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

381–390 of 449 posts

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

#381

Post by ramblenode »

_verandaguy wrote: post #244
sneak wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purpose of the state is continuity of the state. The state is always the natural enemy of the people - specifically the liberty and privacy of the people. Any time you have a government, you will have a government that wishes to spy on you to make sure you will never attempt a competing government/army.

This seems like a very one-dimensional take. It's not invalid per se, but it really overlooks why states emerged in the first place (and I'm talking more about large, geographically-cohesive groups of people more than nations as the concept's come to be known in the last 2-3 hundred years). The economic argument is that with states, you can benefit (to varying degrees, depending on the state's lowercase-c constitutio…

Economies of scale aren't specific to states. That's something every cooperative group benefits from.

Historically, the formation of most large states was not a voluntary merger of smaller states for the benefit of all but the conquest of smaller states by larger states.

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

#382

Post by Jensson »

Fnoord wrote: post #271
raxxorraxor wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And while all this is happening, there are cases were peoples homes get search for comments on twitter. These are often in bad taste, but what tastes even worse is that the judiciary doesn't seem to understand proportionality anymore. Mean tweets carry higher sentences than raping someone, stern look at Germany here. A judiciary in such a sorry state, that has not adapted to a changed reality, cannot be permitted to…

'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…

This is an example from UK about a dead military officer: “The only good Brit soldier is a deed one, burn auld fella buuuuurn,”

Now the rest of Europe has much more freedom of speech than UK, but that is an example of a mean tweet about a government official that got sentenced. We don't want that in the EU.

Note that the guy was convicted even though he almost immediately deleted the tweet and apologized, the law is that bad, you aren't allowed to slip up even a little bit.

https://nypost.com/2022/03/31/twitter-user-sentenced-to-comm...

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

#383

Post by dathinab »

dathinab wrote: post #373
iknowstuff wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EU law has supremacy over national laws. National courts need to disapply local laws in conflict with EU law, so typically any subsequent local disputes in court will just be ruled based on a new EU law/ruling. EU laws in conflict with a local constitution pose more of a challenge: from the EU point of view, EU law is supreme and they might apply infringement procedures for failing to recognize it, but for a country,…

> EU law has supremacy over national laws This only applies where countries ceded sovereignty to the EU. Technically in Germany non of the sovereignty was ceded but transferred based on two different articles in the German Constitution. But that transfer is neither absolute, nor automatic. Practically it means that in most situations it is "as if" it was cede, but just in most situations. This leads to a situation wh…

One thing to add is that there is no guarantee this is even against the German constitution.

Local devices only scanning which only if there is an issue sends any information to anywhere outside of the device might actually be compatible with the German constitution by the argument that the privacy is only violated if the local validator phones home and that it only does so if there is a reasonable suspicion at which case it isn't baseless mass surveillance anymore... on a technicality iff the local scanner have close to now false positives. It's anyway a bad idea and a lot of the things it claims it's meant to help with have a lot of neglected other solutions which would improve things a lot.

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

#384

Post by bluebarbet »

hrimfaxi wrote: post #360
LexiMax wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes the opinion hidden from the vast majority of visitors, except those who go out of their way to both have an account and showdead. It is in every appreciable way censorship via unaccountable mob. It's censorship in a way that Reddit's downvote isn't, because Reddit allows anonymous users to read downvoted posts - or at least did the last time I checked.

Does your definition of censorship require everything to be viewable by anonymous users?

Does your definition of disagreement require that it be made harder for others to hear voices you disagree with?

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

#385

Post by surgical_fire »

iso1631 wrote: post #350
ekianjo wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing democratic about the process. It's all unelected politicians ruling for you

Which ones are unelected - the democratically elected heads of the member state governments? Or the democratically elected members of the EU parliament? Or the commissioners that are appointed by the democratically elected heads of the member state governments?

I tried the same questions on multiple different threads, to multiple different imbeciles posting the same bullshit.

You will never get an answer from them. But we should keep asking it anyway.

I always wondered if they live on the EU and are genuinely too stupid to understand how the bloc their country joined works or, most likely, live outside of it and the idea of the EU as a political entity offends their sensibilities or heighten their anxiety.

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

#386

Post by wnoise »

iso1631 wrote: post #350
ekianjo wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing democratic about the process. It's all unelected politicians ruling for you

Which ones are unelected - the democratically elected heads of the member state governments? Or the democratically elected members of the EU parliament? Or the commissioners that are appointed by the democratically elected heads of the member state governments?

The commissioners?

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

#387

Post by hrimfaxi »

bluebarbet wrote: post #384
hrimfaxi wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does your definition of censorship require everything to be viewable by anonymous users?

Does your definition of disagreement require that it be made harder for others to hear voices you disagree with?

That was an illuminating question. Thank you. I see my parent's point now because no, I don't think that disagreement requires what amounts to censure if it makes it harder for something to be seen.

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

#388

Post by pixelpoet »

graemep wrote: post #375
pixelpoet wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-AMP link to help keep dirty monopolists at bay: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0kn54vj55xo Please don't use AMP.

I did not actually notice it was AMP. Its on the same domain as the version you link to - is that still a problem?

All good, and sorry I'm used to making posts like this on Reddit where people are less aware.

I just did what I always do, edit out the AMP part and check that it still works. Sometimes the URL will go elsewhere or need more fiddling, this time it just worked.

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

#389

Post by dang »

dupedupedupe wrote: post #34
mrtksn wrote: post #7

[dupe] 135 comments : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46062777

Thank you ChrisArchitect. That story was mysteriously (downranked/downmodded/deranked/downweighted) from the front page. Perhaps it met the criteria for a Major Ongoing Topic (MOT) or a MegaMOT, or the "flamewar detector" kicked in, or just that it wasn't convenient to discuss, but we'll never know since the precise moderation action applied to individual stories is opaque. https://hnrankings.info/46062777/

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

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

#390

Post by DangitBobby »

squigz wrote: post #303
DangitBobby wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We clearly live in different worlds.

Maybe that says more about your biases than it does about the intelligence of 8 billion people though.

I'm not sure what factual basis you have for your optimism. I have plenty for my pessimism about human nature and our ability to competently govern ourselves as well as our general moral fortitude. We've gotten this far because we've been playing life on easy mode with a ridiculously nurturing planet and practically unlimited energy available under the ground, but we aren't smart enough or forward thinking enough to take on the minor pain necessary to avoid the catastrophe we are lumbering towards. We are short-sighted, selfish, self-important, and we haven't earned the regard in which we hold ourselves.

Regarding your specific point about using recent context to inform political opinions, if you spend any amount of time listening to the opinions of people online you'll find that not only do they fail to accurately recall past events, but they don't bother to research what actually happened, and when they do they fail at anything but the most superficial political analysis.

Post reply on HN