Chat control: EU Commission presents mass surveillance plan on May 11 • Hacker News Board

Re: Chat control: EU Commission presents mass surveillance plan on May 11

#151

Post by dathinab » Tue, May 10, 2022, 6:48 PM UTC

reedjosh wrote: post #27

fabatka wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understand this apparent motive of "elected officials getting power hungry". How would this legislation make the people in the EU Commission more powerful? Am I just lacking imagination?

> Am I just lacking imagination? Yes. The EU is becoming a totalitarian regional government of elites. Originally it wasn't even supposed to have a military presence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_forces_of_the_European... It was supposed to prevent the need of passports. https://www.covidpasscertificate.com/europe-digital-green-pa... All the good things are going out the door and all the bad things are walki…

Nono, you are getting all your facts wrong.

> Originally it wasn't even supposed to have a military presence.

Because each country has its own military presence and they all already cooperate anyway together in the NATO so they already had a connected military presence as part of NATO. The reason they consider making that plan explicit is due to a massive lost of trust in the US and realization that the US will put its interest before their interest. If you look at politics in the US in recent years a very sane thing to do.

EDIT: I mixed up passport and official ID below, still not needing a passport (or more precise being able to use your ID as passport) was more a beneficial side effect then a core goal.

> It was supposed to prevent the need of passports.

No definitely not. All or at least many of the EU countries have relatively strict requirements for citizens owing a passport. Strict as in _it being legal required for all adults_. You always had been required to carry a passport when traveling in the EU you just practically could (and still can) travel a lot without showing it. Having a passport is the norm in the EU, you won't get more or less anything done without. For EU citicens it can be quite hard to understand why "requiring a passport" (e.g. for votes) is a problem in the US, as it isn't in general in the EU.

> totalitarian regional government of elites

No, it's a mess without question. But it's very far away from being totalitarian. Or at least most member states are. There are a few problematic exceptions.

Re: Chat control: EU Commission presents mass surveillance plan on May 11

#152

Post by Tade0 » Tue, May 10, 2022, 6:49 PM UTC

codeguro wrote: post #95

colinmhayes wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Without government we at least had choice. I don't consider "give me your stuff or I beat you" a choice.

Get a firearm and train with it. Your government prevents you from defending yourself effectively.

Great solution for adult, able-bodied people. Much less so for minors, the elderly and the blind.

Re: Chat control: EU Commission presents mass surveillance plan on May 11

#153

Post by JasonFruit » Tue, May 10, 2022, 6:49 PM UTC

schroeding wrote: post #50

I'm just tired, to be honest. Even if we prevent this exact law (proposal), a few years down the line there probably will be another attempt. And again, and again. Just like it happend with the mandatory data retention laws for ISPs. I really try to stay optimistic on this topic, but it's really hard. :/

It's kind of like when a website begs for permission to use your location over and over even though you say no every time, until you screw up and say yes — and then you never hear about it again. These ideas arise over and over until one makes it through, and then we have lost that bit of liberty for good.

Re: Chat control: EU Commission presents mass surveillance plan on May 11

#154

Post by TheFreim » Tue, May 10, 2022, 6:51 PM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #61

joebob42 wrote: post #6

I don't understand who wants this. does any of their actual constituency want it? Or is it literally just the actual elected officials getting power hungry? Stuff like abortion, etc where I don't really understand the other side. I've at least met real people who are pro life. I've never met the people who want these clownish surveillance things but they keep coming up anyways.

Abortion is especially strange since a supermajority of Americans, across the political spectrum, of both genders, generally agree that some abortions should be permitted [1]. 70% want to keep the status quo. [2] It's even arguably a violation of the religious freedom of Jewish folks to ban abortion [3]. It's not forbidden by the Bible either - the Bible makes it clear that life begins 'at first breath' (Genesis 2:7)…

> It's even arguably a violation of the religious freedom of Jewish folks to ban abortion

This argument, and arguments like it, miss the nature of the issue.

If abortion is the immoral killing of an innocent human being/person, as pro-lifers claim, then it doesn't matter if it's a Christian/jewish/other religious ritual [see note] (we don't allow child sacrifice even if it's a sincerely held religious ritual).

If abortion is amoral, simply removing unwanted cells/not violating the rights of any individual then and only then does the religious ritual argument for remaining legal make sense.

To summarize, the "religious ritual" argument only works if you presume that the pro-choice view is correct. If pro-life claims are correct it's irrelevant. This and similar arguments distract from the true issue and prevent people from understanding the other.

---

Note: I understand abortion isn't necessarily a "ritual" in Judaism, just that it's permitted (mandated?) in certain situations. I simply use the term "ritual" to signify either a ritual or a religiously allowed practice.

Re: Chat control: EU Commission presents mass surveillance plan on May 11

#155

Post by ronsor » Tue, May 10, 2022, 6:52 PM UTC

codeguro wrote: post #127

13415 wrote: post #65

How is this law supposed to work with text encryption? Write text, encrypt, copy to clipboard, paste into chat app? Will such encryption applications be prohibited? That seems unenforcable, these apps are everywhere, I've even written one with symmetric encryption myself.

