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

EU Council Approves New "Chat Control" Mandate Pushing Mass Surveillance

reclaimthenet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 449 posts

Re: EU Council Approves New "Chat Control" Mandate Pushing Mass Surveillance

#361

Post by iso1631 »

saubeidl wrote: post #328
anonymous908213 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The culprit is correct. If the EU exists for political laundering, then it is the organisation which is harmful to the people's interests. Nobody voted for any of these heads of states on a platform of enacting Chat Control. That was not on the ballot or the platform of any party in any individual EU country. If it was, they would not have voted for it. If an individual party tried to initiate a chat control bill in…

You provide your own counterexample. The UK left the EU and all it got for it was a quicker passing of it's "online safety" nonsense with none of the checks and balances (EU parliament, ECHR) that would stop it in the EU.

80% of the UK public were in favour of the "online safety" idiocy.

Re: EU Council Approves New "Chat Control" Mandate Pushing Mass Surveillance

#362

Post by exasperaited »

cbeach wrote: post #313
graemep wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firstly, why do you lump British and European together? Because they are the same "race" in your eyes? Non-EU net migration has fallen sharply too. It proves what was always obvious to anyone who looked at it, that high net immigration was temporary, especially the peak post covid and the special scheme for Ukrainians.

Levels of EU vs non-EU immigration has been a particular subject of interest for the UK before and after Brexit. And note also that the UK and EU share high-quality education systems, Western Judeo-Christian culture and Western-aligned geopolitics. Recent waves of immigration from countries in the Middle East and North Africa are importing wholly different culture, geopolitics, and crucially, we are importing from co…

Half of Europe's cultural development was initiated by Muslims and the Renaissance started with Muslim scholars in Islamic Spain, which was Islamic for the lion's share of a millennium, leading to the hilarious fact that a state in the New World settled by Spanish-speaking settlers gets the "Calif" in its name from the muslim term for a leader due to it being so totally embedded in culture. But OK, yeah. Judeo-Christian.

Re: EU Council Approves New "Chat Control" Mandate Pushing Mass Surveillance

#363

Post by ben_w »

iamnothere wrote: post #347
ben_w wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Irrelevant. 1) Illegal telecoms equipment can be seized 2) Someone doing this on the public Internet would only get away with it if their encrypted packets *never ever* went through a government licensed router. The moment they go through a public router: instantly detected.

You have an absurd level of confidence in government competence. Not even China can pull this off.

China isn't doing it for the same reasons I already said.

Can't square the circle. Crypto is too important.

Must have. Can't have. Must have. Can't have.

If it was easy to come down one side or the other, everyone in the world would be on the same page.

The tension between them is pulling everyone in both directions.

Re: EU Council Approves New "Chat Control" Mandate Pushing Mass Surveillance

#364

Post by Fnoord »

gregbot wrote: post #345
Fnoord wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US Constitution. What a beautiful piece of paper, such a nice theory. Yet your current president is circumventing Congress. Your president is bullying states. You don't even have a functional popular vote. Your SCOTUS is dysfunctional. And, this 1st amendment, is that why peaceful protestors got shot by rubber bullets when they were protesting against the war in Iraq? Which, as it turned out, was started for dish…

Thats like asking kim jong un who the freest country is and being proud that he say its north korea

'Being proud that he say' [sic]. You're not even a native English speaker, are you, 'greg'?

First you say freedom of speech is about after the speech (it is about before the speech, as after that the law is applied pragmatic).

Then you come with this KJU joke. North Korea doesn't make these indices. [1] [2] [3]. In each of these, USA is decidedly below the vast majority of the free West, including the very countries I mentioned before, each of which couldn't be further from North Korea. It is also Trump during Trump 1 who was positive about KJU (IIRC before the Rocket Man rhetoric, but still), and who is being a shill for one of North Koreans partners (China by proxy / Russia). Mind you, all of these sources are post-Trump 1 yet pre-Trump 2 (ie. from Biden 1 era).

[1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/democracy...

[2] https://rsf.org/en/rsf-world-press-freedom-index-2025-econom...

[3] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freedom-i...

Re: EU Council Approves New "Chat Control" Mandate Pushing Mass Surveillance

#365

Post by exasperaited »

cbeach wrote: post #317
citrin_ru wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I've never understood why popular polices get such a bad rep in a supposed democracy? Because they are extremely short shortsighted and a wreck in a long term.

The classic populist political policy was the creation of the NHS in 1948. Would you say that was "extremely short shortsighted and a wreck in a long term."?

Nye Bevan was not a populist, and the NHS was not a populist development.

In the context of its time it was a fairly pragmatic, top-down central-government post-war-socialism project. It appears more radical in retrospect, but viewed in the light of decisions in the war effort and the post-war effort, and in a country that still had mandatory rationing for example, the NHS was a solid decision that was actually pretty evidence-based.

There are few people alive now who can tell you what the foundation of the NHS was like in terms of their professional career, but my dad did tell me about that.

In no way would that have been considered "populist"; the UK was severely negative about populists at that time, for one thing. It actually made solid logical/technocratic sense. It definitely came as a huge relief, but in many ways it formalised the resource-sharing schemes in place in various regions, especially London.

