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

EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

patrick-breyer.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 360 posts

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#231

Post by t0bia_s »

squigz wrote: post #71
Wytwwww wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We learnt the value of free speech the hard way, and very slowly Did we though? Unfortunately outside the US and a handful of other places free speech doesn't seem to be valued that much, often it's even viewed as a threat (and I'm not talking about authoritarian regimes). It's a double-edged sword to be fair, enabling misinformation and chaos.

> Unfortunately outside the US and a handful of other places free speech doesn't seem to be valued that much, often it's even viewed as a threat Can you convince me of this? Because it's not my impression.

Shutting down so called Russian-propaganda sites on DNS level, hate speech regulations, mantra about disinformation regulations, even though nobody can define disinformation legislatively, remove access to bank accounts because of supporting protest against goverment, unavailable books to buy that are too extreme even though few years ago they were fine... It's all driven by politics.

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#232

Post by squigz »

ziggy_star wrote: post #227
squigz wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't actually agree. I just wanted to see how you'd respond.

Yes it was obvious bait mr 5d chess. Nobody looking at this thinks it is mysterious either.

Honestly I can't even handle normal chess.

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#233

Post by KoolKat23 »

margana wrote: post #163
contravariant wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like the Netherlands is already opposed, for what good that will do. Any useful links to share with people?

For any regulation or directive to pass, it needs to pass both the Parliament and the Council. Passing the Council means it needs unanimous approval from every member country. I don't see what "blocking majority" the article refers to, one country should be enough. Unless they mean stop it even before it reaches a Council vote, in which case that might be true.

It's a council of the EU vote (as apposed to an EU council vote, different council). Within certain treaties (in this case the Lisbon treaty), certain matters only need a qualified majority (>55% of countries, 15 approximately, and to represent>65% of EU population).

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#234

Post by ffgjgf1 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #81
belter wrote: post #7

EU is, and always was, a compensation job for failed national politicians at their respective national levels. It's the trade horse for allowing your party buddies to take over the government jobs. EU politicians should keep their over inflated salaries, and stick to what they are good at. Meeting with Google and Microsoft lobbyists at the best Brussels luxury restaurants.

EU was established to provide mutual economic and military security in Europe on a federal model following WW2, and it's done very well in that aim. Of course it's not perfect, but shallow takes like the one above provide nothing of value.

> established to provide mutual economic and military security in Europe

Yes and it was/is very successful at that. The overpaid and incompetent bureaucracy in Brussels seems to be mostly tangential if not detrimental to that.

Also to be fair your take is also very shallow and provides little value.

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#235

Post by rightbyte »

consumer451 wrote: post #72
dauertewigkeit wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hate speech accusations are a bit like being accused of rape. Once it happens you automatically get tainted and it is very hard to defend yourself in the public sphere, even if the accusations are totally unfounded. This is of course abused by evil people. Moreover, what counts as hate speech can very suddenly alter depending on whoever is in charge, and even if the public don't go along with it, it can still be used…

I am not directing this at you, or anyone here, truly. However, this XKCD always come to mind whenever I hear the topics of hate speech and free speech mentioned within proximity of each other: https://xkcd.com/1357/

Social control, 'showing the door', is abused to silence dissidents.

Plenty of methaforical ideological death marches on different topics could have been avoided by social gatekeepers not having the social power to silence their friends or party co-members.

Pretending the question is really about someone being rude is patronizing by XKCD.

The concept of 'showing the door' is fine for practical reasons but the other present at the party need to follow in protest on any just so slightly transgression of power.

So now when authoritarianism and racism are in fashion again in ”the West”, those political movements that oppose it are in a quite bad spot, since freedom of thought and expression have been turned down to do a shortsighted delay of the shift in the first place.

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#236

Post by DoingIsLearning »

pas wrote: post #156
pera wrote: post #69

The proposal leaked a few weeks ago[1] is extremely vague on this matter and does not clarify how providers should detect CSAM "prior to transmission". Is anyone aware of any sort of scanning technology that can be implemented purely on the client side? Note that the leaked text says that it should be able to detect known and new abuse material. [1] https://cdn.netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/2024/05/2024-05-28_Cou...

The question is always about the circumstances. In the "think of the children" scenario the parents are incentivized to consent to some filter. (So they or someone(!!!) gets an alert if the boogeyman is talking to their kids, asking them to send nudes, or sending dick pics.) See recital 13 on top of page 7 for the definition. And see 17 on bottom of page 8 for this: "To allow for innovation and ensure proportionality…

How does something like this avoid false positives?

A pretty common example in my circle is parents taking pictures of baby rashes/pimples/blisters etc to send to family doctor or doctor friends.

It sounds like a situation where every parent with a toddler will end up on some list.

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#237

Post by t0bia_s »

kragen wrote: post #162
slg wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Free speech absolutists like myself I think one of the main problems "free speech absolutist" have is that they chose such an awkward phrase to self-identify themselves. The word "absolutist" is so unambiguous that it implies that seemingly no one would qualify for it besides true loons which makes the whole idea easy to dismiss. When you really get down to it, almost everyone supports some type of restriction on sp…

see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40712506 for my argument that making child porn illegal protects abusers more than abuse victims. i guess that makes me a free speech absolutist?

It remains me how I created stations of cross recently with a help of Midjourney... I was not allowed to put words ”virgin" and "jews" in prompt. Clearly, my intentions was not to harm anyone.

Without responsibility there is no free speech. Making bunch of regulations, collective guilt etc. wont learn those few abusers why their actions might harm others.

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#238

Post by KoolKat23 »

This whole thing stinks.

The relentless push, I feel may mean some American contractors are demanding their pound of flesh.

https://mullvad.net/en/why-privacy-matters/going-dark

They should be checking the bank statements of those on the EU payroll, and who are relentlessly pushing this. Make sure everything is above board.

Re: EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow

#239

Post by elric »

pantalaimon wrote: post #14
elric wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an interesting thread ... they claim they won't be compliant, which I applaud, but what will happen is that unwitting Signal users will end up being targeted by law enforcement. There are already precedents of people with "secure" phones or encrypted messaging apps being targeted, such as the Sky ECC case.

If Signal can’t be installed or updated via the App Store anyone, that’s already enough to exclude 99.9% of all users - no need to involve law enforcement.

My point wasn't that there was a need to involve law enforcement. My point was that overzealous law enforcement will use this as yet another excuse to crack down on people who value privacy.
Post reply on HN