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

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

patrick-breyer.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 324 posts

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

#271

Post by gzread »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #230
ryandrake wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the problem with modern democracies (it happens in the USA too). They only have to win once and it's law. We have to win every time.

> They only have to win once and it's law. We have to win every time. Passing legislation takes about as much effort as repealing. (The exception being if the legislation spawns a massive bureaucracy.) Chat Control 1.0 was de facto passed. It's now being unpassed. We don't have to win every time. Just more.

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive

Your ISP had to spy on you. This was the law for 8 years until it was ruled unconstitutional.

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

#272

Post by matheusmoreira »

School-Cotton wrote: post #267
matheusmoreira wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Phones should have no locks unless the user installs them and holds the keys.

Why?

Because if we don't have the keys to the machine, then we don't actually own our computers. If we don't own our computers, then we have no freedom.

Because everything the word "hacker" ever stood for will be destroyed if this nonsense gets normalized. The day governments get to decide what software "your" computer can run is the day it's all over.

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

#273

Post by protocolture »

They will change the name and it will be back in The cost in modern polity is worn entirely by those trying to prevent new laws. Civil liberty groups will run out of funding before they run out of legislation. Its a systemic issue that requires change.

And before someone wanders in here and suggests a bill of rights, they dont tend to bind legislators, they just force your civil liberty groups to test the legislation in court.

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

#274

Post by School-Cotton »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #272
School-Cotton wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why?

Because if we don't have the keys to the machine, then we don't actually own our computers. If we don't own our computers, then we have no freedom. Because everything the word "hacker" ever stood for will be destroyed if this nonsense gets normalized. The day governments get to decide what software "your" computer can run is the day it's all over.

> Because if we don't have the keys to the machine, then we don't actually own our computers.

It is not self-evident to me that people under 18 should "own [their] computers" or have unrestricted "freedom".

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

#275

Post by riffraff »

zoobab wrote: post #187
nickslaughter02 wrote: post #3

> 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…

"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." Trilogues should be burned down, closed doors meetings with Ministers writing laws from their own services.

The trilogue is the interaction between eu commission, eu parliament and eu council. The commission proposes, parliament and country governments argue and ask for changes. The parliament has the last vote anyway. Maybe you're thinking of something else.

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

#276

Post by eipi10_hn »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #262
gzread wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an even easier one: When you buy a phone, the salesman checks your ID and sets the phone to child lock mode or unlocked mode.

Phones should have no locks unless the user installs them and holds the keys.

Parents can hold the keys for underaged?

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

#277

Post by mmooss »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #229
nickslaughter02 wrote: post #3

> 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…

> further procedural steps by EU governments cannot be completely ruled out In a democracy, we don't kill our opposition. If they hold views we don't like, e.g. that security trumps privacy, they're going to litigate them. Probably their whole lives. That means they'll keep bringing up the same ideas. And you'll have to keep defeating them. But there are two corollaries. One: Passing legislation takes as much work as…

This perspective, not unique to the parent, assumes you have to play defense indefinitely, but (as with many beliefs) the assumption is the problem: Stop playing defense and go on offense.

Pass laws that actively enhance privacy, that make it technically (e.g., require E2EE) and legally harder to surveil citizens, that require data minimization, that impose retention limits, that require higher standards for accessing surveillance content (e.g., warrants); pass amendments to constitutions, etc. How do you think current privacy protections happened in the first place?

Going on offense not only improves privacy, it forces the other side to use their resources playing defense and trying to keep up.

The 'one battle after another' defensive perspective is for people who have half-quit (I'm not talking about the parent here, but more generally). It fits the culture of despair that permeates every political grouping but the far right - they have plenty of initiative and creativity, and certainly don't hold back and play defense. You can do that too.

Maybe a more familiar analogy: It also fits the behavior of exhausted status quo market participants, companies that have lost their drive and innovation and are hanging onto their old ways instead of aggressively moving forward.

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

#278

Post by fc417fc802 »

lenerdenator wrote: post #270
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> further procedural steps by EU governments cannot be completely ruled out In a democracy, we don't kill our opposition. If they hold views we don't like, e.g. that security trumps privacy, they're going to litigate them. Probably their whole lives. That means they'll keep bringing up the same ideas. And you'll have to keep defeating them. But there are two corollaries. One: Passing legislation takes as much work as…

Read about the paradox of tolerance. I'm not saying you unalive your opposition, but you do need to make them suffer consequences if they push the boundaries to get what they want.

A cheap justification for violating one's professed ideals.

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

#279

Post by fc417fc802 »

School-Cotton wrote: post #274
matheusmoreira wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if we don't have the keys to the machine, then we don't actually own our computers. If we don't own our computers, then we have no freedom. Because everything the word "hacker" ever stood for will be destroyed if this nonsense gets normalized. The day governments get to decide what software "your" computer can run is the day it's all over.

> Because if we don't have the keys to the machine, then we don't actually own our computers. It is not self-evident to me that people under 18 should "own [their] computers" or have unrestricted "freedom".

Think about how the proposed idea would most likely be implemented. It would be used as justification for manufacturers to sell devices that the end use doesn't control. They already do that; this would give them legal justification.
Post reply on HN