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

#231

Post by caterpi11ar » Tue, May 10, 2022, 8:14 PM UTC

Ensorceled wrote: post #162

caterpi11ar wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no interest in discussing The Bible further with you given that you blatantly misrepresented a passage and then shifted the goal posts when questioned about it.

> However, more interestingly, do you think you could cite where (a) the Bible forbids abortion or (b) the Bible makes clear that life begins at any point prior to birth? I too, am interested in this answer and have not misrepresented any biblical passages.

Ok, if you're willing to renounce the style of 14 year old who just saw their first Hitchslap video, I will offer you some Biblical and non-Biblical Christian arguments against abortion. Various Psalms (22, 139) in which the narrator speaks of themselves in the womb being created by God. The Gospel of Luke also uses the same word for an infant before and after He is born. It is also a heresy to suggest that Jesus in the womb was fully God but not Human. Of course, Paul's letters to the Galatians suggests that God had set him apart in the womb, which seems an odd thing to do to a non-living clump of cells.

Given the above information, I don't find the idea that The Bible doesn't directly condemn abortion to be the gotcha that reddit atheists think it is. I think it suggests that life-at-conception was so obvious to the authors that they didn't feel the need to distinguish between abortion and murder, much in the same way that life-at-conception was mainstream biology until the moment it became politicized. The Bible doesn't go very in depth about the benefits of exercise, do we therefore interpret it to suggest we should all get fat, or is this just so obvious that the authors didn't bother to put it in? Should we start using 50 layers of abstraction and euphemism to believe that being fat is fine, just as we do with abortion (oh, we started doing that too).

Furthermore, (and this might surprise you if you are from an American context) most Christians in the world do not believe in Sola Scriptura, the belief that the Bible is the soul source of authority. We also venerate saints and the Church Fathers, and the Church itself (whether it be the Catholic Church or one of several Orthodox Churches), all of which we believe to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Abortion was condemned very early on by the Church Fathers. This is all to say that The Bible is not the soul source of authority for most of the world's Christians and therefore not the soul battleground for the religious debate on abortion.

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

#232

Post by jka » Tue, May 10, 2022, 8:18 PM UTC

pimterry wrote: post #203

jka wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's one regulatory measure that's enforced already and seems to fit within the criteria being described: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1232/oj (agreed, it would be nice to have direct links to the enacted and proposed regulations to compare and understand the language used)

'Enforced' isn't the right word for that legislation - it's a derogation, meaning it's removing rules, not creating them. Specifically, that regulation gives service providers a temporary legal mechanism to continue to scan their own traffic for CSAM, if and only if they want to do so, without breaking the law due to GDPR etc (which otherwise made doing so arguably illegal). It just re-legalized the scanning that ser…

Thanks for the explainer, that makes sense.

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

#233

Post by t0bia_s » Tue, May 10, 2022, 8:18 PM UTC

Of course it has nothing to do with effective search for child porn. They should search for criminals in dark web, not in emails. Seriously, how many abusers would be so dumb to send those pictures by email.

It is same story again and again. Applying collective guilt was always terrible for society. And it is pure principle to implement totalitarian practices.

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

#234

Post by citilife » Tue, May 10, 2022, 8:21 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #201

citilife wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, this is why a lot of people argue everyone shouldn't vote. Basically, if you add some minor barriers to voting you'll get only those who know and care about what's going on to vote. Otherwise, you'll have lemmings. Where people with a bit of propaganda will drive everyone else off the cliff.

"Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" - Churchill There's a reason this quote gets echoed so frequently. Picking special electors to drive the government in a more informed manner is a dangerous path which includes a lot of danger around how to pick those electors. It might be nice if there was a way to fairly f…

The argument I've seen is making a national voting day (everyone's off), then they have to travel to a particular area vote.

You can combine it with ID checks and/or proof of residency.

All of which are minor, but easily doable and universally accessible. You don't need a test, just a little bit of effort to remember to bring your wallet and travel 10-30 minutes.

