371–380 of 434 posts
Does anyone have a link to details about who voted how?
The actual text that has been adopted is at https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_instituti... AFAICT
Can this be true? I'm having a hard time understanding how they can stand for internet privacy and legal mass surveillance simultaneously.
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).
Inalienable is just as worthless a fundamental. Obviously the US govt takes away its citizens' rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness through actions such as death penalty, imprisonment, compulsory military draft, and all kinds of less severe restrictions for criminals and suspects.
> Obviously the US govt takes away its citizens' rights
There is a system of laws enacted by representatives of the people and proven out in courts, for example Eminent Domain.
To your point, that "nation of laws" concept is tending toward more of a theoretical than practical thing.
Are there any primary sources for this? I'm having trouble finding anything talking about any final legislative action involving chat control/ePrivacy etc. that isn't this random pirate party blog.
Press release: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20210701IP...
Summary from the above link:
> Service providers can continue applying voluntary measures to detect, remove and report child sexual abuse content
> National data protection authorities will have stronger oversight of the technologies used
> Temporary solution for maximum three years
According to the text of legislation, looks like this kind of scanning was allowed until Dec 21st 2020 when it become affected by a stricter privacy directive, and this reallows such scanning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
laughs in Mandarin Well, I shouldn’t do that. Suffice to say, it’s simply a fact that China bans VPNs, and pretty much everyone goes along with it. People fear jail. It’s hard (but not impossible) to imagine Europe and the US doing that. NordVPN is practically a household name, at least on YouTube.
President Pooh bans VPNs but pretty much everyone uses them and jumps over the great wall. People just have a 'compliance' phone when authorities ask to rummage through it.
Does this ever work? Depending on the jurisdiction, law enforcement authorities can easily get a warrant to enter your home and search through everything to ensure that they find all of your devices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In [1], pages 10 and 11 are the actual directive, the rest is the reasoning. And, although I don't know the previous directives and regulations, it reads as if this is essentially an extension of an exception to the ePrivacy directive for another five years. Birgit Sippel says in her statement to the president of the parliament [2]: > Dieses Gesetz ist eine Übergangslösung für drei Jahre. Die Kommission hatte verspro…
Yeah, this is a fair assessment. The main article is sensationalistic and overblown.
It's not overblown. The horror that is the "Patriot Act" was temporary, until it wasn't. It only expired in December 2020, 19 years later, because Trump threatened to veto it if he didn't get his way, and as a result it expired because nobody chose to vote on it. If I was a betting man, I would assume it's still in use even when expired.
So, temporary laws can last for decades.
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)
What is good for human beings is objectively true as determined by human nature. It is objectively harmful, for example, to starve. It is objectively harmful to cut off one's right arm. It is also objectively harmful to take drugs that frustrate the exercise of reason because this is opposed to being the kind of thing you are, a human being. The same can be said for the misuse of the body and its faculties in various ways. They work against their healthy function and your well-being.
Now, by nature, as I already said, human beings are rational animals, that is, it is our nature to be rational. We are also social animals. Thus, our own flourishing as individual human beings is also social. A society in which justice isn't practiced is no good for the human beings that are a part of it. Justice means that we can make claims, at least under certain conditions. It is of course unjust to make claims upon others that are not warranted, so we must determine what exactly constitutes a just and legitimate claim. This presupposes rationality (you cannot have a claim to what is absurd or evil) and relational (some relations are voluntary, others are not, but the nature of the relationship will inform us of our obligations and claims) and conditioned by other factors (a criminal forfeits certain rights by virtue of having committed an injustice).
I will agree with you, though, that "fundamental rights" is unclear. If they mean something like what I've described, as something that is determined by human nature, then sure, they're fundamental in the sense that they have an objective ground in human nature. But if they are understood as somehow absolute in the sense that a criminal could go around murdering people and still maintain a claim to his own life, then no.
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).
I tend to see rights as temporary privileges. A right by its name can be given or taken away. I feel the discussion about fundamental rights is moot as it always depends on the powers that be. In that sense I prefer dane-pgp's explanation of these being more foundational rights. Your thoughts and beliefs and your actions are what you are and not a right.
If Hitler came to power, let's say in an election but it doesn't matter since the right to vote is also a privilege according to your view, and said "alright, henceforth, all blacks lose the privilege of living", would you find that irrefutable and in conformity with your own logic? If Jeffrey Epstein took power and said "children may now be raped at will", is that a matter of a privilege being cancelled? Does "might make right" however you define "might"?
I certainly hope not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rule of thumb: If something invokes "protect the children" to justify itself or to push it's agenda, it is advocating something. Not only that it is doing so in an underhanded and emotionally targeted way. I'm not saying politico is the primary source of advocacy in this situation, but they are at least echoing it and helping frame the debate around that.
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…
The problem is they don't reduce it. It doesn't prevent the abuse and rape nor does it prevent the trade. They install mass surveillance that catches some idiots.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I tend to see rights as temporary privileges. A right by its name can be given or taken away. I feel the discussion about fundamental rights is moot as it always depends on the powers that be. In that sense I prefer dane-pgp's explanation of these being more foundational rights. Your thoughts and beliefs and your actions are what you are and not a right.
Privileges accorded by whom? If Hitler came to power, let's say in an election but it doesn't matter since the right to vote is also a privilege according to your view, and said "alright, henceforth, all blacks lose the privilege of living", would you find that irrefutable and in conformity with your own logic? If Jeffrey Epstein took power and said "children may now be raped at will", is that a matter of a privilege…
The definition you used is about what's morally right and in that sense talking about fundamental rights that can't be taken away if you want to hold up some definition of human dignity makes sense, but even then it's subjective to some degree and depends on which school of thought you subscribe to.
Your example shows exactly this ditchomy. If freedom can be taken away and sexual consent ignored, those things can't be at fundamental or real as physical laws. But even so I have a hard time imagining most who see it this way would consider this as anything but reprehensible.