More discussion:
European Parliament decided that Chat Control 1.0 must stop
11–20 of 27 posts
Re: European Parliament decided that Chat Control 1.0 must stop
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
So they voted against the total because it did not include indiscriminate scanning? I am not saying this is not the case, but it does not make sense to me. If indiscriminate scanning does not pass, why not vote for the total even without it, and amend it after it passes and gets normalised at a later point?
It would have locked in the restrictions, which would be difficult to argue later that they should be removed and the package be opened up again. Without any scanning, it’s much easier to continue arguing that indiscriminate scanning is needed. They remain in a much stronger bargaining position towards those who want limited scanning (as opposed to no scanning) than if they had conceded.
Exactly. It is much easier to get people to agree to do questionable things, when there is pressure to "do something".
A more limited bill takes off the pressure to "do something", and therefore makes the more extreme bill harder to pass later.
In this case there is reason to suspect that the real goal of the bill is not catching pedophiles. Instead it is to give police broader powers of surveillance in the name of catching pedophiles, which they will then be able to use for other purposes. This is particularly problematic given the ways that it could be abused by some of the more authoritarian governments in the EU. Yes, I'm thinking of Viktor Orbán of Hungary.
Re: European Parliament decided that Chat Control 1.0 must stop
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would have locked in the restrictions, which would be difficult to argue later that they should be removed and the package be opened up again. Without any scanning, it’s much easier to continue arguing that indiscriminate scanning is needed. They remain in a much stronger bargaining position towards those who want limited scanning (as opposed to no scanning) than if they had conceded.
Exactly. It is much easier to get people to agree to do questionable things, when there is pressure to "do something". A more limited bill takes off the pressure to "do something", and therefore makes the more extreme bill harder to pass later. In this case there is reason to suspect that the real goal of the bill is not catching pedophiles. Instead it is to give police broader powers of surveillance in the name of c…
> This is particularly problematic given the ways that it could be abused by some of the more authoritarian governments in the EU.
> Yes, I'm thinking of Viktor Orbán of Hungary.
Lol what?
The UK leads [edit: in Europe overall, obviously not the EU] with approximately 18 per 100k prosecuted for online speech. Germany is at about 4 per 100k. Poland at about 0.8 per 100k. Hungary about 0.1 per 100K.
For any definition of authoritarian that relates to chat control, the UK is two base-10 orders of magnitude more authoritarian than Hungary (7 base-2 orders of magnitude).
Re: European Parliament decided that Chat Control 1.0 must stop
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. It is much easier to get people to agree to do questionable things, when there is pressure to "do something". A more limited bill takes off the pressure to "do something", and therefore makes the more extreme bill harder to pass later. In this case there is reason to suspect that the real goal of the bill is not catching pedophiles. Instead it is to give police broader powers of surveillance in the name of c…
> This is particularly problematic given the ways that it could be abused by some of the more authoritarian governments in the EU. > Yes, I'm thinking of Viktor Orbán of Hungary. Lol what? The UK leads [edit: in Europe overall, obviously not the EU] with approximately 18 per 100k prosecuted for online speech. Germany is at about 4 per 100k. Poland at about 0.8 per 100k. Hungary about 0.1 per 100K. For any definition…
The issue isn't how much free speech online is being punished. It is how surveillance could be used to reinforce authoritarianism.
The UK does a lot of prosecuting people for having said nasty things online that someone else didn't like.
Hungary is far more inclined to surveil political opponents, put people in their network in jail without fair trial, surveil successful businesses whose bribes were insufficient, find excuses to punish those businesses.
Re: European Parliament decided that Chat Control 1.0 must stop
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. It is much easier to get people to agree to do questionable things, when there is pressure to "do something". A more limited bill takes off the pressure to "do something", and therefore makes the more extreme bill harder to pass later. In this case there is reason to suspect that the real goal of the bill is not catching pedophiles. Instead it is to give police broader powers of surveillance in the name of c…
> This is particularly problematic given the ways that it could be abused by some of the more authoritarian governments in the EU. > Yes, I'm thinking of Viktor Orbán of Hungary. Lol what? The UK leads [edit: in Europe overall, obviously not the EU] with approximately 18 per 100k prosecuted for online speech. Germany is at about 4 per 100k. Poland at about 0.8 per 100k. Hungary about 0.1 per 100K. For any definition…
The UK isn't in the EU anymore though.