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

#235

Post by trasz » Tue, May 10, 2022, 8:23 PM UTC

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…

The country with most mass-surveillance in the world is the US, not China. It’s also the country with the highest percentage of incarcerated (with a very evident racial bias), one with much worse moral problems (from Christian fundamentalists restricting basic human rights like bodily freedom, to legalized state corruption which allows companies to essentially buy legal regulations), state-mandated slavery (private prisons), a vastly dysfunctional legal system, police routinely murdering people, healthcare statistics typical for some third world countries, regular school shootings, and privately owned concentration camps for politically incorrect youth.

Sure, China is far from perfect. But the post above is pure propaganda, aligned with general activity of this “mildmotive” account here: American right-wing political shilling.

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

#236

Post by srcreigh » Tue, May 10, 2022, 8:25 PM UTC

JCWasmx86 wrote: post #166

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…

No matter what, mass surveillance is always wrong. Mass surveillance is basically for against every constitution, Grundgesetz, declaration of rights that is worth its salt

Are you saying the FBI doesn't inquire to FB about chats for reasons?

It seems to be the status quo in US, Russia, China at least.

Why tolerate it there, while not tolerating it in smaller countries too?

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

#237

Post by logifail » Tue, May 10, 2022, 8:27 PM UTC

rsync wrote: post #168

rektide wrote: post #34

I really really look forward to a world where internet service providers simply stop bowing to shitty unhealthy demands of sovereign powers. I (admittedly, a no-one) have no intent to respect this & every intent to eacallate my efforts to help people fight off pernicious piece of shit legislation. On the plus side, the pushes towards hosting-it-yourself keep going up. The fact that all our rights online are granted b…

"I really really look forward to a world where internet service providers simply stop bowing to shitty unhealthy demands of sovereign powers." rsync.net is not an ISP, but … way ahead of you there: https://rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt Every Monday morning for 16 years.

> Every Monday morning for 16 years

Not wishing to seem defeatist, but if the Feds pitched up and threatened you with "bad things" if you didn't a) bow to their demands and b) keep signing the coming weeks' canary messages, how would we [strangers] be expected to detect this?

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

#238

Post by [deleted] » Tue, May 10, 2022, 8:34 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)…

[deleted]

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

#239

Post by Ensorceled » Tue, May 10, 2022, 8:36 PM UTC

caterpi11ar wrote: post #231

Ensorceled wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, more interestingly, do you think you could cite where (a) the Bible forbids abortion or (b) the Bible makes clear that life begins at any point prior to birth? I too, am interested in this answer and have not misrepresented any biblical passages.

Ok, if you're willing to renounce the style of 14 year old who just saw their first Hitchslap video, I will offer you some Biblical and non-Biblical Christian arguments against abortion. Various Psalms (22, 139) in which the narrator speaks of themselves in the womb being created by God. The Gospel of Luke also uses the same word for an infant before and after He is born. It is also a heresy to suggest that Jesus in…

> Ok, if you're willing to renounce the style of 14 year old who just saw their first Hitchslap video

Well, this is a pleasant, open minded start... but thank you for the references.

> much in the same way that life-at-conception was mainstream biology until the moment it became politicized.

I think most mainstream biologist believe that a fetus is living cells and, hence, life. Most mainstream biologists would not, and did not, agree that humanity begins a conception, similarly most would agree a human is dead upon brain death and not "alive" simply because the corpse still has a heart beat. This is a discussion that was foisted upon biology and politicized, not vice versa.

The abortion debate is a fundamentally a religious debate, so it's good to understand it from that point of view.

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

#240

Post by tablespoon » Tue, May 10, 2022, 8:43 PM UTC

reedjosh wrote: post #214

tablespoon wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Without government we at least had choice. Yes, the choice between surrendering to the bandit (who happens to be stronger than you) or getting shot by him.

> the choice between surrendering to the bandit (who happens to be stronger than you) or getting shot by him. "bandit" AKA government.

> "bandit" AKA government.

No, sorry. If you're thinking using excessively coarse categories like "governments," you're going to get things pretty wrong in most cases.

If that's too hard, then try this: if you think the government-as-bandit is bad, it'll be a heck of a lot worse when you're dealing with bandits-as-bandits, who don't even theoretically have any accountability to or responsibility for you.

Individuals are extremely weak; groups are pretty much always stronger. If you don't want to bullied as a weak individual, you need to band together with others, but then you're subject to how the group governs itself.