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

The EU still wants to scan your private messages and photos

fightchatcontrol.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 432 posts

Re: The EU still wants to scan your private messages and photos

#361

Post by PunchyHamster »

CGamesPlay wrote: post #199
x775 wrote: post #66

I am the creator of Fight Chat Control. Thank you for sharing. It is unfortunately, once again, needed. The recent events have been rather dumbfounding. On March 11, the Parliament surprisingly voted to replace blanket mass surveillance with targeted monitoring of suspects following judicial involvement [0]. As Council refused to compromise, the trilogue negotiations were set to fail, thus allowing the Commission's c…

I am always curious when I see these kinds of movement. It seems abundantly clear that the options on any vote in any legislature for a proposed bill are always “yes” and “ask me later”. So when I see things like Fight Chat Control, it feels like the call is “we must tell our legislators to press the ask later button!” Why? Why has your approach not been toward passing active legislation that protects these rights go…

Passing legislation is harder. It should absolutely be the goal but it can't be passed if there is already legislation allowing the abuse.

Re: The EU still wants to scan your private messages and photos

#362

Post by 4ggr0 »

aniviacat wrote: post #289
max_ wrote: post #92

The lack of accountability after what was exposed in the Epstein files illustrates that not one in power actually care about kids. "Save the kids", is just a ploy to run scams.

What are you hoping to happen regarding the Epstein files? The few politicians in the EU that were named in the Epstein files did resign.

> did resign

oh no, they had to resign from their government jobs and in a year will work in the private sector as consultants for double the salary, those poor souls :'(

prison, fines, mental asylum, whatever would be an actual consequence.

a bit hyperbolic and reactionary from my side, maybe. but you get the gist.

Re: The EU still wants to scan your private messages and photos

#363

Post by supermatt »

RobertoG wrote: post #354
supermatt wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The European Commission represents the interests of the member states, while the European Parliament represent the interests of the citizens. NO LAW CAN PASS without the consent of the citizens directly elected representatives. There is no "pushing through". If you don't like how you are represented at the commission, then blame your government. It is THEIR representative - not yours. Also, don't forget that the comm…

No, the European Council is suppose to represent the interest of the member states. The European Commission is suppose to be the executive of the European Union. Translating to the USA system, it would be like saying that the White House is suppose to represent the USA states. No, It's suppose to represent the interest of Europe as an entity. Any introduction to democracy explains that the power is separated in the e…

No, this is a discussion about the "unelected" European Commission. I haven't mentioned the European Council because it is irrelevant.

The European Commission is formed of representatives of the individual states. They are NOT representatives of the citizens, other than by proxy.

YOUR government can request that THEIR representative raise or support legislation among the commission. If you have a problem with your countries representative at the commission then take that up with your government.

Proposals being "brought back" for discussion in some form is just a part of legislation. It happens EVERYWHERE - not just at the EU level.

Sanctions are proposed through the commission because it is a consensus of state government foreign policy.

How would YOU propose that the EU work to be "more democratic" - while also considering that your government needs to be involved and influential?

The whole idea with the current structure is that it "meets in the middle" between national sovereignty and citizen representation.

I agree it's not a perfect system, and there is certainly a lot of opportunity for positive change (I would like to have some process for parliament to request legislation from the council. I would like more transparency in what the commission does), but to dismiss it as "undemocratic" makes no sense and is just repeating an uniformed rhetoric.

Re: The EU still wants to scan your private messages and photos

#364

Post by laylower »

x775 wrote: post #66

I am the creator of Fight Chat Control. Thank you for sharing. It is unfortunately, once again, needed. The recent events have been rather dumbfounding. On March 11, the Parliament surprisingly voted to replace blanket mass surveillance with targeted monitoring of suspects following judicial involvement [0]. As Council refused to compromise, the trilogue negotiations were set to fail, thus allowing the Commission's c…

You are a beacon of hope man. Please, please, continue the good fight, we need you.

We keep seeing the establishment resurfacing and imposing this blanket surveillance globally. What's happening in Brazil, the UK, EU, and has already happened in the US with no legislation or via the 5-eyes is scary.

Who are these people pressuring elected politicians and unelected bureaucrats to legislate against their constituents? Who are these lobbyists?

I get that there is a large constituency that wants to control dissidents and the narrative in the name of child abuse - see what's happening in the UK where people get arrested in the thousands for posting comments online.

Abolishing privacy is not the way to protect children. Police work and prosecution is. For reference see the grooming gangs in the UK, the infamous Eps*% case for which everyone is still walking free, and other cases in various EU countries. This is not whataboutism, it's proof that we have not taken the required steps as a western society to combat this. You don't press the nuclear option as your first action.

If it's bot farm meddling that is the true target, then ban bots and get technology to work properly. Creating ID honeypots on poorly protected website operator servers is not the solution.

Call your politicians, call your EU MEPs, call everyone you can. This matters because it's about our future.

