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

331–338 of 338 posts

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

#331

Post by [deleted] »

Syonyk wrote: post #320
kvetching wrote: post #102

Complete and total invasion of privacy. They always choose the most egregious crime to push through a cecession of rights. If you oppose this, you are supporting pedophiles. But fuck them. Don't let them gaslight you. There are countless broken laws that could be caught if only they could see our data. How long until they force Google or Apple to report someone to the authorities if their GPS says they are travelling…

> How long until there is AI that can use your biometrics to determine if you are too impaired to drive? That's an actual requirement in US vehicles in a few years. https://nypost.com/2021/11/15/bidens-infrastructure-bill-to-... > “To ensure the prevention of alcohol-impaired driving fatalities, advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology must be standard equipment in all new passenger motor vehicles,”…

[deleted]

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

#332

Post by SiempreViernes »

belter wrote: post #322
SiempreViernes wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It will be probably 6 to 12 months before this is extended to "Terrorism" Alright, I'll take that bet if you got actually got the conviction to stake your HN-account.

If this proposal is ever approved, I am willing to bet you a dinner at any restaurant of your choice, that within two years it will be extended to track terrorism and other subversive activities. After all the principle of mandating all providers, to monitor all communications for specific behaviors will be set by law...

Immediately moving the goalposts and not putting up the stake requested, can I take this as you declining to stand by the quote and thus the bet overall?

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

#333

Post by belter »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #332
belter wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this proposal is ever approved, I am willing to bet you a dinner at any restaurant of your choice, that within two years it will be extended to track terrorism and other subversive activities. After all the principle of mandating all providers, to monitor all communications for specific behaviors will be set by law...

Immediately moving the goalposts and not putting up the stake requested, can I take this as you declining to stand by the quote and thus the bet overall?

I moved the goal posts that YOU sat on the ground? :-)

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

#334

Post by reedjosh »

dijit wrote: post #286
reedjosh wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is full of this kind of “drop bomb” and run crap. Hello. I usually keep responding to people. I'm not from the EU, so if you disagree with me I'll respond. It's not unlikely I'm wrong. I am a crazy anti-government guy though, so you've got me there.

Well, I'm going to take this argument in good faith then and assume you're not trolling, but I'll be extremely disappointed if I'm proven wrong. I'll start by saying that the EU does have issues, I can talk fairly about what the EU even is first, why it evolved and then talk about those issues as fairly as I can. FD: I am pro-EU but it's not like I can't understand that people can have exactly the same information as…

I've done some thinking over this and reading of the history, but I don't know that I disagree with any of your points, and clearly what you've said is factual. I mostly disagree from an opinion standpoint.

Particularly the following statement.

> The EU is optimised for ensuring basically nobody is doing anything against their will

To me, just because representatives from member states vote for something, it doesn't mean that individuals aren't being made to do something against their will.

Democracy itself always gives rights to the majority against the will of the minority. On top of that their are many issues with representative democracy to begin with including media manipulation and corruption.

As a defensive mechanism against other blocs I see your point, and its a catch 22. Governments are generally the cause of major wars. So, it feels counterintuitive to band together as another larger government with centralized control.

I wish that people would never rationalize "following orders." If that alone went away, then governments would become impotent.

I'll try to do some more research regarding my original post and get back to here again. These are just some of my initial thoughts. At this point, nobody else is watching this comment thread, so it's really just a discussion between you and I. No need to prove anything, so I'll try to be correct, researched, take my time.

Good chatting, and I'll follow up again in another day or so.

Cheers!

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

#335

Post by dijit »

reedjosh wrote: post #334
dijit wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I'm going to take this argument in good faith then and assume you're not trolling, but I'll be extremely disappointed if I'm proven wrong. I'll start by saying that the EU does have issues, I can talk fairly about what the EU even is first, why it evolved and then talk about those issues as fairly as I can. FD: I am pro-EU but it's not like I can't understand that people can have exactly the same information as…

I've done some thinking over this and reading of the history, but I don't know that I disagree with any of your points, and clearly what you've said is factual. I mostly disagree from an opinion standpoint. Particularly the following statement. > The EU is optimised for ensuring basically nobody is doing anything against their will To me, just because representatives from member states vote for something, it doesn't…

Thanks for taking the time to think about it.

> Democracy itself always gives rights to the majority against the will of the minority.

this is true and it has a name I believe; the "Tyranny of the Majority", I think.

> The tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses) is an inherent weakness to majority rule in which the majority of an electorate pursues exclusively its own objectives at the expense of those of the minority factions.