I am not sure you understand what populism is, along with not understanding that securing a number of seats is not something that logically follows from projections of numbers of seats, particularly in the context of an entirely new party with divisive leadership. We don't have PR, so aggregate data like that is not easily interpreted, and council election data is not that strongly indicative.

Also pretty interesting to hear someone who is so pro-Reform so confidently talking up the NHS, considering the long-standing positions of many UKIP/Brexit Party/Reform people that it should be privatised. Free at the point of use healthcare is under threat from Reform in a way that no other political party in the UK would risk, as a consequence of that. Presumably you think we should still have an NHS but the state shouldn't own it. Given the international figures who gather around Reform and the hard right in this country, there is no way the NHS would survive Reform intact.

Re: EU Council Approves New "Chat Control" Mandate Pushing Mass Surveillance

#366

Post by aaronmdjones »

gregbot wrote: post #302
Fnoord wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Mean tweets' is such an empty meaning. Come with examples. It is on paper very easy to break the law via speech. If I post something here about how I want to reward a murder on a certain politician (or want to do it myself), I can guarantee you the police would be involved. And rightfully so. Freedom of speech is about pre-moderation. It doesn't mean your actions do not have consequences. If you yell fire in a theat…

>doesn't mean your actions do not have consequences YES IT DOES THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT You obviously do not believe in freedom of speech as defined by US law. You are conflating extremely narrow exceptions with broad politically motivated violations of freedom of political speech

> You obviously do not believe in freedom of speech as defined by US law.

Neither do you. The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly held in numerous rulings that freedom of speech and/or freedom of expression is not absolute and you can be sanctioned, prosecuted and/or imprisoned for some forms of speech and/or expression -- i.e. you do have consequences.

- Schenck v. United States (1919) -- Speech that has intent and a clear and present danger of resulting in a crime is not protected under the First Amendment

- Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) -- The First Amendment does not protect fighting words, which are those that inherently cause harm or are likely to result in an immediate disturbance

- Feiner v. New York (1951) -- The police are permitted to take action against those exercising speech that is likely to disturb the peace

- United States v. O'Brien (1968) -- You can be prosecuted for destroying certain property as an act of political speech; the law forbidding this was not unconstitutional

- Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) -- It is permissible to restrict speech that advocates for imminent unlawful violence and is likely to incite people to perform such

- Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973) -- Restrictions on the dissemination of obscene material are not by themselves unconstitutional (see also the ruling immediately below)

- Barnes v. Glen Theatre Inc (1991) -- Public indecency laws banning dancing nude are not unconstitutional

- Virginia v. Black (2003) -- Partial reversal: While a broad ban on cross-burning is unconstitutional, banning cross-burning for the express intent to intimidate is not

- Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) -- As a public official, you can be sanctioned by your government employer for speech contrary to employment policy

- Morse v. Frederick (2007) -- Schools can ban students from sharing speech about illegal drug use at school

- Counterman v. Colorado (2023) -- True threats of violence are outside the bounds of the First Amendment, and laws covering stalking and making threats in this manner are not unconstitutional

Re: EU Council Approves New "Chat Control" Mandate Pushing Mass Surveillance

#367

Post by myrmidon »

pfdietz wrote: post #194
hnarn wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t seriously be proposing that the United States respects the privacy of its citizens more.

We have constitutional barriers that would obstruct something like this.

There are also constitutional barriers to lie under oath, e.g. about spying and collecting data on US citizens, but those barriers seem very ineffective (I'm talking about the 2013 congressional hearing involving James Clapper).

I see no clear indicator that the situation has improved since.

Re: EU Council Approves New "Chat Control" Mandate Pushing Mass Surveillance

#368

Post by jounker »

npodbielski wrote: post #110
balamatom wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering that in concert with all of the above a device has been developed that emulates human speech more convincingly than most humans, I guess it's pretty obvious

What is obvious? Why they need my messages for the voice speech emulation?

The person you’re replying to is saying that in the several years the technological means to impersonate people at scale has become widely available, and because of this financial institutions are having to strengthen their security measures to defend against fraud.

Re: EU Council Approves New "Chat Control" Mandate Pushing Mass Surveillance

#369

Post by [deleted] »

gpderetta wrote: post #324
cbeach wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, which of Reform's policies are "lunacy"? Removing the 2 child benefit cap? Increasing NHS spending? Returning to New Labour levels of net immigration, being a country with borders? > That said I will find it very very funny if the Conservative party ends up last from that list. At least we agree on that. The Tories deserve to be confined to the dustbin of history.

Removing ILR for example? Also the small possibility of being a Russian asset of course.

[deleted]

Re: EU Council Approves New "Chat Control" Mandate Pushing Mass Surveillance

#370

Post by redleader55 »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #283

Selfishly, part of me hopes this passes, because it will drive high-IQ people to move out of the EU (I highly recommend Armenia), and the EU is a major economic competitor of my own country.

Of all places in the world, Armenia. A country so afraid of its neighbors they would allow Moscow to tell them to do anything. I hope I'm my IQ is not high enough to be included in this proposal.
Post reply on HN