Re: The EU still wants to scan your private messages and photos

#365

Post by varispeed »

x775 wrote: post #66

I am the creator of Fight Chat Control. Thank you for sharing. It is unfortunately, once again, needed. The recent events have been rather dumbfounding. On March 11, the Parliament surprisingly voted to replace blanket mass surveillance with targeted monitoring of suspects following judicial involvement [0]. As Council refused to compromise, the trilogue negotiations were set to fail, thus allowing the Commission's c…

Why this attempt is not treated as terrorism and authors of the proposals are not arrested?

Chat Controls fulfil the definition of terrorism wholly.

Re: The EU still wants to scan your private messages and photos

#367

Post by hagbard_c »

layer8 wrote: post #212
hagbard_c wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case the down-voters could have replied with something like that instead of knee-jerk-pressing that down-vote arrow in an attempt to get rid of a dissenting opinion. I would have responded by pointing out that the repeated attempts at pushing through laws which are clearly unwanted by the voting public has no stabilising effect and only undermines the trust in the legislative process. That my argument of 'the…

> Why should it be acceptable for politicos to keep on attempting to push through unwanted laws Think about what would happen if it was somehow prohibited to propose “sufficiently similar” laws again. Opposing parties would start gaming that rule by proposing the weakest flawed version possible for a law, so that it is rejected, which will in consequence prevent a better version of it from being admissible for consid…

Well, no, that is not a realistic scenario. If a law like the one I propose was in place it would be up to the politicos to make sure their law proposals would be up to snuff before they put them up for a vote in the knowledge that they could not keep on adjusting a line here, changing a word there to finally have it pass. If the proposed law is relatively uncontroversial it will pass the vote. If it is totally abysmal it won't pass. If it is debatable it will be debated. That is the political process as it was meant to be: come up with solutions to problems.

The whole spiel about 'majority' and 'minority' factions is not relevant here, what matters is whether the laws they propose stand a chance of gaining enough votes to pass. Assuming that the parliament is representative of the voter base - and that is a very big assumption - it can be stated that laws which are voted down are voted down because the people - the dèmos in other words - don't want those laws to be passed.

Do you think it is a good thing to have more laws on the books? If so I do not agree. I'd rather have fewer laws, the fewer the better. Regulate those things which need to be regulated, leave the rest to the people. It is up to the people to decide what needs to be regulated, not to those who have based their careers around regulation. There's a big conflict of interest between the needs of the former and those of the latter which has been tipped towards those of the latter in heavily bureaucratic institutions like the EU. I'd like to see the balance tip more towards the needs of the people, not the bureaucrats.

Re: The EU still wants to scan your private messages and photos

#368

Post by supermatt »

vintermann wrote: post #351
supermatt wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The European Commission represents the interests of the member states, while the European Parliament represent the interests of the citizens. NO LAW CAN PASS without the consent of the citizens directly elected representatives. There is no "pushing through". If you don't like how you are represented at the commission, then blame your government. It is THEIR representative - not yours. Also, don't forget that the comm…

An empty justification, since a state has no interest apart from its citizen's interests. I hope you agree that elected representation isn't perfect - there is going to be disalignment, ways in which representatives resemble each other more than they resemble their voters. This disalignment can only get amplified with every layer of indirect election. It never gets better.

A states interests are long term and strategic. These aren't the same as an aggregation of citizens relatively short term interests, but should absolutely be influenced by them.

I totally agree with what you say about elected representation - but I am also thankful that decisions aren't made through direct democracy given that so many people are often dangerously uninformed and easily manipulated.

Re: The EU still wants to scan your private messages and photos

#369

Post by gpderetta »

afh1 wrote: post #126

Where are all those "as an EU citizen" commenters? You are but a subject of an ultra-national government whose sole objective is ever increased control over your life and euros.

As an EU citizen, I'm happy that the parliament has once again rejected the proposal, which at least gives credence to the notion that it not just there to rubber-stamp what the commission decides.

But the price of freedom is indeed eternal vigilance.

Re: The EU still wants to scan your private messages and photos

#370

Post by munksbeer »

Yizahi wrote: post #341
munksbeer wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true. The commission do the bidding of the Council or other elected national ministers. Re-posting my comment: --- They're just like the civil service in the UK, or any other country. They do the bidding of our nationally elected governments. Nearly all proposals coming from the commission originate from the national governments. So a law: Starts with member states directly elected ministers pushing and ag…

It is true though. He said "directly elected by the people" and they are obviously not. If we are being honest, the system where privileged few select other privileged few among themselves is called oligarchy.

What is true? There are many true statements that are meaningless in the context. The commission isn't elected is true. But understanding how they start working on laws is the context, and key to understanding why that doesn't really matter.

People don't want you to look deeper. They want you only have the most shallow understanding, because that allows them to manipulate more easily.

Post reply on HN