found various artifacts in his house, like a roll of duct tape with the dead girls DNA on, that he explained he had found while walking around the lake, the same type of duct tape used to bind the girl. They also found various other items with the girls DNA on.
They used the logging data to establish his whereabouts for the night in question and compared it to his statement of where he'd been. They also used various financial transactions, like buying a cup of coffee with his credit card at a gas station, etc.
In Denmark, DNA cannot be used as a single evidence, only as supporting evidence, and the same goes for phone logging. But combined, if your location data says you've been there, and your DNA is found at the crime scene, even though it may not by itself be enough to get you convicted, it makes all other evidence much more believable.
Re: Europe's New War on Privacy
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's still a law in Denmark, despite being rendered illegal in the EU, and likewise in national courts. It was last used to convict a murderer of the murder of Emilie Meng ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Emilie_Meng ). At the time, he had kidnapped a 13 year old girl (IIRC), that he had sexually assaulted for 24+ hours, and various dashcam recordings were used to piece together what had happened. He was als…
Um, the data retention directive didn't apply to dashcams, only network metadata... and that Wikipedia article isn't curing my confusion.
There's a law that prohibits all video monitoring of public spaces, and a register where you must register your video cameras if you're a business owner. Video surveillance in Denmark has a maximum legal retention of 28 days, unless there's an ongoing investigation.
Considering that dash cams mostly monitor "public spaces" and are moving around, the legality of them have been questioned multiple times. They are however also becoming more and more common, so I'm guessing they will eventually be allowed with a relatively low retention, like 1-2 days, enough to get footage off of them in case of a crash.
Re: Europe's New War on Privacy
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's always a tradeoff. Nothing is ever going to have zero benefit Realizing that is the first step to having any kind of productive discourse, much less a chance of influencing the outcome. It's also the step I see most commenters in discussions on this and related topics here, are unable to take. But then, the follow-up step is: > the problem is that these laws use the marginal benefit as an excuse to institute s…
Eh, I don't know, I feel like "is complete population surveillance a net good?" has been answered a million times, I'm not sure we need to go into it from first principles.
Your location is already known to your mobile operator, to your phone OS manufacturer, to various social media services, and more, including the government/law enforcement on request (maybe, or they have permanent access, who knows).
Any time you buy stuff with a debit/credit card, the details of that transaction is known to your bank, your card provider, tax authorities, including where you bought stuff, and by request, authorities
Money that goes into your bank account is also known by your bank (obviously), by tax authorities, and by request, authorities.
Your ISP knows who you talk to, and can easily log metadata about which sites you visit, even if you use a secure DNS, and in most countries, authorities can request (metadata) logging from your ISP, which you'll never even notice.
During COVID, health authorities started analyzing sewage to estimate how much the virus had spread in various communities, and some places they were down to street level accuracy. Obviously that gets a lot more diffuse on Manhattan than some rural city with 400 people in it, but you pretty much can't fart without anyone knowing it.
We are already under constant surveillance, whether we like it or not. I don't mind as much as long as it's used retroactively, but the ChatControl proposition would be proactive instead. It would scan your texts and report if it found something "suspicious", with the caveat that you as a user don't know what's suspicious today (or tomorrow). The list isn't public, and you wouldn't get notified that someone had called an adult, not until someone comes knocking on your door.
Their plan is/was to use AI, and we all know that ChatGPT never gets confused about anything, so that sounds like a great and ultra consistent plan. Most things require context. I might be angry because some kids gave me hard time, and write "fuck all children" to someone, but the anger isn't evident in the message, only the literal message, which I agree might be interpreted as something else (deliberately). This would then (probably) result in a notification for human review, a task that would fall to the operator of said service, so now Meta, Google or whomever has a legal justification for reading my messages looking for context, and I can't see any way that could go wrong. The other option was for law enforcement to read the messages, and while they're probably a bit more trustworthy in terms of privacy, I doubt we want to staff up our law enforcement offices by a factor 10 to read peoples messages.
The list could also be updated behind your back, so for totalitarian wannabe regimes, it could be used to pinpoint exactly who is organizing all those darned protests.