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

EU Chat Control: Germany's position has been reverted to undecided

mastodon.social

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 323 posts

Re: EU Chat Control: Germany's position has been reverted to undecided

#271

Post by uncircle »

the_gipsy wrote: post #140
jokethrowaway wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democracy is incompatible with freedom by definition, it's the dictatorship of the majority over the minority. Especially in a time where controlling public opinion is just a matter of running targeted ad campaigns on social medias and buying newspapers and tv stations. If we like freedom we need to get rid of power centralisation, as much as possible, and give back the power to the individual by removing as many law…

> it's the dictatorship of the majority over the minority. That's very naïve.

Yeah; it's even worse than that.

Re: EU Chat Control: Germany's position has been reverted to undecided

#273

Post by ookdatnog »

vorpalhex wrote: post #238
ookdatnog wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The government is not prosecuting for speech, which is what the free speech protections can and should guarantee. This has absolutely started happening, albeit not yet on a large-scale, systematic basis. Mahmoud Khalil [0] resided in the US legally when he was detained with the intention to deport. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Khalil_(activist)

Khalil also gave material support to terrorists which is explicitly called out as a no-no on your residency paperwork.

That would be a crime. Khalil was not charged with any crime. The only conceivable reason to not charge him at this point, is because there is no evidence of him committing a crime.

Re: EU Chat Control: Germany's position has been reverted to undecided

#274

Post by ookdatnog »

bondarchuk wrote: post #123
ookdatnog wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not undemocratic. The behavior of the parliament reflects the reality that only a tiny minority of the population care at all about this issue. One might be tempted to blame a lack of media attention, but I don't think that's it. For example in the US, the Snowden revelations attracted tons and tons of media attention, yet it never became a major topic in elections, as far as I'm aware. No politician's career wa…

Parliamentary democracy just fundamentally has a weakness when it comes to single-issue voting. After picking a party to vote on based on housing, economic policy, crime, ..., how much voting power so to say is left for.. which guy the party says they'll send to the european commission? And what that guy's stance on chat-control is? If they're even publicizing that...

I think the primary positive feature of democracy is simply that we have regular peaceful transitions of power. I'm not sure that the fact that the people choose their own leaders by itself leads to higher quality leadership, or even leadership that cares more about said people. But the fact that the baton passes every couple of years is absolutely invaluable.

Re: EU Chat Control: Germany's position has been reverted to undecided

#275

Post by yohannparis »

zx10rse wrote: post #205
yohannparis wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And who runs the EU? The MEPs and members of the countries government. It's not like it's a different country imposing their way onto us. Talk/contacts your ministers and MEPs if you want your voice to be represented.

You can't be serious. There should't be a discussion at all. This law proposal is explicitly against the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the allegedly institutions that are supposed to upheld the charter are CJEU, European Commission, FRA, NHRIs, where are they?

I'm totally opposed to this law. My comment was about the fact that the EU is imposing their view on EU countries, like we have no say on the matter. I emailed all my MEPs to oppose this proposal.

Re: EU Chat Control: Germany's position has been reverted to undecided

#276

Post by yohannparis »

like_any_other wrote: post #90
yohannparis wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And who runs the EU? The MEPs and members of the countries government. It's not like it's a different country imposing their way onto us. Talk/contacts your ministers and MEPs if you want your voice to be represented.

The problem is the indirection. Only the European Commission can propose legislation [1], so the legislative direction of the EU is entirely determined by them - MEPs can only slow it down. And citizens don't vote for the Commission directly, meaning there's a lot of backroom dealing in its selection. [1] Which also covers, I think , the act of repealing prior legislation.

True, but this is the same as with most EU countries government. In France, I can contact my Ministers... but to what avail!

Re: EU Chat Control: Germany's position has been reverted to undecided

#277

Post by jacquesm »

throw-the-towel wrote: post #270
jacquesm wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who lived in a country under the russian boot at some point and who remembers the USSR from direct experience, you probably have a lot of stuff to study up on. But be careful on what internet connection you do it.

Direct experience of the USSR, in the Netherlands? I must be in the wrong timeline because mine certainly didn't have the Dutch Soviet Socialist Republic! Anyway, it's cute that you chose to respond with a personal attack on me. Looks like you don't have any other argument, and you know it :)

You have no clue.

Re: EU Chat Control: Germany's position has been reverted to undecided

#278

Post by dns_snek »

flumpcakes wrote: post #268
dns_snek wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's my point, there's no nefarious plot here, it's just dumb laws to solve real problems. You don't know the plot any more than we do. Whether the current government is nefarious or not is quite irrelevant. Chat Control is a surveillance and censorship tool that we're being pinkie-promised will only be used "for good". In reality it is a tool which can be repurposed for domestic oppression, political persecution…

Sovereign governments already hold the ultimate power in society. By your reasoning any and all laws are an attack on your liberty.

If you're going to engage in bad faith then I'm not interested.

My "reasoning" is firmly rooted in the founding principles of liberal democracies and our legally recognized fundamental rights.

Our previous run-ins with fascism is why they exist, and anyone working to delegitimize them needs to be treated with utmost suspicion.

Re: EU Chat Control: Germany's position has been reverted to undecided

#279

Post by spit2wind »

AAAAaccountAAAA wrote: post #234
singulasar wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or maybe let's not? their actions are clearly not extremist, absolutely not perfect and not always equally democratic, but not extremist or violent like the actual extremists...

Politics are an inherently violent affair. The government is simply a monopoly on legitimate violence. Politicians decide the laws, which result in people breaking them getting beaten up & dragged to a cell. Not to say this is always a bad thing: some people cannot be stopped from misbehaving just by talking, but it definitely is violent.

I see this a lot and am not convinced. It appears reductionist in a way that feels like it's pushing an agenda.

Democratic governments clearly are about addressing community needs and coordinating efforts that require pooled resources (at least). I'm not denying there may be a monopoly on violence. However, in a democratic system, such a monopoly would be voted on, giving the monopoly some legitimacy (not saying it's necessarily moral).

Yet in reality, the US, for example, has the Second Amendment, which grants citizens the right to bear arms and form militias. That doesn't sound like the government has a monopoly on violence.

I guess the weasel word is "legitimate"? But is that legal or moral legitimacy (or something else)? By whose definition and arrived at how?

It feels like such a pithy comment, "a monopoly on legitimate violence", like it's expressing something deep. Yet I get the sense that supporting it requires some contortion of logic and language. Maybe I'm missing something but it doesn't seem self-evident to me at all.

Re: EU Chat Control: Germany's position has been reverted to undecided

#280

Post by general1465 »

eagleal wrote: post #200
general1465 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is pointless exception. If chat control will pass, everything is vulnerable by design. Or how do you distinguish if WhatsApp is installed on a phone of Joe Nobody or or a phone of a politician? You won't, unless you have some list, which can be leaked and from "do not touch credentials" will turn "target these credentials"

The exception means legally, that category of people, can't be prosecuted even if incriminating stuff were collected through such channels. The next logical step, after a prosecutor or political push, would be for the Highest Order Courts of Member countries to invalidate evidence collected through such channels for those categories of people.

You are looking on it from a wrong perspective. You have access to communications of politicians, military and government apparatus. You can effectively control these figures through extortion (I know about your mistress) or blackmail (I picked up your kids from school today next time I may keep them for a while)

Politicians who are pushing these laws are having a feeling that bad things can't happen to them. However they are usually prime targets for bad things happening to them, because they are the ones wielding the power - if you can influence the politician, you can control his power.

Post reply on HN