Re: European Parliament decided that Chat Control 1.0 must stop
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. It is much easier to get people to agree to do questionable things, when there is pressure to "do something". A more limited bill takes off the pressure to "do something", and therefore makes the more extreme bill harder to pass later. In this case there is reason to suspect that the real goal of the bill is not catching pedophiles. Instead it is to give police broader powers of surveillance in the name of c…
> This is particularly problematic given the ways that it could be abused by some of the more authoritarian governments in the EU. > Yes, I'm thinking of Viktor Orbán of Hungary. Lol what? The UK leads [edit: in Europe overall, obviously not the EU] with approximately 18 per 100k prosecuted for online speech. Germany is at about 4 per 100k. Poland at about 0.8 per 100k. Hungary about 0.1 per 100K. For any definition…
[flagged]
Re: European Parliament decided that Chat Control 1.0 must stop
#17The linked tweet is a bit misleading. There were 2 votes, one for amending the existing proposal re: "unknown messages", and the other for the whole proposal itself. The screenshot in the tweet is about the amendment, which was less important than the fact than then the whole proposal was rejected. I think this article [0] discussed here [1] is much more informative, and I suggest merging the current comment thread t…
> a screenshot and no context, imho HN can do better than this
There's been an influx of low-quality bluesky links being posted lately, HN either needs to be better enforcing existing rules or we need a new one banning editorialized social posts that then link out to primary articles (just post the actual article without the editorialized social post as intermediary!).
Re: European Parliament decided that Chat Control 1.0 must stop
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is particularly problematic given the ways that it could be abused by some of the more authoritarian governments in the EU. > Yes, I'm thinking of Viktor Orbán of Hungary. Lol what? The UK leads [edit: in Europe overall, obviously not the EU] with approximately 18 per 100k prosecuted for online speech. Germany is at about 4 per 100k. Poland at about 0.8 per 100k. Hungary about 0.1 per 100K. For any definition…
The UK isn't in the EU anymore though.
Germany and Poland are. Does the existence of a non-EU country in a data set about European countries detract from the fact that Hungary doesn't prosecute people for online speech to the same extent as other European (incl. EU) countries?
Re: European Parliament decided that Chat Control 1.0 must stop
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. It is much easier to get people to agree to do questionable things, when there is pressure to "do something". A more limited bill takes off the pressure to "do something", and therefore makes the more extreme bill harder to pass later. In this case there is reason to suspect that the real goal of the bill is not catching pedophiles. Instead it is to give police broader powers of surveillance in the name of c…
> This is particularly problematic given the ways that it could be abused by some of the more authoritarian governments in the EU. > Yes, I'm thinking of Viktor Orbán of Hungary. Lol what? The UK leads [edit: in Europe overall, obviously not the EU] with approximately 18 per 100k prosecuted for online speech. Germany is at about 4 per 100k. Poland at about 0.8 per 100k. Hungary about 0.1 per 100K. For any definition…
Leave it to the British to beat the Germans at their own game.
Re: European Parliament decided that Chat Control 1.0 must stop
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is particularly problematic given the ways that it could be abused by some of the more authoritarian governments in the EU. > Yes, I'm thinking of Viktor Orbán of Hungary. Lol what? The UK leads [edit: in Europe overall, obviously not the EU] with approximately 18 per 100k prosecuted for online speech. Germany is at about 4 per 100k. Poland at about 0.8 per 100k. Hungary about 0.1 per 100K. For any definition…
The issue isn't how much free speech online is being punished. It is how surveillance could be used to reinforce authoritarianism. The UK does a lot of prosecuting people for having said nasty things online that someone else didn't like. Hungary is far more inclined to surveil political opponents, put people in their network in jail without fair trial, surveil successful businesses whose bribes were insufficient, fin…
Sources please