Live data from Hacker News

European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

patrick-breyer.de

391–400 of 434 posts

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#391
post #329

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…

Morally you and me might prefer a system where might does not make right and human rights are truly inalienable.

Practically, however, these rights are only inalienable as long as the powers-that-be (police, military, organs of the state) agree -- if hypothetical Emperor Epstein (or real-life President Ashraf Ghani) declares child rape to be legal, and police and courts obey him, then good luck going up against them...

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#392
post #6

Do they want everyone to switch en masse to end-to-end encrypted communications? Because this is how you encourage that.

From the article:

> The European Commission has already announced a follow-up regulation to make chat control mandatory for all email and messaging providers. Previously secure end-to-end encrypted messenger services such as Whatsapp or Signal would be forced to install a backdoor.

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#393
post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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)

There's a Wikipedia page which basically says they're a set of rights that are broadly agreed to be particularly important: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_rights For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but other countries might have determined their own (additional) set. I would assume the name "fundamental" was chosen because all other rights derive from them, i.e. if they're taken away fr…

> the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but other countries might have determined their own (additional) set

It works in opposite way. Universal Declaration universally declares nice stuff, but member countries are free to restrict and persecute the freedom of """hate speech""", the freedom of """extremist expression""" et cetera et cetera et cetera

UDoHR is just a words, intellectuals are seduced by words and dismiss the fact UDoHR doesn't works anywhere except (maybe) America

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#394
post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What has been privatised recently? Train operating companies have been nationalised, but I'm not aware of any privatisation taking place. There is talk of Channel 4 but that is it as far as I can tell.

They haven’t finished the deregulation bit yet. They need to do that so they can hide the funding streams and private market involvement. Watch this space.

Once Great Britain was into surveillance even before EC formation and socialist since 1970s.

Ingsoc even have TV set tax and the suspicion on owning TV set is valid base for search warrant.

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how is a right fundamental? They are inalienable and bestowed by their Creator. I.e. they are part of the innate nature of human beings. Governments can either protect those rights or abrogate them - it cannot invent them. And yes, they stretch back to when humans became human. Though it took a while for people to formally recognize them.

How do we know what those fundamental rights are? By observing what happens to societies that have various formulations of rights. The societies that thrive are closer to the mark than societies that are mired in misery, despair, and death.

You neglected to mention any of these fundamental rights. Can you tell me one of them so I can debate you that it’s not fundamental?

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no rights unless others recognize and at least tacitly agree that they have obligations with respect to those rights. As the only person left in the universe (after some cataclysm), you'd be left with obligations but no rights. The obligations would include those that arise from within yourself to prevail and try to survive as best you can. Rights? Well, who would be granting those? The innate bit refers to ob…

Natural rights exist even when denied and infringed. Perhaps they are discovered as a consequence of human behavior, rather than molded by a grantor in acts of beneficence or compromise.

Can you name a “natural right”?

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how is a right fundamental? They are inalienable and bestowed by their Creator. I.e. they are part of the innate nature of human beings. Governments can either protect those rights or abrogate them - it cannot invent them. And yes, they stretch back to when humans became human. Though it took a while for people to formally recognize them.

I have no rights unless others recognize and at least tacitly agree that they have obligations with respect to those rights. As the only person left in the universe (after some cataclysm), you'd be left with obligations but no rights. The obligations would include those that arise from within yourself to prevail and try to survive as best you can. Rights? Well, who would be granting those? The innate bit refers to ob…

This is beautiful and spot on.

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your solution to the "democratic deficit" of the EU is to give Boris more power? He already has, in practice, all the power of the unelected head of state at his disposal, plus the unelected House of Lords, based on a voting system which put him into power with 44% of the popular vote.

"He already has, in practice, all the power of the unelected head of state" B.J. is an Elected Head of state. He won his mandate in a very clear and unambiguous election, the primary issues of which concerned not only on his leadership and tenure, but also the pivotal issue of Brexit. The election had very high participation rate, and the UK public was very well informed with respect to the stakes involved. B.J. does…

> B.J. is an Elected Head of state.

Just so we're using the same terms, here, I think it is conventional to describe Johnson's role as "head of government".[0]

> members of the Cabinet - those that enact legislation - are unelected.

The Commissioners are appointed by the heads of government of the member states, exactly the process you suggested in your earlier comment. If you think that Boris would be limited to picking ministers who had actually gone to the trouble of winning an election, then you'll be surprised to read about the 19 unelected ministers that Boris has chosen.[1]

> Ursula Von Der Leyen did not stand for election.

While Boris did manage to win 25,351 votes in his constituency, and 92,153 in his leadership election, there is nothing preventing a UK prime minister from gaining power through a backroom deal, such as Theresa May's unopposed leadership "election" in 2016, or Brown taking over from Blair in 2007.

This is of course accepted since the PM must hold the confidence of the parliament, but the same is true of the Commission President, who must receive the approval of an absolute majority of MEPs.[2] In fact she (together with her Commission) was elected with 461 votes to 157.[3]

> She was imposed [on] EU voters, probably less than 2% of whom had even heard of her.

I agree that this is a failing of the process and the political culture of the EU.

> EU elections have very low rates of participation, EU voters have very low awareness of any of the material issues

That could be interpreted as meaning that a large proportion of EU citizens don't feel particularly affected by the EU's decisions, which would mean that the EU is (correctly) leaving national issues to national politicians (who then influence the decisions of the Commission through their appointed commissioner).

> MEPs have very little ability to influence legislation

Any influence the MEPs lack just means more power to the national governments who control their respective commissioners. I don't see how this process is any worse than having an unelected House of Lords which contains hereditary peers.

> and very limited ability to censure leaders.

MEPs have the power to call a Vote Of No Confidence in a Commission, which can lead to its dismissal. This came close to happening in 1997 during the BSE crisis.[4]

> So yes, Boris Johnson (and Macron, and Merkel) have considerably more legitimacy than any members of the EU apparatus

If by "any members of the EU apparatus" you mean "specifically Ursula Von Der Leyen" then you almost have a point. I would also be more convinced if you had limited the first part of your statement to just Merkel, as I believe that Germany's electoral system is more proportional than the UK's and doesn't have the "safe seats" problem of FPTP. (The two-rounds system that Macron was elected under has its own problems).

As a thought experiment, imagine that Biden had won the presidency with just 44% of the popular vote, and that win also granted him an effective super-majority in both houses of Congress (since the UK only requires a simple majority to force through constitutional changes). I can only imagine that scenario leading to civil war in the US, and yet this equivalent situation in the UK lets some people think they can throw stones at the EU's democratic character.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_heads_of_state...

[1] https://bylinetimes.com/2021/02/19/brexit-revives-the-power-...

[2] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/faq/8/how-are-the-com...

[3] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20191121IP...

[4] https://www.politico.eu/article/meps-split-over-vote-of-no-c...

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are speaking of rights. I’m speaking of “fundamental rights”. How are they different?

"Fundamental" rights are the ones whose existence is not considered a matter for debate in society.

No such right exists. Can you name one?

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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)

Thanks for asking this. I’ve wondered the same things. The answers so far don’t seem to really answer the question well, which makes me wonder if this is just one of those phrases that people banter about without considering if it actually means anything.

Yeah, I can’t for the life of me think of any right that is fundamental when you consider the whole of human history and societies that have existed.

Even breathing — the most basic need — can be argued as not a right but something that the universe requires as a need to live. If breathing and life were “fundamental rights”, then there would be a provision in the laws of nature for them.

Post reply on HN