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

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

patrick-breyer.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 338 posts

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

#301

Post by tremon »

dathinab wrote: post #151
reedjosh wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Am I just lacking imagination? Yes. The EU is becoming a totalitarian regional government of elites. Originally it wasn't even supposed to have a military presence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_forces_of_the_European... It was supposed to prevent the need of passports. https://www.covidpasscertificate.com/europe-digital-green-pa... All the good things are going out the door and all the bad things are walki…

Nono, you are getting all your facts wrong. > Originally it wasn't even supposed to have a military presence. Because each country has its own military presence and they all already cooperate anyway together in the NATO so they already had a connected military presence as part of NATO. The reason they consider making that plan explicit is due to a massive lost of trust in the US and realization that the US will put i…

You always had been required to carry a passport when traveling in the EU

Yes and no. A passport is a specific means of a legal identity document, and specifically a passport is not mandatory: you can also use a European Identity Card [1]. This serves as legal identification anywhere in the EU, but not outside. And inside your home country, a driver's license also suffices as legal identity document (for certain uses: in NL, you can use it to identify yourself to the police or when collecting packages at the post office, but you can't use it to open a new back account).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_identity_cards_in_the...

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

#302

Post by tremon »

dane-pgp wrote: post #291
denton-scratch wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the only ones breaking the rules Of course not. Rules get broken all the time. But as the years went by, I came to realise that the EU didn't embody the principles it claimed to stand for (and of which I approved). > Leaving the EU doesn't help make Hungary (for example) become any less authoritarian Moderating the atavistic instincts of other countries isn't a good reason for being in a political union. > Boris Jo…

Thank you for your honest answers. For what it's worth, I don't think you're a bad person for voting the way you did. > the EU didn't embody the principles it claimed to stand for (and of which I approved). But is it possible that you were holding it to a higher standard than you hold your own country to? > Moderating the atavistic instincts of other countries isn't a good reason for being in a political union. Turni…

especially considering the more proportional voting system used by the EU

What do you mean by that, exactly? Because EU votes are only proportional by country; each country is allocated a fixed number of seats based on its population, and each country only votes for its own representation. A UK vote has zero effect on the Hungarian MEP distribution.

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

#303

Post by tremon »

caterpi11ar wrote: post #249
Ensorceled wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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,…

When I was an atheist, I eventually came to understand that the belief that saying that a new organism created by two humans wasn't itself human was essentially a euphemism I could use to keep myself sane while still arguing in favour of abortion on social harmony grounds. But it is difficult to lie to oneself.

saying that a new organism created by two humans wasn't itself human

If this is your idea of an open, honest debate you can keep it.

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

#304

Post by prof-dr-ir »

belter wrote: post #263
prof-dr-ir wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As you can easily check, Mr. Breyer's website has been at the top of HN multiple times in the past year or so, and invariably the comment section becomes an anti-EU pitchfork party based on nothing more than the linked text and various unhelpful stereotypes. Comments like yours, which justifiably ask for a primary source, have never been getting the attention they deserve. So let me explicitly go against the grain he…

>"... I also believe that the EU will not "break secure encryption" (or make it illegal) in the foreseeable future. And if Mr. Breyer or anyone else would like to convince me of the alternative then please show me some concrete evidence first..." "EU’s resolution on encryption foreshadows likely anti-encryption push": https://protonmail.com/blog/eu-attack-on-encryption/ "EFF Tells E.U. Commission: Don't Break Encrypt…

Thank you for your efforts but I am sorry to say that I am still not convinced.

The Protonmail link is not a primary source but let me dignify it with a response anyway. The authors of that blog post themselves admit that the resolution they link to "is non-binding and does not provide any specifics for new laws or regulations and, on the surface, seems fairly innocuous." They then go on to say how actually it is really dangerous, and the tone is very threatening, but their reasoning is simply not substantial enough to convince me.

I was sad to see that the EFF's very first link to a 'proposal' from the EU commission simply links back to Mr. Breyer's website. (But I am very happy with the letter co-signed by the EFF, which I think is well-written and a lot less alarmist.)

And once you do get to a primary source, in your third link, you can only make your case by rephrasing "security despite encryption", which I can happily interpret as being entirely in line with the direction suggested by the aforementioned letter, as "encryption they can access".

So I remain unconvinced, mainly because your "in other words" really do a lot of heavy lifting in your comment.

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

#305

Post by mcv »

UnpossibleJim wrote: post #208
arcticbull wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)…

I mean, the whole argument on the sacredness of life by the religious right is hypocritical as the new testament is anti war, and any justification of war doesn't come about until post 400 A.D. when the "saints" weigh in on the subjects. The apostles were pretty "hippy-ish" about it.[1] Their pro-life stance would hold A LOT more weight if they were out protesting wars and military spending, not to mention foreign oc…

How about opposition to the death penalty and support for good health care? That would be a lot more pro-life, and are things Jesus actually addressed: heal the sick, and "let he who is without sin throw the first stone".

I'm Christian, but I see no biblical argument against abortion. I'm not a fan of abortion, mind you; I think any abortion is a tragedy on some level, and unwanted pregnancies are better prevented than aborted, but sometimes medical complications simply make abortion necessary. And I'd rather leave the hard decisions in the hands of the people affected by them than having legislators force those decisions on them.