Unfortunately, as you mentioned, being _more democratic_ ultimately lends itself to being this way.

However one neat trick the EU has (and I promise I'm not trying to spin this as pro-EU, as it's only in one place): is that the direct votes are split proportionally. This means that lesser represented groups get a voice in the EU parliament.

For the UK with their "First past the post" system, and winner take all government; where a party like UKIP can get 12.6% of all votes and win 0 representation in parliament.... well, lets say it's a stark contrast. explained very nicely; here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9rGX91rq5I

The EU voting system (the way in which we elect MEPs to parliament) is detailed in this video by the BBC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CU3F3ToIIg ; as you'll see it's much more representative.

I know of other videos that speak pragmatically about the EU, its problems and if it's worth it (though with a slight pro-EU stance): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4Uu5eyN6VU

I also found this video that asks the question if the EU is democratic, which I think makes good points and you can draw different conclusions from it: https://youtu.be/XxutY7ss1v4

I like this explanation of what the EU even is, since you mentioned you might not be informed I think it's beneficial and very impartial (and pre-brexit): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O37yJBFRrfg

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

#336

Post by hakre »

reedjosh wrote: post #312
dijit wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I'm going to take this argument in good faith then and assume you're not trolling, but I'll be extremely disappointed if I'm proven wrong. I'll start by saying that the EU does have issues, I can talk fairly about what the EU even is first, why it evolved and then talk about those issues as fairly as I can. FD: I am pro-EU but it's not like I can't understand that people can have exactly the same information as…

Thank you for the well thought response. I'll try to respond in kind, but it may be a day or so. Particularly as I want to attempt a researched opinion, but the EU is not an area I know a ton about.

Do you remember which are

> All the good things

when you wrote your comment? Those that

> are going out the door

?

Maybe my criticism was grave regarding the post, but still though I'd be grateful if you give what you coined positive more insight.

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

#337

Post by reedjosh »

hakre wrote: post #336
reedjosh wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for the well thought response. I'll try to respond in kind, but it may be a day or so. Particularly as I want to attempt a researched opinion, but the EU is not an area I know a ton about.

Do you remember which are > All the good things when you wrote your comment? Those that > are going out the door ? Maybe my criticism was grave regarding the post, but still though I'd be grateful if you give what you coined positive more insight.

Well, mostly that it was a union for peace and cooperation and now there are digital ID initiatives along with bills like the one in the article, operational military forces, and regulations galore.

My view (although very limited and I'm here to expand it) is that every time a larger governmental body takes some power with some promise of prosperity, it's nice for a short while, but governments only grow till they crash.

Much of the promise of the EU (again a feeling that I'm researching so I can back up or disprove) is being lost to the trend of governments that grow until they no longer represent their people and then fall.

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

#338

Post by reedjosh »

dijit wrote: post #335
reedjosh wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've done some thinking over this and reading of the history, but I don't know that I disagree with any of your points, and clearly what you've said is factual. I mostly disagree from an opinion standpoint. Particularly the following statement. > The EU is optimised for ensuring basically nobody is doing anything against their will To me, just because representatives from member states vote for something, it doesn't…

Thanks for taking the time to think about it. > Democracy itself always gives rights to the majority against the will of the minority. this is true and it has a name I believe; the "Tyranny of the Majority", I think. > The tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses) is an inherent weakness to majority rule in which the majority of an electorate pursues exclusively its own objectives at the expense of those of…

> However one neat trick the EU has (and I promise I'm not trying to spin this as pro-EU, as it's only in one place): is that the direct votes are split proportionally. This means that lesser represented groups get a voice in the EU parliament.

That's pretty cool. There are a lot of voting systems that make a ton more sense than first past the post.

One of my favorites on the topic is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

CGP Grey's video uses animals and whatnot. It's cute, but then he talks about alternatives and it's clear anything would be better than first past the post.

In the US, this is one of many reasons why I'm cynical about the federal government. Everyone knows our voting system is useless--none more than the politicians in the system. But, once they're in the system, they're taking advantage of it and never bother with voting system reforms.

I also still mostly disagree with governments in general. A group of people shouldn't be allowed the rights a single person doesn't have. No matter the system, there are people in it that never agreed to be a part of it. That said, from a pragmatic standpoint it doesn't really matter. As you've mentioned, it's dog-eat-dog out there.

I've been fairly busy these past few days, but I'll make it a point to watch the videos you've linked today (not to exceed 1hr of viewing--I haven't checked the length, lol).

Post reply on HN