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

The disguised return of EU Chat Control

reclaimthenet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 354 posts

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#321

Post by tock »

criley2 wrote: post #316
tock wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So what do you do? We should be discussing strategies to tackle this. Not just go "oh lets just accept it". Just how many people have 100B+? Do you see them trying to interfere in governance and elections? Maybe we can have annual wealth taxes. Just like property taxes. There are many ways to tackle this. That's what we should be discussing. Not just giving up. Absurd wealth inequality will cause societal collapse.…

> "Annual wealth taxes" So, the government steals a percent of private businesses every year? What does the government do with this? Are you suggesting that the government forces business owners to liquidate their own shares to give to the government? So on a long enough time line, no one is allowed to own a business. > No it isn't. It's taxation. Does the presence of property taxes and inheritance taxes make the wes…

> So, the government steals a percent of private businesses every year? What does the government do with this? Are you suggesting that the government forces business owners to liquidate their own shares to give to the government? So on a long enough time line, no one is allowed to own a business.

All tax is theft by that argument. Whether they liquidate or not is up to them. They just need to pay x tax. They aren't selling their stake to the government. They are free to pay the tax from their general annual income or by selling their stocks in the market like they do today every year.

> Imagine if you had to sell 1% of your house every year because "home ownership is unfair". Most middle class folks would never end up owning their home.

How are folks paying property taxes today? They are paying x% of the properties annual value yearly.

> Communism is when you're not allowed to own private businesses, and the wealth that is problematic is the ownership of private businesses. Skin this cat however you want, but if you want a skinned cat, the skin has to come off.

If stock is being sold to pay tax its being sold to someone else in the market not the govt. The govt is not owning the business.

> I do think that revolution/wars that destroy the oligarchy and reset wealth are the only times in history that the middle and working class truly prosper. It is what it is. In an ideal world, business ownership is broadly spread across employees and wealth and power are shared broadly. But that's not an outcome that is ever achieved without significant force.

I agree. But I don't share the sentiment that nothing can be done. None of what I said is radical. Its reality in many european countries. And wealth equality is far less. eg. an annual 1% wealth tax. 1% of 1B is 10M. That's peanuts to them. Heck their stocks appreciate far greater than that yearly.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#322

Post by Gud »

Snild wrote: post #320
xcf_seetan wrote: post #314

How about applying this kind of surveillance to the government? After all we are paying for them to rules us, so why not publish all government, politicians, law enforcement, military messages for everyone to read? Why everybody must be treated as a criminal, because they cant do their job of keeping us safe?

We have that in Sweden and Finland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_public_access_to_... The principle says that information is non-confidential by default, rather than the other way around. We can request almost any information held by government agencies, including copies of communication like email and documents. One thing that has surprised European acquaintances is the fact that this includes governme…

Although this has been eroded, at least in Sweden.

https://www.publikt.se/debatt/insynen-maste-varnas-26420

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#323

Post by CrazyStat »

Snild wrote: post #320
xcf_seetan wrote: post #314

How about applying this kind of surveillance to the government? After all we are paying for them to rules us, so why not publish all government, politicians, law enforcement, military messages for everyone to read? Why everybody must be treated as a criminal, because they cant do their job of keeping us safe?

We have that in Sweden and Finland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_public_access_to_... The principle says that information is non-confidential by default, rather than the other way around. We can request almost any information held by government agencies, including copies of communication like email and documents. One thing that has surprised European acquaintances is the fact that this includes governme…

When I was in Sweden many years ago I was very surprised that you could just call a phone number and they would tell you the name and address of the person or company a vehicle license plate was registered to.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#324

Post by criley2 »

tock wrote: post #321
criley2 wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Annual wealth taxes" So, the government steals a percent of private businesses every year? What does the government do with this? Are you suggesting that the government forces business owners to liquidate their own shares to give to the government? So on a long enough time line, no one is allowed to own a business. > No it isn't. It's taxation. Does the presence of property taxes and inheritance taxes make the wes…

> So, the government steals a percent of private businesses every year? What does the government do with this? Are you suggesting that the government forces business owners to liquidate their own shares to give to the government? So on a long enough time line, no one is allowed to own a business. All tax is theft by that argument. Whether they liquidate or not is up to them. They just need to pay x tax. They aren't s…

>Its reality in many european countries. And wealth equality is far less. eg. an annual 1% wealth tax. 1% of 1B is 10M. That's peanuts to them. Heck their stocks appreciate far greater than that yearly.

Ah yes Europe, where businesses are largely uncompetitive globally and the countries are more than ever completely at the mercy of global superpowers. I'll also point out that the most competitive and richest european countries also have the largest wealth inequality, and the european countries pulling down the average are the poorest ones and most irrelevant globally. Their stock market is also considered mediocre and many European prefer to invest in US markets instead.

Just pointing out that "more taxes" isn't some panacea and there's a real cost to competitiveness going this route. If the US went this way, the BRICS nations especially China would eclipse the western world within a generation on the back of more absuive practices, and become the global superpowers easily pushing the west around.

I suppose that's nicer for this generation of citizens, although potentially catastrophic for the generation afterwards. And I don't necessarily envy the geopolitical reality of Europe right now, even if I do envy many of their healthcare systems.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#325

Post by realusername »

mod50ack wrote: post #319
realusername wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm talking about the 1948 version which has the following: > Article 12 > Nul ne sera l'objet d'immixtions arbitraires dans sa vie privée, sa famille, son domicile ou sa correspondance, ni d'atteintes à son honneur et à sa réputation. Toute personne a droit à la protection de la loi contre de telles immixtions ou de telles atteintes. And that's it, no other additions.

> arbitraires That's the key word.

