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

The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

mullvad.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 425 posts

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#381

Post by stametseater »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #348
stametseater wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Natural rights are a kind of theology. There's no scientific evidence for their existence, they're just asserted to exist. The fact that such rights are not recognized in most countries means that for practical intents and purposes, they do not exist in those countries.

If true then natural rights are an excellent example that things can exist without scientific evidence of them. Theology it may be it's a more powerful and useful concept than the one you're proposing.

> it's a more powerful and useful concept than the one you're proposing.

What is it that you think I proposed? I support the defense of that which you consider natural rights, because if they aren't defended they will cease to exist in any meaningful way.

These rights did not exist since the big bang in some sort of metaphysical space, nor does human society gravitate towards them. These rights were formulated by people, and insofar as they're recognized presently it's because people risked death to make it so.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#382

Post by stametseater »

Zetice wrote: post #370
stametseater wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Natural rights are a kind of theology. There's no scientific evidence for their existence, they're just asserted to exist. The fact that such rights are not recognized in most countries means that for practical intents and purposes, they do not exist in those countries.

A more useful way of thinking of "natural rights" is that "The set of rights that, if everyone were to have, would maximally smoothen interaction between individuals and groups." I don't think there's a real argument that, somewhere in our DNA, exists a list of personal freedoms every human being ought to have. Feels like an ad absurdum more than a genuine engagement, tbh...

I seriously doubt that genetic research will ever find natural rights. These were created by philosophers, revolutionaries, soldiers, and all manner of other freedom fighter. They were not given to us by our genes, they were created by us.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#383

Post by revelio »

zirgs wrote: post #321
revelio wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on how much cooperation the EU would extend (assume zero). For example paying other companies in euros requires transactions with the central bank. If the EU don't want you to leave they can just say, well, the moment you declare you're out we cut you off from the banking system and you can't settle your government debts anymore because you can't make euro transactions. For example.

Yeah, but I don't think that they would do it. We already had Brexit and the UK was allowed to leave. Had they not colonised Northern Ireland - the leaving process would have been even easier.

UK has its own currency and independent central bank, also it was a net payer into the EU budget so there was limited leverage.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#384

Post by michaelmrose »

atlgator wrote: post #373
michaelmrose wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a better argument for the American public making in general poor choices and political parties giving them the kind of people they are apt to vote for rather than paying insufficient salaries.

"Tail wagging the dog" argument.

There is no reason to believe that the factor dragging political quality into the gutter is insufficient salaries. The fact that the Republican party turned down higher caliber more capable candidates in favor of trump suggests that candidate quality is limited by voter choice not insufficient compensation.

These folks really are in fact deplorable and you need to appeal to at least a substantial minority of awful idiots to be elected president or if on team red most of them.

This is why every Republican president in half a century has been an embarrassment and every democratic relatively conservative because nothing else flies here and upping the ante won't help.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#385

Post by avodonosov »

avodonosov wrote: post #376

An effective way of countering such proposals would be to suggest an alternative mechanism for children safety. If anyone comes up with such a solution, he will achieve two goods: - protect children - remove a motive for surveilence Let's brainstorm?

Ideas out of top of my head.

1. Honeypots. Special agents sit online pretending to be children. The abusers found captured immediately, real time. This requires very quick legal aid channels between countries and organizations. To prevent the abusers from anonymizing (e.g. Tor), strong identification is needed in chats and communication systems - ID card or passport. That's a strong requirement, but better than surveillance, probably.

2. Strong identification of children. At least, children should be reliably identified by chat systems, and all communication with them should require the other party to be strongly identified. Or even full recording of communication, but only when communicating with children. By default chat system assumes user is a child, and to be off the record, user has to prove very reliably he is not a child (and the other side of the communication is a proven grown up as well).

3. AI-generated child abuse videos. Real children not harmed, perverts are satisfied. Although, people enjoying child abuse content deserve punishment anyway, probably. Also, encouraging production of such content increases the danger for normal people (including children) to be exposed to this content. However, the exposure possibility problem exists anyway.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#386

Post by stametseater »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #20
maxilevi wrote: post #7

Why every 12 months the European Commission comes up with a total dumb and authoritarian proposal and we have to actively fight it? It’s just tiring

Because any government's primary objective is to secure the power of the government, and most governments including western "democratic" ones view their people as the biggest threat to that objective. Which they are right about, mind you.

> most governments including western "democratic" ones view their people as the biggest threat to that objective

Which is particularly farcical when you realize that in the 20th century, governments murdered tens of millions of people. Governments are concentrations of power that wield monopolies on violence. If governments can be kept under control, kept within some reasonable guardrails, then they're very useful for various reasons. I am not an anarchist, even remotely. But when governments get out of control the result is often millions dead.

Governments which view those guardrails as a threat from the people are a threat to the people. Such perceptions prove the necessity of those guardrails.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#387

Post by epups »

dragonwriter wrote: post #378
epups wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow. Are you saying that subscribing to the notion that democratic societies have certain rights protected by law is legalism?

I'm saying that “democracy” and “a society governed by laws and not just the present mood of whoever is in charge” are different (and, indeed, somewhat opposed—which is why early liberal theorists have a lot negative to say about “democracy”—things). The particular blend where each limits the other that has come to define liberal democratic government is not the same as the broader concept of “democracy”.

I see - in that case I fully agree.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#388

Post by sowbug »

javajosh wrote: post #336
sowbug wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If reality TV and US politics are any indication, then today it's the reverse: the less privacy you have, the more power you have. Beware the peculiar human creature who craves attention from strangers.

Media exposure is not the same as loss of privacy. Fox "News" hosts have a ton of exposure. But they also have a ton of privacy. We know this because it was noticable when they lost their privacy in the Dominion lawsuit discovery. Their (previously private) texts to each other admitting openly lying to their viewers, that they themselves saw through Trump's obvious and destructive lies. And it was, is, a fantastic lo…

I understand the difference.

If we required politicians to stream their lives 24/7, then the unintended consequence would be a government run exclusively by Instagram influencers who already stream their lives 24/7. I get your point about sunlight on secrets. But limiting our governance to the pool of people I see on TikTok seems like a high price to pay.

(This is just a 2023 rephrasing of the age-old concern of electing someone willing to be a politician.)

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#389

Post by raverbashing »

gpderetta wrote: post #211
revelio wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how it works, at all. History should make this clear! By the time a regime reaches "existential threat" level it's too late. You're already far gone, any and all political opposition has been driven underground and the regime has loyalists in place in all institutions and positions of power. There is no way to organize any resistance because attempts to do so are crushed immediately, the press is controlle…

Mate, if you think the propaganda is only on one side, I don't know what to tell you.

True. But don't expect much from a throwaway account posting half-truths

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#390

Post by shanebellone »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #377
shanebellone wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hatred and bigotry are wielded by the weak, angry, stupid, and scared. If your position is congruent with the parent comment, I know exactly what you are. I have no reason to debate small humans. "Using circular logic to refute someone's point isn't too smart either." Also, straw man. I chose "disregard" intentionally. Disregard is not synonymous with refute.

Calling people you dislike “stupid” and “low intelligence” is indicative of bigoted attitudes.[0] While I'm in favour of reclaiming some meaning from the word “stupid”,[1] what you're doing here is not that. If you care about this sort of thing (which you seem to), you might want to reconsider how you go about it. > > Using circular logic It is best for your criticisms of things to be founded in truth, where possible…

"That's not to say you need to put much effort into responding. But if you feel like putting that little effort in, it's best not to respond at all."

While I understand your point, I decline.

Silence favors the wicked.

Post reply on HN