It doesn’t. You cannot legislate math. You cannot change the laws of physics either. These so called “laws” will do absolutely nothing to stop or even deter an committed criminal from so much as sharing child porn. It’s completely unenforceable. Public key encryption is even more powerful than symmetric encryption because it gives everyone the ability to establish a shared secret completely out in the open, effective…

Of course you can legislate math. For example, the only law that matters in Australia is the law of Australia[0].

[0] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140747-laws-of-mathema...

Re: Chat control: EU Commission presents mass surveillance plan on May 11

#156

Post by mdp2021 » Tue, May 10, 2022, 6:54 PM UTC

DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #92

mildmotive wrote: post #26

These tyrants have to be stopped. A tyrannical government is far more dangerous to people, including children than your regular criminal. Ironically, by giving the state too much power and therefore increasing the symptoms of corruption, we allow the same sort of crimes to be practiced by corrupt state officials with little means for people enact accountability. China, the country with the most mass-surveillance in t…

from the first paragraph of the article: > This will require them to monitor and scan the communications of citizens en masse – even if they are still securely encrypted end-to-end so far. Seems the Belgian push to ban E2EE / Signal isn't an isolated case and part of a wider campaign: https://www.bitsoffreedom.nl/2022/05/10/belgium-wants-to-ban...

Very interesting: that proposal from some belgian part effectively destroys the ability for people (selectively speaking) to use communication technologies. If people could not use "Signal and similar", still supposed to radically avoid any profiling product, they would have to abandon IP-based telephony and messaging altogether.

It's not really a small matter.

Re: Chat control: EU Commission presents mass surveillance plan on May 11

#157

Post by Andrew_nenakhov » Tue, May 10, 2022, 6:55 PM UTC

In the past few years, every shit done to internet freedoms in Russia (mass surveillance, censorship, blocking, etc) was done under the pretense of fighting terrorism or protecting children (don't you want to protect children, you monsters!). Then, of course, it was used to suppress political opposition and dissidents.

This will happen in EU too, if it'll pass. Have wrong views on immigration/abortion/vaccination/economy/gender/sexuality? Your citizen rights after suspended, bank accounts frozen, kids taken away, etc. It is imperative to stop such initiatives in their infancy.

Re: Chat control: EU Commission presents mass surveillance plan on May 11

#158

Post by mrsuprawsm » Tue, May 10, 2022, 6:56 PM UTC

8345570934 wrote: post #139

neither_color wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting how EU regulators build good will through stunts like mandating USB-C or forcing open the App Store and GDPR protections and then turn around and do stuff like this.

I think the people who support things like mandating USB-C, forcing open the App Store, and GDPR are misguided at best. These are significant transfers of power from the (mostly) organic and consensual realm of individuals and businesses to the coercive realm of state force. You can always buy an android phone (with USB-C) and use GrapheneOS, F-droid, Tutanota, Brave Search, Odysee, Mastodon, Matrix, etc. to get most…

>and for the annoying cookie warnings

These are from companies who are too lazy to properly comply with the GDPR, or worse, plainly illegal. It's not the fault of the GDPR that many companies choose not to be compliant. (The national regulators should absolutely clamp down harder on these non-compliant cookie popups)

Re: Chat control: EU Commission presents mass surveillance plan on May 11

#159

Post by lapinot » Tue, May 10, 2022, 6:57 PM UTC

DocTomoe wrote: post #57

srcreigh wrote: post #45

Here's the uncommon opinion. Google/FB, by extension US government, already performs mass surveillance. There are actually 2 solutions to this problem. One is stopping Google/FB. The other is making mass surveillance more common, lessening the impact of mass surveillance. In that sense non-US govs taking mass surveillance is a boon to power balances and competition amongst nations and economies. Does this opinion hav…

Neither Google nor Facebook has built concentration camps in the past. The same can not be said about state actors. Thus, private companies, especially those in some other country, are inherently more trustworthy than a local government body could ever be.

Apart from your point being a complete non-sequitur (an example doesn't prove anything), you ought to look at the history of IG Farben (aka Bayer, BASF and other). Or how privatisation is getting to the carceral industry (thank you USA for giving the world the signal that this is the way to go). Or how Total and others high-stakes companies are mixed up with private mercenaries and dealing with terrorists in the middle east. Or how child labour is conveniently hidden behind layers of subcontracting in the electronic and fashion industry.

Private companies are all over the place in the facist avant-garde (and this is very relevant today).

At least i can vote, inquiry and have theoretically have some means of insight and control into my state, because afaik i don't have these powers, not even in theory, for private megacorps (which in fact have quite much in common with states).

Re: Chat control: EU Commission presents mass surveillance plan on May 11

#160

Post by gambiting » Tue, May 10, 2022, 6:57 PM UTC

joebob42 wrote: post #6

I don't understand who wants this. does any of their actual constituency want it? Or is it literally just the actual elected officials getting power hungry? Stuff like abortion, etc where I don't really understand the other side. I've at least met real people who are pro life. I've never met the people who want these clownish surveillance things but they keep coming up anyways.

Really? I meet "regular"(non tech) people all the time who really believe that full surveillance is the only way to stop pedophiles and terrorists and all kinds of criminals - and who absolutely have no issue with any of this. You can try using the usual privacy-focussed arguments with them but it all falls on deaf ears.