Since all chats would be monitored regardless of the citizen, this fullfills the definition.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#326

Post by danielscrubs »

latchup wrote: post #217
HeinzStuckeIt wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you point to examples of bad outcomes in Switzerland’s referendums? I mean unequivocal examples, of the sort that would convince everyone here that that model is undesirable as a whole.

How about that time in 2020 the Swiss voted in favor of an immigration restriction proposal that was so fundamentally incompatible with existing EU treaties, the government was forced to bullshit their way out of implementing entirely because doing so would have basically ended Switzerland as a nation? This is the kinda thing that really cannot happen in a working system. The only reason the government is not sued in…

They have the eight highest MEDIAN wealth per capita, USA is in place 15th.

42 homicides year 2021, so an extremely safe country too.

Calling people too dumb to handle democracy sounds a tad facist. They are literally in top 10.

I can tell you our politicians where usually picked up from high school, never been to college, and had worse grades than the general public.

So direct democracy might be like capitalism… the worst system besides all the others.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#327

Post by tock »

criley2 wrote: post #324
tock wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, the government steals a percent of private businesses every year? What does the government do with this? Are you suggesting that the government forces business owners to liquidate their own shares to give to the government? So on a long enough time line, no one is allowed to own a business. All tax is theft by that argument. Whether they liquidate or not is up to them. They just need to pay x tax. They aren't s…

>Its reality in many european countries. And wealth equality is far less. eg. an annual 1% wealth tax. 1% of 1B is 10M. That's peanuts to them. Heck their stocks appreciate far greater than that yearly. Ah yes Europe, where businesses are largely uncompetitive globally and the countries are more than ever completely at the mercy of global superpowers. I'll also point out that the most competitive and richest european…

European businesses are uncompetitive because of excess regulation. Not the ultra wealthy having to pay more tax. I'm pointing out they have wealth tax and haven't turned into a communist hellhole. None of the things you complain about whether its Europe refusing to build up their military or its business competitiveness is because of wealth tax. The USA has an annual property tax based on the properties value and isn't a communist nation.

> I'll also point out that the most competitive and richest european countries also have the largest wealth inequality, and the european countries pulling down the average are the poorest ones and most irrelevant globally.

This isn't even true. The US has the same inequality as Russia. Every top EU country is far far lower. Maybe we are communist after all.

Your entire argument is that 900 people out of 350,000,000 people in the US having to pay more tax is going to drive the US into the ground.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#328

Post by criley2 »

tock wrote: post #327
criley2 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Its reality in many european countries. And wealth equality is far less. eg. an annual 1% wealth tax. 1% of 1B is 10M. That's peanuts to them. Heck their stocks appreciate far greater than that yearly. Ah yes Europe, where businesses are largely uncompetitive globally and the countries are more than ever completely at the mercy of global superpowers. I'll also point out that the most competitive and richest european…

European businesses are uncompetitive because of excess regulation. Not the ultra wealthy having to pay more tax. I'm pointing out they have wealth tax and haven't turned into a communist hellhole. None of the things you complain about whether its Europe refusing to build up their military or its business competitiveness is because of wealth tax. The USA has an annual property tax based on the properties value and is…

>Your entire argument is that 900 people out of 350,000,000 people in the US having to pay more tax is going to drive the US into the ground.

Talk about a low-faith strawman! Let me eviscerate this garbage argument.

The 900 billionaires in America control around $7.8 trillion USD in assets (US yearly GDP is over $30 trillion, for reference)

Let's tax 1% of that yearly, meaning we just gained $78 billion dollars per year! Congrats, with a $7 trillion yearly federal budget, your +$78 billion covers about 1% of federal spending.

Pack it up boys, we completely solved wealth inequality and will be a glorious european nation with our $78 billion dollars! If we applied that to nationalized healthcare (estimated cost $3 trillion per year) we just paid for 2% of the healthcare system!

Or maybe we just redistribute that $78 billion. That's $588 dollars per US household per year. Problem = solved.

Great argument.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#329

Post by pcrh »

bergfest wrote: post #301
pcrh wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do EU treaties per se contain any language that might be relevant to privacy? It seems axiomatic that legal systems contain provisions that prevent their violation. However, democracy requires that laws are voted on by elected representatives or plebiscites, which can of course mean repealing prior laws. However the EU institutions are not sovereign, which might be the loophole here? Edit: I'm aware that the EU is on…

That's what I'm wondering too. I still hold out hope that the EU and the ECJ cannot override the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitutions of the individual member states. It is generally assumed that the ECJ has ultimate precedence over national constitutional courts, but I have my doubts. As a thought experiment, imagine it wasn't the EU, but the Chinese CCP with whom the treaties were concluded. It then q…

In this regard, note that the EU can only propose legislation that falls under one of its "competences". For example, national militaries, income tax, education, most of foreign policy, etc, do not fall under EU control.

The ECHR itself is independent of the EU, it is national governments that have signed up to this treaty.

So perhaps the EU institutions do not need to directly refer to the ECHR, only national governments should???

.... It would be interesting to hear knowledgeable legal opinion in this!

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#330

Post by beefnugs »

tomsmeding wrote: post #216

> According to Breyer, the existing voluntary system has already proven flawed, with German police reporting that roughly half of all flagged cases turn out to be irrelevant. A failure rate of only 50% is absurdly good for a system like this. If we have to: > Imagine your phone scanning every conversation with your partner, your daughter, your therapist, and leaking it just because the word ‘love’ or ‘meet’ appears s…

Absurdly good? What are you talking about, it means entire company processes of trying to identify this has cost so much time and effort and tracking and lost trust from the public and finally reporting... and then they still screw it up half the time
Post reply on HN