Live data from Hacker News

European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

patrick-breyer.de

331–340 of 434 posts

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excellent point. So I’ll ignore “fundamental right” next time I read it. I note that the United States uses “inalienable rights”, meaning ones which can’t be given or taken away. The only things that can’t be given or taken from me without a lobotomy are my education and internal thoughts and beliefs (that includes things like self-worth and dignity).

You have a right to liberty regardless of whether you are enslaved or free.

You are free or not, regardless whether you have a right to liberty or whether your are enslaved or free.

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how is a right fundamental? They are inalienable and bestowed by their Creator. I.e. they are part of the innate nature of human beings. Governments can either protect those rights or abrogate them - it cannot invent them. And yes, they stretch back to when humans became human. Though it took a while for people to formally recognize them.

How do we know what those fundamental rights are? By observing what happens to societies that have various formulations of rights. The societies that thrive are closer to the mark than societies that are mired in misery, despair, and death.

The ten commandments as benchmark and foundation applies to many common situations.

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But every member has a veto. You never needed to convince 28 countries, you only needed to convince your own government to vote against. Plenty of laws stuck in limbo because one country doesn't like it - but exactly zero laws on the books that sosme country really hates.

That’s systems leads to compromises and quod pro quos. That’s not as likely with just one nation state. If Country A wanted strong privacy laws and Country B wanted strong surveillance laws, and both have a veto, then you’ll get paralysis or a compromise. Right now it seems the EU has neither strong encryption as the norm nor a massive surveillance system. Just what one would expect when any nation can veto a law. No…

> Now that the UK is independent, it no longer has the paralysis/compromise/status quo dilemma.

...so they can now pass all the strong surveillance laws they want without being hindered by the EU?

My point: "paralysis" can be good if it prevents you from doing something bad. Perhaps forcing a "compromise" actually leads to (better) solutions that account for everyone's concerns?

Overall, it is not clear to me that the UK becoming independent from EU is going to necessarily lead to better laws. Are they going to be easier and faster to pass? Sure. Are they going to be better? Not so sure.

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, one carrot for Spain was the assistance it received during the last financial crisis[0], and France probably likes being able to project its influence onto neighbouring countries through its position in the EU. Less reductively, I think that a major benefit of a political union is that it gives some degree of democratic legitimacy to decisions made about difficult region-wide issues like trade policy, consumer…

Those are not very good carrots. Why bother with barely a vaneer of legitimacy at the EU level which has a democratic deficit? Why not have an EEC that casts flexible treaties over immigration, environment and anti-trust on as as-needed basis, with actual elected represented 'regular' national MPs dedicated to those issues at the European level? i.e. Boris would have 5 Cabinet Ministers for major European level issue…

So your solution to the "democratic deficit" of the EU is to give Boris more power? He already has, in practice, all the power of the unelected head of state at his disposal, plus the unelected House of Lords, based on a voting system which put him into power with 44% of the popular vote.

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excellent point. So I’ll ignore “fundamental right” next time I read it. I note that the United States uses “inalienable rights”, meaning ones which can’t be given or taken away. The only things that can’t be given or taken from me without a lobotomy are my education and internal thoughts and beliefs (that includes things like self-worth and dignity).

You have a right to liberty regardless of whether you are enslaved or free.

A right without a remedy isn't a right at all.

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#336

This would also include any non EU citizens communications with an EU citizen. Also you might be an EU citizen without realising (by descent)

Thai comment makes no sense whatsoever and i do wonder what absurd world you imagine. This law gives companies in the EU the legal grounds to do some scanning measures, it is neither an obligation to do so, nor when companies do so is anyone checking whether you, a person outside the EU, happen to have European ancestors. Logically of course that applies to residents, as would the laws in any other place.

I’m just trying to imagine this world, thanks. It’s absurd enough without me absurdifying it further.

Ok so what you are saying is any users whatsoever of EU based email providers can be subject to companies doing some scanning if they wish to. Since most multinationals will have European offices, it might apply to every provider and therefore pretty much everyone.

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#337
post #94
post #6

Do they want everyone to switch en masse to end-to-end encrypted communications? Because this is how you encourage that.

Doesn't help if you don't control the ends of the end-to-end part. We don't control iOS nor Android on most devices. In general this holds: There's no privacy on the internet.

Security researchers will always break into, reverse engineer, and scrutinize OS firmware and apps.

They’re not going to find every backdoor. But I’m sure their work serves as a deterrent to some degree. Vendors aren’t going to deploy backdoors unless some state actor forces them to, and even then chances are they’re caught and called out.

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are not very good carrots. Why bother with barely a vaneer of legitimacy at the EU level which has a democratic deficit? Why not have an EEC that casts flexible treaties over immigration, environment and anti-trust on as as-needed basis, with actual elected represented 'regular' national MPs dedicated to those issues at the European level? i.e. Boris would have 5 Cabinet Ministers for major European level issue…

So your solution to the "democratic deficit" of the EU is to give Boris more power? He already has, in practice, all the power of the unelected head of state at his disposal, plus the unelected House of Lords, based on a voting system which put him into power with 44% of the popular vote.

"He already has, in practice, all the power of the unelected head of state"

B.J. is an Elected Head of state. He won his mandate in a very clear and unambiguous election, the primary issues of which concerned not only on his leadership and tenure, but also the pivotal issue of Brexit. The election had very high participation rate, and the UK public was very well informed with respect to the stakes involved. B.J. doesn't have absolute power and both his party and opponent MPs can challenge his authority.

The EU meanwhile, has barely any democratic legitimacy.

The President of the Commission and members of the Cabinet - those that enact legislation - are unelected.

Ursula Von Der Leyen did not stand for election. She was plucked from obscurity by Macron and Merkel after the EU elections, in a closed, backroom deal in which voters had no effective influence. The protocols by which she was chosen are not codified, in fact, it's only recently agreed to (Treaty of Lisbon) elected MEPs should even have to be consulted.

Von Der Leyen was not introduced to the public before the election, she didn't go on a media circuit so as to be introduced to the public of various countries where people could learn about her or her platform. There were no editorials, there was no media vetting, there were no interviews, there was no pragmatic by which voters could even learn about their would be leader. She was imposed in EU voters, probably less than 2% of whom had even heard of her.

EU elections have very low rates of participation, EU voters have very low awareness of any of the material issues, MEPs have very little ability to influence legislation and very limited ability to censure leaders.

So yes, Boris Johnson (and Macron, and Merkel) have considerably more legitimacy than any members of the EU apparatus, and that might very well serve as a better basis for European citizens to influence the establishment of rules or laws via treaties as opposed to the very indirect democratic mechanisms of the EU.

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#339
post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you care about it, switch to Librem 5 or Pinephone.

Neither of these can access the financial services provided by my bank nor the infrastructure provided by my city

Removal of KEYGEN feature from Firefox and other browsers was a major mistake in this regard.

My bank(s) used password+client certificate, but now they have switched to proprietary mobile OTP apps. (also due to some directives). For some stuff, SMS codes are used.

Also, I've seen CA's simply deliver the .P12/.PFX file now instead of securely generating the key on the client and then signing it.

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We assign those rights as a society and, more relevantly here, as a political system. The people who draft our constitutions and (like for all political norms) those who create our political discourse have more influence in defining them than the general population, but these norms have to be agreed to by a fairly large swathe of society to be effective.

You are speaking of rights. I’m speaking of “fundamental rights”. How are they different?

"Fundamental" rights are the ones whose existence is not considered a matter for debate in society.
Post reply on HN