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

The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

mastodon.online

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 300 posts

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#221

Post by Saline9515 »

vanviegen wrote: post #126
Xelbair wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's democratic deficit in the whole system as this issue wasn't part of most internal election campaigns, effectively circumventing democratic process, due to lack of input from citizens themselves. EU severely lacks checks and balances if it tries to be something more than trade union.

Are you suggesting the existence democracies that only ever implement policies that were a significantly theme during elections?

The EC has no democratic control, their members are not elected, only the commissioners are "approved" by the european parliament. Its actions are also obfuscated and mostly non-public (as we saw in the ChatControl case, for instance), so citizens hardly even know what's happening.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#222

Post by 36890752189743 »

7bit wrote: post #112
Zealotux wrote: post #57

In the ancient Greek colony of Locri, any who proposed a new law would do so with a rope around their neck, if the law was voted down, they would get hanged. Food for thought.

[flagged]

Won't someone think of the regime? :(

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#223

Post by csomar »

Telaneo wrote: post #179
Jigsy wrote: post #153

The problem with "child abuse" is that some countries classify drawing things as "child abuse," or "rape," or "animal abuse." (Something I don't agree with.) I mentioned in another thread a few weeks back that I got raided by the British police last February for "uploading/downloading "illegal" anime artwork on one of the (anime) artwork websites we're criminally investigating." (Yes, the British police are criminall…

I'd be curious what would happen if you pointed the relevant authorities at any decently sized store selling manga. There's got to be at least one stereotypical sexualised 4000 year old loli vampire or whatever in there. The sad truth is probably that they'd just shrug their arms and do nothing, since the surveillance and harassment is the point, and not even upholding the letter of the law, and much less its spirit.

The people in the system have to do something to justify the existence of such a system and bump their metrics. Whether someone did something bad or not is irrelevant. It is the job of the prosecution lawyers to figure out the grounds. Legality and culpability is a paperwork.

Of course, if someone is rich and powerful (ehm, epsty, ehm) then the whole system will look the other way around. At least until it's impossible to do so. Then such a person and his footprint will just disappear in the same big bureaucracy that is doing this.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#224

Post by hexbin010 »

pcrh wrote: post #56
IlikeKitties wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are already MANY laws in the EU and Germany for me regarding privacy. All the proposals are blatantly illegal in Germany for example. Just recently our highest court declared large scale logging of DNS request as "very likely" illegal.

A decent example being Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights: >1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. >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 econ…

Exactly, great quote from the ECHR. Massive blanket exceptions for the prevention of crime or disorder

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#225

Post by hexbin010 »

IlikeKitties wrote: post #34
hexbin010 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are already MANY laws in the EU and Germany for me regarding privacy Which apply equally to the government?

Yeah, a lot of them apply explicitly to the government. In Germany at least most privacy laws flow from Article 10 of our constitution and for example Article 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Both of which have been used in the past to explicitly remove laws that violated privacy in the name of security.

Germany is definitely a standout. I was taking issue with the blanket reference to the EU

The UK when it was in the EU for example had no problem basically doing whatever it liked, relying on exceptions for preventing crime and disorder. I'm sure there are other countries

Or like a sibling comment about Italy, who said that the government just ignores the privacy laws

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#226

Post by csomar »

left-struck wrote: post #162
Jigsy wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Watching anime, looking at anime artwork, reading manga since 2006. Why else would you criminally investigate artwork websites if your aim is not to arrest artists and those who look at their artwork? (And eventually use them as an excuse to show why encryption is evil, and how "evil artists" could be caught more easily if it was backdoored.) If you're looking for news, there won't be any yet as, as I said, I'm still…

I think it really depends on what kind of anime you’re talking about. Like if you’re watching one piece fan art and the British police raided you, absolutely ridiculous. If you’re looking at naked artistic depictions of minors then it’s clearly not just “anime artwork”. BTW I’m not saying that someone who looks at that should be treated the same way as someone who harms a child but I’m just saying the cultural accept…

How do you determine that though? Do you put the pictures in front of a jury? I am riding the metro daily in a big Asian city and I am pretty sure many of the "anime" ads will be unacceptable on the other side of the world.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#227

Post by bregma »

elestor wrote: post #195
vbezhenar wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the point of criminalising hand-made pictures? I just don't understand it. I could understand the point of criminalising child porn photos, as producing these photos obviously requires violating other laws (actually not obviously, as you can dress adult actors to look like children, but whatever). But things that are obviously drawn without any involvement of real children, what's wrong with them? Just keep th…

I'd say it makes a lot of sense. It likely encourages pedophilia, meaning people that consume such things will often adopt a wrong idea of what's okay. It's similar to the way that regular porn affects the brain. I understand where you're coming from, though and I get your point, but I feel if someone consumes a lot of media of a certain type, they begin to 'embody' that media. Just don't goon.

Ah, yes, the gateway drug trope. Always a good one for asserting control indirectly. Inevitably results in increased profits for the purveyors of the gateway drug and no reduction in demand or consumption. Prosecutors and jailors get richer too. Follow the money.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#228

Post by Xelbair »

rowanG077 wrote: post #115
Xelbair wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it preposterous that anyone defends this agenda that flips concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' on it's head by collectively punishing everyone for POSSIBLE crimes of some individuals. In a way that any criminal will be easily able to circumvent by not following the law, so it doesn't even achieve it's goal.For example with one time pad exchanged outside of Eu's control + stenography messaging, bundled in…

Which lobbying group?

Thorn

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#229

Post by Xelbair »

vanviegen wrote: post #126
Xelbair wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's democratic deficit in the whole system as this issue wasn't part of most internal election campaigns, effectively circumventing democratic process, due to lack of input from citizens themselves. EU severely lacks checks and balances if it tries to be something more than trade union.

Are you suggesting the existence democracies that only ever implement policies that were a significantly theme during elections?

I'm suggesting that there are enough layers of interdiction, that you can easily 'wash' political fallout and push legislation that would otherwise get you voted out of office in local elections.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#230

Post by aaronmdjones »

fylo wrote: post #132
zen928 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intentionally misinformed citizens continued to charge the streets demanding "essential services" like barber shops need to be reopened and to intentionally dismantle and resist against all government protections on public safety during the pandemic (like wearing a mask during an active spreading event), literally while their grandparents and relatives slowly and painfully died on respirators in hospitals largely agr…

Masks and protocols around them were largely just theatre though. Only very expensive n95 or better type masks, which were properly fitted and handled would actually provide any sort of protection from covid. Even the eventual proponents of masks initially were against the idea as in many ways many of the responses to covid were directed politically, not practically.

The mask mandates weren't to protect you, they were to protect others from you. If everyone did this, the spread would have been massively reduced, and super-spreader events wouldn't have happened anywhere near as much.

Unfortunately, a great many people simply refused to distance and wear a mask, and then when they became infected, spread it far and wide, sometimes not even aware that they were doing so. Approximately 40% of those infected were asymptomatic, meaning they would feel fine but still make others around them sick (or end up killing them).

Post reply on HN