Live data from Hacker News

The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

mullvad.net

191–200 of 425 posts

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#191
post #2

This is especially important in the age of LLM's. Large scale surveillance while abusive and harmful has historically been limited in scale by the ability of those in control to trawl through data. Automated "moderation" of dragnet communications collection with modern AI holds the potential for a scale of abusive privacy invasion at unprecedented scales.

Just as ML vision and surveillance have been used in China to genocide Uyghurs, LLM and anti-privacy laws will be able to trivially replace the need for human collaborators in the perpetuation of any arbitrary atrocity.

You still need people to perform the actual atrocity once the victims are chosen. That is, unless you also assume military robots, which you didn't list.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#192
post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EU has no army so it can't keep EU countries locked in if they don't want to stay.

Violence isn't the only punishment.

What other punishments does EU have at its disposal?

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#193
post #154
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Funny that you are so confident this is a popular opinion and yet still feel the need to create a throwaway account to voice that opinion.

It is definitely a very popular opinion in the Eastern Europe, for example.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#194
The internet has always been a too good to be true kind of thing, a black swan of human history where the lords and kings and priests didn't control every aspect of the slave's life, it took them 2 to 3 decades but eventually the kings and priests will control our lives.

Of course the reason is because god or X or Y or national security or Z but they'll do it and we'll believe their reasons.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#195
I can‘t believe the citizens of a country have to stand up against mass surveillance every few years. This is nonsense. I guess we‘ll see more approaches like Signal and crypto where digital policy is being executed upon without the involvement of corrupt lawyers.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#196
post #176
post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is whataboutism and derails the conversation. These two things are unrelated.

1. Why do you think 'whataboutism' is a bad thing? It is comparison. Comparison is a fine tool for reasoning about policy. Not the end of the conversation, but something to consider. 2. The corruption of EU politicians is a major concern. If they think so little of privacy that they are willing to vote for laws like this, then they should certainly have to defend why they get any privacy at all. Corruption in governm…

> The corruption of EU politicians is a major concern

Yes. I never said otherwise.

> then they should certainly have to defend why they get any privacy at all

That's the funny bit: they won't. They - and their family - will have the same if they use the same platforms. Which is why I firmly believe this isn't about corruption, this is about false beliefs and zealots who genuinely believe the internet and open communication is bad.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#197
post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes because we saw how easy it is to leave the EU for the UK even though it still has its own currency. Realistically current EU countries are locked in. They aren't allowed to reintroduce their own currency, but doing so is step one towards leaving.

EU has no army so it can't keep EU countries locked in if they don't want to stay.

They're working on raising an army actually:

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-leader-approve-defense-mi...

"EU leaders approve updated military plan. The strategy envisions the creation of an EU rapid deployment force of up to 5,000 soldiers."

However the EU doesn't need a physical army to stop a country leaving. It just needs sufficiently good control of local politics and law enforcement via loyalists in the countries establishment, which it has already. The EU has already proven it can replace governments in Italy and Greece against the will of the electorate, simply via "soft power" mechanisms like access to ECB liquidity, ECJ judgements and control over local institutions.

In other words an inability to leave the EU doesn't look like an army crushing a well organized political opposition. It looks like that opposition being blacklisted from the press, being spied on by the EU secret police, found guilty of vague laws like "misinformation" with judgements upheld by the European courts, votes being tampered with or outright ignored and more.

This is no theoretical problem. Anti-EU referendums in European countries are frequently ignored, even when in theory they are constitutionally binding. In the UK the Electoral Commission, the supposedly neutral body that runs the election and referendum process itself, was run by EU loyalists who professed in public that they wanted Leave to lose and spent significant amounts of time prosecuting Leave campaigners (fortunately their cases were ruled harassment and tossed out by the courts).

The EU Commission also had a long track record of classifying true reports about their activities in the British press as "myths". These days they'd call it misinformation and try to prosecute the journalists in question.

Ultimately it doesn't matter if a majority of the population want to leave, or reject a new EU proposal, if the people who rule them don't care about democracy and control the levers of power. That's how all dictatorships work.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You won't get very far. The EU is an anti-democratic organization.

if the EU is anti democratic, then there's no democracy on this planet. Show me another place where 27 countries live peacefully together and jointly govern an entire sub continent, by collaborating together and discussing publicly about their political proposals. Of course it has its problems, of course it takes a lot of effort to bring 27 countries together on a subject, of course there will be controversial opinio…

>if the EU is anti democratic, then there's no democracy on this planet.

Switzerland is very democratic. People get to vote on individual laws, instead of having 3 different layers of abstraction between who you vote for and what laws are passed.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#199
post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The MEPs don't have the right to change EU law. So it doesn't matter even if they were all voted out and replaced. The commission does what it wants, it's not really a democratic system.

The commission needs a passing vote of approval from the parliament and its president is elected by the parliament. It is a democratic system.

It's not a democratic system and would be easily recognized as such if it were implemented anywhere other than Europe.

Parliament approving what the Commission does is of no use for repealing laws.

The President is not elected by the Parliament. They experimented with that in the Juncker era, now it's back to being controlled (in theory) by the Council. The Parliament was given a "vote" that consisted of a list of options with one name on it. They could literally vote for von der Leyen or not vote at all. Even then she only barely scraped past quorum.

The Council meanwhile isn't democratic. Everything it does is secret. How did von der Leyen get the top job despite being manifestly unsuitable? Nobody knows. It's secret and never leaked.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#200
post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

problem is deregulation and privatisation doesn't work either, because then instead of corrupt politicians who make decisions based on greed despite being told not to, you get CEOs and big corporations who make decisions based on profit (essentially greed) because that is their entire purpose

If you look a bit deeper though; you'll find that greed can lead to good and bad outcomes. People make decisions because in some sense they feel like they will profit personally. That is basically the same as saying they do things for reasons. We know that most people aren't especially principled because they are regularly tested and don't make principle-based decisions. Nevertheless there is a great deal of good in…

how is this different/better for corporations than for politicians? Also how do corporations, that focus their efforts on using the cheapest possible production methods regardless of effects on the environments or peoples' health, paying their workers the absolute minimum for them to continue living, and paying their shareholders the absolute maximum amount 'enrich others' by accident?

Not that I am defending corrupt politicians, I just really don't know what to do about this, and looking at all the bad things corporations do i can't comprehend how they would suddenly become good when even less regulated than they already are

Post reply on HN