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

Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

fightchatcontrol.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 385 posts

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#341

Post by keraf »

wavemode wrote: post #339
keraf wrote: post #157

The same governments pushing for this type of regulation are also the ones that fail to condemn high profile individuals involved in the crimes that these regulation are supposed to help fight. Makes you really wonder if it's about protecting the children.

You make it sound as though this is a proposal for legislation in the US...

There are plenty of friends of that one famous financier roaming the old continent, who probably won't ever see a courtroom or prison cell in their lifetime, despite a lot of incriminating evidence.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#342

Post by vrganj »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #336
vrganj wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, as bad as unsavory characters in the US are, the AfD is full of straight-up, unrepetent Neonazis. Like this is not just me mischaracterizing my political opponents, it is the most accurate label based on their behavior. They're the type of people who want to make the 1930s happen again in Germany. This is why I react somewhat strongly when people try to relativize their abhorrence and make excuses, most frequen…

I suspect most cases are like mine, not misunderstanding so much as encountering an exception to the default "safe" set of assumptions. When someone maligns a political party or institution it is usually partisan, emotional, and unfair. When encountering this, in the vast majority of cases the official position will be quite close to the "real" one. AfD secretly harboring a significant number of actual bonafide nazis…

I think ideally, one would nip those fascist movements in the bud before they become big enough to be problematic. There's a phrase in German antifascism - "Wehret den Anfängen!", translating to "resist the beginnings". The Nazi movement itself also became really difficult to stop once it had some serious traction, one has to really stop these movements from becoming this big in the first place.

Problem is, the German Verfassungsschutz (lit. "Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution", the domestic intelligence agency) was itself infiltrated by the far-right [0] and so didn't ring the alarm in time.

I agree with you that there's probably no way to come out unscathed from trying to ban them now - their followers are already radicalized and it probably wouldn't be pretty. But that being said, what else should we do? Just do nothing and let it all happen once more? Break our promise of never again? Watch history repeat itself? No - we have to at least try.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Georg_Maa%C3%9Fen

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#343

Post by AlexanderHanff »

mikaeluman wrote: post #53

Most everyone would love to see more work on stopping child sexual abuse. But this is the ultimate "grant me dictatorial powers so I can do good" play. Rather than narrow and specific - it's a broad based law that suddenly touches everyone even though offenders are a small percentage and should be able to be targeted more efficiently.

I have put up a list of all the MEPs who voted for the urgency procedure yesterday (in breach of EU rules) as well as their voting history on fundamental rights issues and who has been lobbying them:

https://www.thatprivacyguy.com/blog/chat-control-the-415-who...

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#344

Post by spwa4 »

narag wrote: post #332
kvgr wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a single person that is not attached to EU voted for he. She is second hand vote. These roles should all be result of direct vote. This way you only get votes by people who are sucking the money of Eu parliament or. The only position people vote for is EP. And that % is so small, that if they ask the people who didn't vote if they want it, they would have to tear it down. I am not against EU cooperation, mainly i…

These roles should all be result of direct vote. I disagree. That's an executive power position for an entity that lacks sovereignty. Giving it the legitimacy of direct vote is highly problematic. Start by giving more power to parliament.

I think you'll find it's the EU member countries that lack sovereignty, not the EU. EU law overrides member state law, not the other way around.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#345

Post by vaylian »

AlexanderHanff wrote: post #343
mikaeluman wrote: post #53

Most everyone would love to see more work on stopping child sexual abuse. But this is the ultimate "grant me dictatorial powers so I can do good" play. Rather than narrow and specific - it's a broad based law that suddenly touches everyone even though offenders are a small percentage and should be able to be targeted more efficiently.

I have put up a list of all the MEPs who voted for the urgency procedure yesterday (in breach of EU rules) as well as their voting history on fundamental rights issues and who has been lobbying them: https://www.thatprivacyguy.com/blog/chat-control-the-415-who...

Thanks. Please note that your link doesn't work with the tor browser.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#346

Post by AlexanderHanff »

vaylian wrote: post #345
AlexanderHanff wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have put up a list of all the MEPs who voted for the urgency procedure yesterday (in breach of EU rules) as well as their voting history on fundamental rights issues and who has been lobbying them: https://www.thatprivacyguy.com/blog/chat-control-the-415-who...

Thanks. Please note that your link doesn't work with the tor browser.

Not sure why, it is working fine everywhere else - I see in Tor it gives an invalid certificate error, but the Lets Encrypt certificate is working fine in other browsers, so seems to be a Tor thing specifically.

I will investigate.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#347

Post by cassepipe »

vlian2088 wrote: post #240
cassepipe wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, you're just noticing are you ? Who are those people who are "disallowing" you from calling your land your land ? How do you handle living under such oppression ? Just come out of the woods will you It turns out people don't like to be invaded, yes, simple as. Of course you would very much like to convince everyone that immigration is just the same as an invasion and thus, the same way to deal with it is justified…

>Let's stop the blut and soil BS >Who are those people who are "disallowing" you from calling your land your land ?

Ok, so pushback is the same as being disallowed, got it. No wonder you people have such a victim complex.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#348

Post by AlexanderHanff »

vaylian wrote: post #345
AlexanderHanff wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have put up a list of all the MEPs who voted for the urgency procedure yesterday (in breach of EU rules) as well as their voting history on fundamental rights issues and who has been lobbying them: https://www.thatprivacyguy.com/blog/chat-control-the-415-who...

Thanks. Please note that your link doesn't work with the tor browser.

I cannot see what is causing the issue, the certificate's full chain is sent, the clock is synced, the cert is showing zero errors in OpenSSL - so this is very confusing.

The irony is, you don't actually need Tor on my site because there is no logging, no third parties, no adtech etc. it is just static HTML files - so whereas I would normally recommend Tor I designed the site specifically to be privacy first.

I will try to figure out what is going on though because obviously I am fully supportive of people protecting their privacy with Tor.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#350

Post by order-matters »

mikaeluman wrote: post #53

Most everyone would love to see more work on stopping child sexual abuse. But this is the ultimate "grant me dictatorial powers so I can do good" play. Rather than narrow and specific - it's a broad based law that suddenly touches everyone even though offenders are a small percentage and should be able to be targeted more efficiently.

its also just disastrous for signal to noise ratios. scanning everything means any sort of error rate is going to cause massive amounts of incorrect labelling. this means innocent things getting flagged and put into a system where people are treated like offenders when they arent until they can get an actual human with authority to review their circumstances (not guaranteed to happen at all btw), or some actual offenders get away with more bc they passed a scan

outlier cases aside, there is also just a large amount of processing power that will go into this, the service can only be worse off for it. Privacy is not just about being able to hide things, it is also about being in control of how you present to the world. not because that control is maniupulative but because we all exist within our own microcosms of uniqueness, using words slightly differently than each other, and having certain balances of intention and meaning with those we send messages to that cannot be fully presumed from a 3rd party. even in images.

Are they really saying "if you want to send private messages then go make your own network" ?

Post reply on HN