101–110 of 432 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
EU is not a synonym of Europe. EU propagandists don't get to define what Europe means. Second. Who gave you the right to define antieuropean union propaganda as a sin. Some people may hate it, some people may love it, other want to change it. It was created by vote, surely it can be whatever the fuck the way the people want by vote.
EU is a synonym for Europe in colloquial conversation the same way USA is a synonym for America.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you clarify what you mean? The linked website makes it seem that the majority MEPs of the supporting countries are on board. Are all of the (listed as) supporting countries currently under conservative governments?
The majority of the MEPs are not onboard mandatory scanning, otherwise that would've been passed already. The site is conflating mandatory scanning with voluntary scanning (status quo). The upcoming vote is about continuing the voluntary scanning (which would otherwise expire).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There a practical reason for this? like more alignment with lobbyists, for whatever financial reasons?
Over the last two decades Hungary reversed course from a democracy joining the west to an authoritarian dictatorship in bed with the Russians. Hence, everything their government does is the opposite of what a typical European Union member would approve of.
I absolutely don't understand how anyone can support this in the context of rising authoritarianism. Even people in my country which are talking about this phenomena support it. I strongly suspect that they do absolutely know shit about why it's problematic. I wonder if they would support that every of paper mail would be opened and checked. I strongly doubt that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you clarify what you mean? The linked website makes it seem that the majority MEPs of the supporting countries are on board. Are all of the (listed as) supporting countries currently under conservative governments?
The majority of the MEPs are not onboard mandatory scanning, otherwise that would've been passed already. The site is conflating mandatory scanning with voluntary scanning (status quo). The upcoming vote is about continuing the voluntary scanning (which would otherwise expire).
What is that? A setting in OS?
So... if we all care so much about shooting down the bad idea, why is nobody proposing opposite legislation: a bill enshrining a right to private communications, such that bills like this one would become impossible to even table? Is it just that there's no "privacy lobby" interested in getting even one lawyer around to sit down and write it up? Or is there at least one such bill floating around, but no EU member sta…
Quoting from the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union , https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12... : "Article 7 Respect for private and family life Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications. Article 8 Protection of personal data 1. Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her. 2. Such data mu…
Article 7 codifies "respect for [one's] private life" and "respect for [one's] private communications". Well, "respect" is a vague notion. This does not clearly imply that the government is not allowed to read your communications, or otherwise spy on you, if it believes it has good reason. It will do so "respectfully", or supposedly minimize the intrusion etc.
As for article 8: Here it is "protection of personal data" and "fair processing". It does not say "protection from government access"; and "processing" is when the government or some other party already has your data. In fact, as others point out, even this wording has an explicit legitimization of violation of privacy and 'protection' whenever there is a law which defines something as "legitimate basis" for invading your privacy.
You would have liked to see wording like:
* "Privacy in one's home, personal life, communications and digital interactions is a fundamental right."
* "The EU, its members, its bodies, its officers and whoever acts on its behalf shall not invade individuals' privacy."
and probably something about a non-absolute right to anonymity. Codified exceptions should be limited and not open-ended.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think criticisms of chat-control-like legislation attempts are downvoted here?
If my experience is anything to go by the answer is 'yes': https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47412060 > The clearest example of lobbying (chat control) has repeatedly been struck down. They can try as often as they want and they only have to win once. We - as in those who don't want this Orwellian monster to be written into law - have to win all the time. That comment was quickly voted down. It is unclear whether…
The argument is a too simplistic criticism of the legislative process. And it’s independent from criticizing the actual laws that are attempted to be passed. It applies equally to desirable and undesirable laws.
So much for "digital soverignty".