121–130 of 259 posts
it seems it is the general Zeitgeist in Europe. Also in Switzerland and generally erosions of Privacy laws all across the continent. The governments are scared of insurgencies from the right, from the left, from immigrants, from foreign nations. Paranoia and fear are quite prominent.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The EU commission is appointed by elected governments, with one level of indirection. It is thus as democratically legitimized as any ministerial role in any government, or as the US presidency. Please do not spread disinformation.
The commission is appointed in back-room deals by "elected" governments which are in turn often only indirectly appointed by parliaments. From your nickname I do infer you are from Germany, where ministers are not elected and the chancellor is not elected by the voters. Instead the chancellor is elected by the Bundestag, which was elected by the voters, but only after the usual back-room deals of forming a coalition.…
Is there any democratic power by your standards? You are moving the goal posts so far I don't think anything fits your narrow definition.
"the EU wants to scan your messages" implies its every member state and not one freak from Denmark putting this forward where it will die. The EU has always been 90 days from passing mass surveliance for the last decade. Until member states start actually backing this these articles are nothing but click bait.
I'm sure this is what they said about the UK Inline Safety Act (2023) but guess what, it's here, and live.
Do you know what's even funnier with the UK? Parliament has most of the power
I am ambivalent about news like this. On one hand it is a terrible proposal that deserves exposure to generate pushback. On the other hand it is still just a proposal , of which there are many (stupid ones) which never see the light of day. This still needs to pass the European Parliament (which is generally opposed to this, not in the least because it is very unpopular under EU citizens). Even then the chances of it…
Only needs to succeed once. It only takes some incapable judges, who don't have any idea how encryption works, and of those I am certain there are many. Once such a thing gets through, it would take time to be reversed, if at all possible. Whoever puts forth such ideas should be the first to show all their private communication. It shouldn't just be for the common citizens. How quickly the idea would be dropped ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And from a Dane here, it's far from isolated to one Danish freak: the majority of parties support Chat Control.
I generally love Denmark from all my heart, but this is one big exception. Like wtf, vikings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The commission is appointed in back-room deals by "elected" governments which are in turn often only indirectly appointed by parliaments. From your nickname I do infer you are from Germany, where ministers are not elected and the chancellor is not elected by the voters. Instead the chancellor is elected by the Bundestag, which was elected by the voters, but only after the usual back-room deals of forming a coalition.…
Is the US democratic by any sensible nature? Their president, too, is appointed by electors. Is there any democratic power by your standards? You are moving the goal posts so far I don't think anything fits your narrow definition.
The US is actually more democratic than e.g. Germany, because the president is elected by the people (though indirectly), not by parliament. Therefore a political oligarchy could be prevented, because the majority in parliament and the president can check on each other, and the president is more accountable to the voters than to parliament.
Generally there is a sliding scale of course, but the less directly officials are elected, the less democratic a country is. A common example would be a soviet (engl. "council") republic, which isn't considered democratic at all, even though it has tons of elections: Each factory/town/village elects a local workers's council, which in turn elects a county council, which elects a regional council, which elects a state council, which elects a national council, which elects the council of ministers, which elects the chairman. Tons of filters that make absolutely certain that the will of the party and state always supercedes the will of the people.
"the EU wants to scan your messages" implies its every member state and not one freak from Denmark putting this forward where it will die. The EU has always been 90 days from passing mass surveliance for the last decade. Until member states start actually backing this these articles are nothing but click bait.
It's a stochastic process with a ratchet. Eventually it'll pass in a moment of temporary fervour.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It really depends on the "use case." Regulators are primarily concerned about grooming, which involves criminals using apps that teenagers frequent. Also, criminals usually have poor operational security—far from perfect. The seriousness of the offense isn't related to the quality of their opsec. Regulators and law enforcement are generally rational. They may be short-sighted, but they often have reasonable explanati…
As a parent, I can tell you it's insanely easy to manage allowing kids online. Don't.. or 100% supervised. Done
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, 100%. I grew up in Europe, and have been in the US for the last 10+ years, with all of my family still in Europe. I think this gives me reasonable feel for the "situation on the ground." The best way I can describe my social circles in the US and EU is that in the US, we still have "principled freedom", where there (still) is a majority of people that understand the original ideas of the founding fathers, and ca…
I feel like this is an absurd position to take when people are literally being snatched off the street and being sent to torture camps in the US. The tyranny is much closer there than in the EU.
That is of course a gross misrepresentation of what is happening (and I'm being charitable here).