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

#306

Post by mcv »

TheFreim wrote: post #154
arcticbull wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)…

> It's even arguably a violation of the religious freedom of Jewish folks to ban abortion This argument, and arguments like it, miss the nature of the issue. If abortion is the immoral killing of an innocent human being/person, as pro-lifers claim, then it doesn't matter if it's a Christian/jewish/other religious ritual [see note] (we don't allow child sacrifice even if it's a sincerely held religious ritual). If abo…

> If abortion is the immoral killing of an innocent human being/person, as pro-lifers claim

Yeah, but is it? Both legally and biblically, personhood starts at birth. Nobody I know of holds funerals for their miscarriage, or gives it a name. At least not for early stage miscarriages (which, as with abortions, are far, far more common than miscarriages and abortions late in the pregnancy).

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

#307

Post by belter »

prof-dr-ir wrote: post #304
belter wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"... I also believe that the EU will not "break secure encryption" (or make it illegal) in the foreseeable future. And if Mr. Breyer or anyone else would like to convince me of the alternative then please show me some concrete evidence first..." "EU’s resolution on encryption foreshadows likely anti-encryption push": https://protonmail.com/blog/eu-attack-on-encryption/ "EFF Tells E.U. Commission: Don't Break Encrypt…

Thank you for your efforts but I am sorry to say that I am still not convinced. The Protonmail link is not a primary source but let me dignify it with a response anyway. The authors of that blog post themselves admit that the resolution they link to "is non-binding and does not provide any specifics for new laws or regulations and, on the surface, seems fairly innocuous." They then go on to say how actually it is rea…

And there you have the press release of today:

"Questions and Answers –New rules to fight child sexual abuse" https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_...

Exactly as predicted in this thread it's a "think of the children" and at the same time also as mentioned by others in this thread, mandated obligations but preparing for the excuse of "we never actually asked for this way of doing it"

"Does the proposal cover encrypted material?"

"The proposed obligations on service providers as regards the detection of child sexual abuse material are technologically neutral, meaning they do not prescribe which technology should be used for detection. It is an obligation of result not of means, leaving to the provider the choice of technology to be operated, subject to its compliance with strict safeguards."

"This includes the use of encryption technology. Encryption is an important tool for the protection of cybersecurity and confidentiality of communications. At the same time, its use as a secure channel could be abused of by criminals to hide their actions, thereby impeding efforts to bring perpetrators of child sexual abuse to justice."

"A large portion of reports of child sexual abuse, which are instrumental to starting investigations and rescuing children, come from services that are already encrypted or may become encrypted in the future. If such services were to be exempt from requirements to protect children and to take action against the circulation of child sexual abuse images and videos via their services, the consequences would be severe for children"

It will be probably 6 to 12 months before this is extended to "Terrorism" and another 6 months to be extended to subversive talk on "Vaccine Risk".

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

#308

Post by giaour »

dane-pgp wrote: post #293
giaour wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As with any ancient text, translations will vary. The one you've quoted seems to play up the ambiguity, which is non-standard for English renditions. The Common English Bible renders this passage as, "When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that she has a miscarriage but no other injury occurs, then the guilty party will be fined what the woman’s husband demands, as negotiated with the judges. 23 If t…

> I'm not sure what you're taking "so that her children come out" to mean I took it to mean that the children are born prematurely. In any case, it doesn't say "so that the bundles of cells come out".

It was understood by ancient commentators (i.e., in the Talmud) to refer to miscarriage. This would mirror other laws in the ancient near east that imposed a fine for inducing miscarriages and death for murdering an adult, like the Code of Hammurabi (law 209).

It seems like you're taking one literal interpretation of a specific English translation as the only legitimate reading. There is plenty of scholarship and commentary by ancient and contemporary authors who can shed light on how the text was read (and, in this case, upheld in a legal setting) in the original Hebrew.

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

#309

Post by Hakashiro »

aborsy wrote: post #169

The interesting thing about EU is that, because it’s a bureaucratic dictatorship, it can force it (worse, citizens are mostly obedient). So it’s particularly dangerous. Imagine France orders this! It’s not like Apple responding to consumers’ opinion.

> dictatorship

Any source?

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

#310

Post by native_samples »

lucideer wrote: post #67
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.

> does any of their actual constituency want it? While one can technically argue that the EU Commission has constituency, it's worth noting that it's a few layers of abstraction away: Commissioners are typically people with industry background who are nominated by the "EU Council". The EU Council is in turn made up of state leaders. (The "EU Parliament" is a separate body that is actually elected by voters). Lobbyist…

In theory Commissioners are appointed by the Council.

In practice the head of the Commission has a veto. In the treaties this veto power doesn't exist, but Juncker admitted he regularly vetoed appointees and it's unlikely vDL gave up that power.

So that leads to the question of how the head of the Commission is picked. Again, by treaty it's up to the Council to decide. How do they do that? Nobody knows. They walk into a room and have a secret meeting, at the end they jointly announce the decision. Is there a vote? Does everyone even get to express their view? Do countries make threats to get their way? How are the candidates selected? What did the different country leaders think? Do their statements in private even match their statements in public (sometimes not, it seems). The process is entirely opaque.

After that was done, just to make the comparisons with North Korea super-duper obvious, they gave the European Parliament a "vote" on who should be Commission head. The voting slip had a single option on it - vDL. MEPs could either vote for her, or not vote at all.

Post reply on HN