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

European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

patrick-breyer.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 434 posts

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#351

Post by mackrevinack »

rapnie wrote: post #63
Tenoke wrote: post #10

Would any email provider protect me from this, get my emails actually delivered and ideally work with my own domain? Not that I see myself switching after 15 years and 6 Gmail accounts but if I am to I'd rather know who I'd use. And no I won't risk setting it up myself and risk missing on some portion of my emails like I've had happen at workplaces before we'd sigh and switch to Google. For Chat tg/signal seem like t…

Would Switzerland need to comply with this regulation? Thinking of e.g. ProtonMail for their EU customers.

i don't think they're a part of the EU. don't quote me on that though

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#352

Post by hulitu »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #287
II2II wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fifth and sixth sentence of the article explicitly states the concern of child protection being used as an underhanded and emotional tactic. While I disagree with invoking child protection as a form of political blackmail, child protection is a legitimate concern. Several populations, of which children are one, are considered vulnerable to exploitation and legislation to reduce exploitation is legitimate. The pro…

> fundamental rights Genuine question because I never understand what people mean when they use that phrase: how is a right fundamental? Does the cold universe assign them to us or do a set of people agree such-and-such are fundamental. If the latter, were the same rights fundamental 20,000 years ago? (Because if they are fundamental, they should stretch back to early man… earlier than even 20,000 years ago)

Fundamental is whatever the politicians and the rich decide it's fundamental. For example the right to live is fundamental except if you live in a conflict zone (US with its shootings included).

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#353

Post by intricatedetail »

perihelions wrote: post #57

Just to clarify a point for discussion: this is already the law in the USA, and always has been [0]. European privacy law formerly prohibited private entities from reading personal communications, and handing them over warrantlessly to governments (as I understand it (?)); but this was never a thing in the US. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine

So it is okay then.

Then when EU will start running concentration camps for thought criminals, we will say it's okay China already do it...

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#354

Post by readflaggedcomm »

vixen99 wrote: post #343
WalterBright wrote: post #309

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.

I have no rights unless others recognize and at least tacitly agree that they have obligations with respect to those rights. As the only person left in the universe (after some cataclysm), you'd be left with obligations but no rights. The obligations would include those that arise from within yourself to prevail and try to survive as best you can. Rights? Well, who would be granting those? The innate bit refers to ob…

Natural rights exist even when denied and infringed. Perhaps they are discovered as a consequence of human behavior, rather than molded by a grantor in acts of beneficence or compromise.

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#355

Post by intricatedetail »

yarg wrote: post #140
dekrg wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More end to end encryption use only means more laws banning encryption faster. Or do you really think that when for example DoH gains wider adoption all the countries using DNS based blocking will go "Oh well guess the techies got us".

Good luck with that - the genie's out of the bottle. End to end encryption is vital to the operations of modern businesses, it's not going anywhere anytime soon.

Businesses will need to have a license and keep logs of such communication.

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#356

Post by swiley »

shrubble wrote: post #282

Reminder that even Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols knew 25 years ago that Jimmy Savile was abusing children and the BBC upper management must have known many more details about their star, than Johnny Rotten. Not only was nothing done but BBC's upper management escaped any responsibility for the protection they gave Savile. One could mention the Dutroux affair, British PM Ted Heath, and many more scandals... yet it…

Facebook fails to go after child pornography despite it's insane panopticon.

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#357

Post by Vinnl »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #287
II2II wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fifth and sixth sentence of the article explicitly states the concern of child protection being used as an underhanded and emotional tactic. While I disagree with invoking child protection as a form of political blackmail, child protection is a legitimate concern. Several populations, of which children are one, are considered vulnerable to exploitation and legislation to reduce exploitation is legitimate. The pro…

> fundamental rights Genuine question because I never understand what people mean when they use that phrase: how is a right fundamental? Does the cold universe assign them to us or do a set of people agree such-and-such are fundamental. If the latter, were the same rights fundamental 20,000 years ago? (Because if they are fundamental, they should stretch back to early man… earlier than even 20,000 years ago)

There's a Wikipedia page which basically says they're a set of rights that are broadly agreed to be particularly important: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_rights

For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but other countries might have determined their own (additional) set.

I would assume the name "fundamental" was chosen because all other rights derive from them, i.e. if they're taken away from you, you won't be able to preserve the non-fundamental rights.

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#358

Post by WalterBright »

Datagenerator wrote: post #332
WalterBright wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Ten Commandments are not a list of rights. It doesn't even say you have the right to not be a slave.

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#359

Post by ben_w »

WalterBright wrote: post #310
briefcomment wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No rights are objectively fundamental. It's subjective. If people in power don't agree to act as though certain rights are fundamental, they cease to be enforced, even if lip service is paid.

If governments bestow rights, then the citizens have no business revolting against an oppressive government.

I would instead say they have no right to revolt rather than no business revolting — their business is to give themselves rights.

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#360

Post by nucleardog »

dane-pgp wrote: post #308
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> fundamental rights Genuine question because I never understand what people mean when they use that phrase: how is a right fundamental? Does the cold universe assign them to us or do a set of people agree such-and-such are fundamental. If the latter, were the same rights fundamental 20,000 years ago? (Because if they are fundamental, they should stretch back to early man… earlier than even 20,000 years ago)

I think that "fundamental" doesn't mean "naturally occurring" or "universal", but rather "foundational", in the sense that more nuanced rights are based upon their basic principles. So for example we have the principle of "freedom of speech", which might be accepted by courts and society as including a right to publish literary works that some deem offensive, but that could be considered a subsidiary or supplementary…

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms actually enumerates the "fundamental" freedoms separately: freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.

Contrast these with the rights enumerated e.g., democratic rights (the right to vote), legal rights (freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, right to counsel), mobility rights (right to live in any province and enter and leave Canada).

The rights granted are those that build _a_ society that supports those fundamental freedoms. The fundamental freedoms themselves are not something that exist in support of anything, but are simply accepted as something that stand alone as something we demand of our government.

Post reply on HN