Live data from Hacker News

End of "Chat Control": EU parliament stops mass surveillance

patrick-breyer.de

201–210 of 324 posts

Re: End of "Chat Control": EU parliament stops mass surveillance

#201
post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need a double-jeopardy-like constitutional amendment for legislation. Legislation once-tried and failed cannot be tried again.

That would be antithetical to democracy. The people must be allowed to introduce any legislation they want, as often as they want. Otherwise it would be trivial for a government to intentionally fail to pass anything they disagree with, and thus act as a de facto dictatorship.

Not to mention how would one even define "the same legislation"?

Re: End of "Chat Control": EU parliament stops mass surveillance

#202
post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need a double-jeopardy-like constitutional amendment for legislation. Legislation once-tried and failed cannot be tried again.

That would be antithetical to democracy. The people must be allowed to introduce any legislation they want, as often as they want. Otherwise it would be trivial for a government to intentionally fail to pass anything they disagree with, and thus act as a de facto dictatorship.

When have "the people" been last consulted on this? Do you really think Chat Control has high public support? Given how most "democracies" work in our world today (which is to say with no consultation of the people), i think limiting their ability to do further harm might be worth it.

Re: End of "Chat Control": EU parliament stops mass surveillance

#203
post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be antithetical to democracy. The people must be allowed to introduce any legislation they want, as often as they want. Otherwise it would be trivial for a government to intentionally fail to pass anything they disagree with, and thus act as a de facto dictatorship.

When have "the people" been last consulted on this? Do you really think Chat Control has high public support? Given how most "democracies" work in our world today (which is to say with no consultation of the people), i think limiting their ability to do further harm might be worth it.

This wouldn't limit the ability of governments to do harm, it would limit the ability of the people to mitigate that harm by giving them only one chance to ever do so.

I don't think "democracy is flawed therefore we need less of it" is a good idea.

Re: End of "Chat Control": EU parliament stops mass surveillance

#204

> Despite today’s victory, further procedural steps by EU governments cannot be completely ruled out. Most of all, the trilogue negotiations on a permanent child protection regulation (Chat Control 2.0) are continuing under severe time pressure. There, too, EU governments continue to insist on their demand for “voluntary” indiscriminate Chat Control. > Furthermore, the next massive threat to digital civil liberties i…

See you soon folks!

Re: End of "Chat Control": EU parliament stops mass surveillance

#205
post #22

Its time to start trying to push Chat Control 2.0. With enough money and infinite retries eventually all the bad regulations with a power group behind will end being approved.

Or it will get a new name. Just like „Chat Control“ is far from the first name for this BS.

"Save the children", or "if you oppose this you're ugly".

Re: End of "Chat Control": EU parliament stops mass surveillance

#207
> Recently, only 36% of suspicious activity reports from US companies originated from the surveillance of private messages anyway.

I don't have many opinions on this but this sort of lazy logic would make me nervous. 36% is not a small number and that's before the folks doing this activity find out that private message is less patrolled.

Re: End of "Chat Control": EU parliament stops mass surveillance

#208
post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, and it will make it more difficult to pass legislation designed to actually help combat child exploitation when a large(ish) portion of the population immediately equate "for the children" with a power grab.

Unfortunately, that population immediately equates the two for good reason. Bills that are presented as "for the children" usually are a power grab. Even more unfortunately, the issue is so emotional that we can't have a reasonable discussion on it. This limits the discussion to proposals that sound good to angry people. And the opposition to those who can get angry about something else. Which limits how much reason…

> The age at which people are most likely to land on the list is 14. But a man who liked 13 year olds when he was 14, is unlikely to reoffend at 30. What is the purpose of ruining the rest of his life for a juvenile mistake?

am I like misunderstanding or what does this mean exactly? I'm so confused. "reoffend" what kind of offense are we talking about here?

Re: End of "Chat Control": EU parliament stops mass surveillance

#209

> Despite today’s victory, further procedural steps by EU governments cannot be completely ruled out. Most of all, the trilogue negotiations on a permanent child protection regulation (Chat Control 2.0) are continuing under severe time pressure. There, too, EU governments continue to insist on their demand for “voluntary” indiscriminate Chat Control. > Furthermore, the next massive threat to digital civil liberties i…

"> Furthermore, the next massive threat to digital civil liberties is already on the agenda: Next up in the ongoing trilogue, lawmakers will negotiate whether messenger and chat services, as well as app stores, will be legally obliged to implement age verification. This would require users to provide ID documents or submit to facial scans, effectively making anonymous communication impossible and severely endangering vulnerable groups such as whistleblowers and persecuted individuals."

Perhaps this is bad news for "messenger and chat services, as well as app stores" who solicit "users" to exploit them for commercial gain, for example _if_ users are unwilling to accept "age verification" and decide to stop using them. The keyword is "if"

The third parties know it's possible for capable users to communicate with each other without using third party "chat and messenger services" intermediaries that conduct data collection, surveillance and/or online ad services as a "business model". Thus the third party "tech" company intermediaries strive to make their "free services" more convenient than DIY, i.e., communication without using third party intermediation by so-called "tech" companies

But users may decide that "age verification" is acceptable. For many years, HN comments have repeatedly insisted that "most users" do not care about data collection or surveillance or online advertising, that users don't care about privacy. Advocates of "Big Tech" and other so-called "tech" companies argue that by using such third party services, users are consciously _choosing_ convenience over privacy

Perhaps the greatest threat to civil liberties is the mass data collection and surveillance conducted by so-called "tech" companies. The "age verification" debate provides a vivid illustration of why allowing such companies to collect data and surveil without restriction only makes it easier for governments that seek to encroach upon civil liberties. While governments may operate under legal and financial constraints that effectively limit their ability to conduct mass surveillance, the companies operate freely, creating enormous repositories that governments can use their authority to tap into

Re: End of "Chat Control": EU parliament stops mass surveillance

#210

Here is the EPP's plea to get this passed earlier. They even used a teddy bear image. https://www.eppgroup.eu/newsroom/epp-urges-support-for-last-... "Protecting children is not optional," said Lena Düpont MEP, EPP Group spokeswoman on Legal and Home Affairs. "We call on the S&D Group to stop hiding behind excuses and finally take responsibility. We cannot afford a safe haven for child abusers online. Every delay lea…

> - Thorn (Ashton Kutcher)

They really have no shame, do they? https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66772846

Kutcher defended a rapist in court when they thought they were anonymous (they weren't), the same rapist who bragged about assaulting their underage peer/co-star to Kutcher, and then harassed the children of the plaintiffs[1] in his trial where he was convicted and sentenced to 30 years to life:

> Another plaintiff stated that she and her neighbors observed a man snapping pictures from her driveway, and later that night, broke a window in her 13-year-old daughter's bedroom.

[1] https://people.com/tv/danny-masterson-church-scientology-sue...

Post reply on HN