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

221–230 of 354 posts

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#221

Post by hunterpayne »

realusername wrote: post #155
karhuton wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

”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…

It depends the version of the declaration, the french one has zero exception listed.

Is that the same France which arrested the CEO of a E2E chat provider (without even trumped up charges) and forced them to make backdoors for them?

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#223

Post by saubeidl »

josteink wrote: post #93
petcat wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"First Amendment Rights" only applies to the State, not private companies. For example, Hacker News has no obligation to preserve your "First Amendment Rights" on this website. They are free to mute you, ban you, or even just surreptitiously change what you say without you knowing.

That’s just semantics. If a website which otherwise wouldn’t censor you begins to censor you because of threats from foreign nations, that’s a foreign nation pressuring an American company into suppressing rights of American citizens. That’s a foreign nation imposing on your rights. In the past that used to require an invasion, so it was a bit more obvious what was happening, but the result is still the same. Yes it’…

It isn't your right to comment on somebody else's website. Your argument makes no sense.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#224

Post by throw-qqqqq »

Y-bar wrote: post #214
throw-qqqqq wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Denmark mostly has authoritative politicians in government. Pragmatic and without ideology. The misguided tools believe they are doing us all a big favor. They handwavingly dismiss all privacy-related criticism with “well our experts say something else!” and insist there are no privacy issues - but at the same time require exemption for their own caste.

Denmark is a strange nation with regards to liberty and personal belongings: https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/4963/Denmark:-Exemptin...

This was done to appease the racist voters, who are unfortunately a relatively big factor here.

The law was installed in 2016, (colloquially called “Smykkeloven”/The Jewelry Law) after Syrian refugees walked up through Europe and Denmark, and a myth arose about super rich refugees with bags full of gold.. in 2022 this law had been used in 17 instances.

I cannot roll my eyes enough at the policians here.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#225

Post by shkkmo »

macintux wrote: post #161
josteink wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you’re just going to accept a digital invasion happening and not care, because of some semantics and details somewhere in a document which was penned 200 years prior to the internet being invented? I don’t know about you, but to me that seems kind of naive and short sighted.

You can object to the "digital invasion", but using the phrase "freedom of speech" as some sort of magical shield is pointless. > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The U.S. federal…

> That's where the legal authority ends.

So you see no problem with using jurisdiction washing like Five Eyes to remove our rights?

If we don't tolerate a government we elect abridging our freedom of speech, why would we accept a foreign government doing that?

When foreign governments try to force conpanies to abridge free speech by Americans on American soil, that is an attack on something that we deem important enough to have enshrined in our constitution.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#226

Post by throw-qqqqq »

dmix wrote: post #151
throw-qqqqq wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Denmark mostly has authoritative politicians in government. Pragmatic and without ideology. The misguided tools believe they are doing us all a big favor. They handwavingly dismiss all privacy-related criticism with “well our experts say something else!” and insist there are no privacy issues - but at the same time require exemption for their own caste.

The EU and European parliaments are very much on the technocracy side, where they defer to experts and studies for everything instead of focusing on the popular interests of the public https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy

I would not categorize Denmark as particularly technocratic, on the contrary. Many politicians here go against science and research because “I simply disagree”.

Populism largely runs Denmark.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#227

Post by eastbound »

Y-bar wrote: post #214
throw-qqqqq wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Denmark mostly has authoritative politicians in government. Pragmatic and without ideology. The misguided tools believe they are doing us all a big favor. They handwavingly dismiss all privacy-related criticism with “well our experts say something else!” and insist there are no privacy issues - but at the same time require exemption for their own caste.

Denmark is a strange nation with regards to liberty and personal belongings: https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/4963/Denmark:-Exemptin...

Denmark is pretty famous for the fact that people consider themselves pretty centrist and moderate, while the policies they implement, each analyzed separately, are the most leftist of all the EU on all modern topics (ie not classical communism of course - just climate change, women, immigration etc). But when you’re surrounded with likeminded people and little diversity of the press, it sounds logical.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#228

Post by rambojohnson »

the comment thread here is obnoxiously naive, and speaks to the privilege some people having been raised under the calm of supposedly democratic societies.

you're all arguing about the syntax of rights while governments rewrite the grammar. once a state decides ubiquitous surveillance is necessary, it’ll find or fabricate a justification. the "law" doesn’t restrain power, power instructs law where to kneel.

stop treating the ECHR like some talisman that keeps the wolves at bay, as if authoritarian drift politely obeys paperwork. stop playing with this whole “actually, the loophole is X,” “no, the loophole is Y,” like you're debugging a bad API instead of staring at the obvious: when a state wants to expand surveillance, it does, and the justifications are retrofitted later, be it "public safety", or "keeping your children safe."

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#229

Post by pcrh »

Muromec wrote: post #215
pcrh wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do EU treaties per se contain any language that might be relevant to privacy? It seems axiomatic that legal systems contain provisions that prevent their violation. However, democracy requires that laws are voted on by elected representatives or plebiscites, which can of course mean repealing prior laws. However the EU institutions are not sovereign, which might be the loophole here? Edit: I'm aware that the EU is on…

There is no loophole really, EU can repeal it's own laws the same way it passes them -- it needs to get the commission, the parliament and enough national governments on board. >Do EU treaties per se contain any language that might be relevant to privacy? Doesn't matter really. No right in any treaty is absolute. Not even the right to life itself -- the police can and does shoot people and it's legal for them to do u…

Most rights are held in balance, as you describe.

However, mass surveillance cannot reasonably be held in balance with detection of crimes, as most people are not criminals

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#230

Post by rambojohnson »

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...

it escapes you because all these treaty clauses read like safeguards, but in practice they’re just friction. Once a government decides it needs mass surveillance for ‘security,’ the law bends. The real question isn’t what the ECHR allows... it’s why people still think legal frameworks can meaningfully restrain a state that has already decided not to be restrained.

it escapes me hwo so many can be so naive.

Post reply on HN