41–50 of 200 posts
[flagged]
EU has always been more "nanny state" then US. EU voters IMO seem to believe that principle of their government is "keep the peace and tranquility" and if that means restricting speech to do so, they are ok with that decision.
Invading private chat - no.
My personal opinion, but lot of people are just unaware.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Free speech? The very thing you were just very concerned about? Also, there's no evidence that guy was leftist at all.
Duh, he’s a leftist; and the fourth violent one the right wing can name from the last year alongside Ryan Routh, Thomas Crooks, and Robin Westman. Denial doesn’t solve problems.
Who would be allowed to configure the scanners and receive the reports, an EU security body, or the member states?
[flagged]
What I don't understand is, why don't the authorities think the actual bad guys will avoid the surveillance? It seems to me that organized crime will find their own solution, and the rest of us will occasionally have a snooping policeman checking our private messages. It's not unknown, even in Denmark, that people who are given access to private data will abuse it, eg snooping on ex girlfriends, that kind of thing. W…
What I don't understand is, why don't the authorities think the actual bad guys will avoid the surveillance? It seems to me that organized crime will find their own solution, and the rest of us will occasionally have a snooping policeman checking our private messages. It's not unknown, even in Denmark, that people who are given access to private data will abuse it, eg snooping on ex girlfriends, that kind of thing. W…
Part of the answer is that they think the surveillance will be magically omniscient, because it's technology they don't understand.
Part of the answer is that they think that if there's a tool they could possibly have to give law enforcement more power, they must have it.
Part of it is that they don't care so much about actual bad guys, but about exercising absolute control over the general populace.
Part of it is that they don't believe that crime can actually be eliminated, but they do believe that they have to continue to take all possible measures against it.
And part of it is just that they don't think it's politically safe for them to oppose a measure like this (similar to, but not quite the same as, the second point above).
What I don't understand is, why don't the authorities think the actual bad guys will avoid the surveillance? It seems to me that organized crime will find their own solution, and the rest of us will occasionally have a snooping policeman checking our private messages. It's not unknown, even in Denmark, that people who are given access to private data will abuse it, eg snooping on ex girlfriends, that kind of thing. W…
I can't wait to find out what politicians are sending!
>Now Paris “on the whole” agrees with the draft. France welcomes both mandatory chat control and client-side scanning. A few months ago, a broad security law was passed by the National Assembly in France. Initially, this law contained provisions, including the scanning of private messages, which were removed from the main text by a large majority of lawmakers, as it was deemed too intrusive. The few officials (includ…