181–190 of 278 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IIRC they used to catch a lot of child groomers by scanning messages.
If any of this was about protecting children, that Epstein thing wouldn't have been buried and forgotten already.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, this had been temporarily permitted until recently, and AFAIK they continue doing so illegally at the moment.
Why is it currently illegal? If I have a service that let's users communicate, why is it illegal to look through those communications? (especially after they've signed my 400 page EULA). It would make moderation impossible otherwise. Or are we saying this is being used for something specific that happens to be illegal?
Not all services should be treated equally. We've figured this out earlier about letters, it's typically illegal, even for postal services, to open and read your letters without your consent, because there is an expectation about privacy.
Fast forward some years since then, and now basically IMs are the new letters, and sadly we have few big actors (yet again) controlling the transportation of our communication. People generally still want privacy in their communications, so regulations were made that companies cannot open your messages ("letters") without your consent, so we humans still have more or less the same protections as before, just tailored to the new specific implementation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those narratives pop up from users that have a clear anti-EU bias (and I suspect they might not even be from the EU considering how ignorant they seem to be about how it works, its function ans structure, etc.
Call it what it is: Propaganda designed to stir anti-EU sentiment from groups that would benefit from being able to divide and conquer Europe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They’re indirectly elected through national governments and parliament. That’s different from being directly elected by citizens. Being appointed by elected politicians doesn’t make someone directly accountable to voters. Citizens don’t vote for commissioners, and it’s much harder for voters to remove or reward them based on their policies.
Ao is the prime minister in any country that adopts parliamentarism. I am still to see as many people getting riled up about how those countries are not democratic.
Nobody really knows or cares who is going to be appointed to the commission since domestic issues always completely over shadow it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, this had been temporarily permitted until recently, and AFAIK they continue doing so illegally at the moment.
Why is it currently illegal? If I have a service that let's users communicate, why is it illegal to look through those communications? (especially after they've signed my 400 page EULA). It would make moderation impossible otherwise. Or are we saying this is being used for something specific that happens to be illegal?
Because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrecy_of_correspondence
It guarantees that the content of sealed letters is never revealed, and that letters in transit are not opened by government officials, or any other third party. The right of privacy to one's own letters is the main legal basis for the assumption of privacy of correspondence. The principle has been naturally extended to other forms of communication, including telephony and electronic communications on the Internet, as the constitutional guarantees are generally thought to also cover these forms of communication
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't the mere fact that the EU is trying to pass laws to erode privacy indicate that there is privacy to erode? The US doesn't need to pass such laws because there are no protections.
> The US doesn't need to pass such laws because there are no protections. The US desperately needs fundamental definitions and protections in regard to privacy, but the fact that it is extremely common for European countries to prosecute illegal speech and associations is a big difference. Americans are trying to defend themselves against the secondary effects of surveillance. Europeans can just jail you for saying m…
in practice thats how the US ends up working as well - with fenced in protest corners and the like, and police declaring protests to be riots and then moving in to stop the expression
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It would make moderation impossible otherwise. Why would you need to moderate private messages between users?
People sending unwanted DMs is an obvious reason. At the very least, users should be able to report DMs and then that should allow for moderation. It's very common in some spaces to get people who send unwanted (spam/harassment/etc) DMs to tons of people. Just expecting everyone to block those people makes for a horrible user experience, because it means new users might be suddenly met by a bunch of unwanted DMs from…
This is not the same as scanning all messages (which makes E2EE moot).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course Nations want this. Who is in the Council? You are saying "nuh-uh", but not addressing any of the substance of my comment.
The Council represents state governments, not nations. A nation consists of all the people in it, not just those who appointed themselves to speak on its behalf.
Either way, your issue is with national governments and not the EU, which curbs their excesses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m convinced of widespread corruption here. We need to follow the money. Who is funding and pushing this agenda to blanket spy on all Europeans? I guess my question is rhetorical.
I don’t think it’s a conspiracy or corruption. It’s just design by committee bureaucracy. It always fails into that state.