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

The disguised return of EU Chat Control

reclaimthenet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 354 posts

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#181

Post by [deleted] »

karhuton wrote: post #108
pcrh wrote: post #53

The right to privacy is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, article 8 [0]. It escapes me how politicians can repeatedly attempt to violate this. [0] https://fra.europa.eu/en/law-reference/european-convention-h...

”2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right EXCEPT such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” Are we r…

[deleted]

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#182

Post by Muromec »

WinstonSmith84 wrote: post #153
mrtksn wrote: post #85

Denmark has a month and a half as EU presidency to go. I still don't get why they want this to be their legacy so badly.

Genuine question: is that Denmark reintroducing this proposal? It's not clear when it's mentioned "the EU commission's revised proposal..." - and second question, if it's "Denmark", who from Denmark has the authority to do so? Any elected Danish member from the EU council?

EU council works like US senate worked before senators were elected. So the right answer for who is Danish PM.

Not to be confused with EU parliament which is elected by popular vote and EU comission, which is the executive branch of EU and us voted in by Parliament

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#183

Post by sitzkrieg »

pfortuny wrote: post #68
pcrh wrote: post #53

The right to privacy is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, article 8 [0]. It escapes me how politicians can repeatedly attempt to violate this. [0] https://fra.europa.eu/en/law-reference/european-convention-h...

Think of the children. You want the police to solve crimes, right? If you are against this it is because you have something to hide. Also it is more than possible that those politicians do not agree with that Convention.

"having something to hide" or defending a human right. who cares. easy to tell where this one gets their feed

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#184

Post by dns_snek »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #110
dns_snek wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please quantify "a lot". What percentage of the population wants all private communication between adults to be monitored and censored by a government agency? Can we put it to a vote - right after publicly discussing (debunking) all of the false beliefs that its proponents have?

The question that is at the core is “police can wire tap calls but they cannot wire tap chats. Should this change?” The details are not all that important to people.

Legal interception requires a court order, Chat control is mass surveillance.

Trying to build support for mass surveillance by misrepresenting it as targeted tool with checks and balances is exactly the kind of bad faith discourse I'm talking about.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#185

Post by phba »

thewebguyd wrote: post #147
mrtksn wrote: post #85

Denmark has a month and a half as EU presidency to go. I still don't get why they want this to be their legacy so badly.

There are monied interests and special interest groups behind it. No matter who is at the head, it will continue to be pushed by these interests. Europol, Julie Cordua (CEO of Thorn), Cathal Delaney, former Europol who now is on Thorn's board, Alan Parker, billionaire and founder of the Oak Foundation that's been bankrolling the fake charities lobbying for chat control, Chris Cohn, another billionaire and hedge fund…

Adding to that from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_(organization):

> Thorn works with a group of technology partners who serve the organization as members of the Technology Task Force. The goal of the program includes developing technological barriers and initiatives to ensure the safety of children online and deter sexual predators on the Internet.

> Various corporate members of the task force include Facebook, Google, Irdeto, Microsoft, Mozilla, Palantir, Salesforce Foundation, Symantec, and Twitter.

Apparently Thorn scratched that list from their current website, but the Wiki page has an archive link.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#186

Post by sitzkrieg »

eptcyka wrote: post #84
josteink wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So they’re asking American companies to repeal the first amendment rights of American citizens on all websites accessible in the EU. How this not a declaration of war?

I was under the impression that the strong and independent Americans had thicker skin than this.

luckily, this is a sample size of one (1)

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#187

Post by isodev »

oever wrote: post #154

The original article says: "The legislative package could be greenlit tomorrow in a closed-door EU working group session." That was November 12th. On the 13th, Breyer wrote: > Yesterday, EU gov'ts rejected changes to mandatory backdoor #ChatControl & anonymity-destroying age checks. https://digitalcourage.social/@echo_pbreyer/1155418089245415...

Nothing greenlit in a “closed-door EU working group session” can become law. These things need to go through all phases of legislation including the approval of parliament.

So yes, if you don’t like chat control, talk to your MEPs and stop voting in populist ministers and council members/presidents.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#188

Post by jayess »

karhuton wrote: post #108
pcrh wrote: post #53

The right to privacy is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, article 8 [0]. It escapes me how politicians can repeatedly attempt to violate this. [0] https://fra.europa.eu/en/law-reference/european-convention-h...

”2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right EXCEPT such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” Are we r…

Good god what a meaningless "right" where all of the exceptions eat the rule.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#189

Post by 0_gravitas »

sitzkrieg wrote: post #183
pfortuny wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think of the children. You want the police to solve crimes, right? If you are against this it is because you have something to hide. Also it is more than possible that those politicians do not agree with that Convention.

"having something to hide" or defending a human right. who cares. easy to tell where this one gets their feed

I assumed the post was sarcastic, but Poe's Law I suppose, sadly..

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#190

Post by Muromec »

binary132 wrote: post #42

what is it they’re so concerned about people talking about these days exactly anyway?

The usual stuff.

- members of opposition of the wrong kind (as defined by incumbent);

- journalists investigating the government;

(if the incumbent is brazen enough, those above can be and already are selectively targeted with paid exploits)

- political opponents of the wrong kind (aka the extrimists, which kinda overlaps with #1);

- actual enemy combatants (aka the terrorists), spys and traitors;

- organized crime of the day with unwarranted delusions of grandeur (R. Taghi, his antics and aspirations to kill the Dutch PM);

- immigrants and immigrants to be of the wrong kind and people who smuggle them;

Post reply on HN