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

401–410 of 449 posts

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

#401

Post by BoxOfRain »

echelon_musk wrote: post #182
BoxOfRain wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I genuinely think the public sector being a bit hopeless is a major check on tyranny in the UK. Ofcom (the communications regulator charged with imposing the censorship laws) literally maintains a public list of non-compliant websites that anyone who doesn't want to give their ID to a shady offshore firm can browse for example.

> can browse for example can't browse?

No they can browse them, Ofcom literally compiled the sites it doesn't want everyone to browse in an easily-accessible list.

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

#402

Post by Xelbair »

saubeidl wrote: post #334
Xelbair wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My problem is that i as a citizen can vote for my heads of state, but if other parts of EU decided something my vote is null and void, EVEN if majority of EU citizens are against such issue. Imagine is those issues were campaign promises and part of internal(country's) elections - they aren't in reality but we can set that aside for now. as it was extremely well said by sibling post. My country is 80% against 20% in…

This brings up a structural issue with the EU as it is designed right now - trying to give maximum power to nation states. A unitary state would solve that problem by allowing us to have simple, Union-wide elections instead.

The issue is that EU is stuck in-between federation(which requires more checks and balances), and a trade union - which should concern themselves with just trade regulations.

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

#403

Post by Xelbair »

ben_w wrote: post #259
Xelbair wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that EU does not control the internet, nor all means of communication. Nor perfect form of monitoring exists so question is moot in itself. Especially as perfect encryption is indistinguishable from noise. and the answer is no but yes - by encrypting everything E2E you can massively reduce harm done, and treat espionage/crime as policy/economic problem instead.

The EU delegates stuff to the member states, those states enforce laws, that could in principal include requiring everything up from the physical link layer to scan for watever they say so. > Especially as perfect encryption is indistinguishable from noise. Irrelevant. If powers can't decrypt it, powers deem it a crime to have or send. "white-noise.wav is a test file and I'm an acoustics engineer": tough, supply the…

>"white-noise.wav is a test file and I'm an acoustics engineer": tough, supply the seed to the PRNG which created it or fine time.

Guilty until proven innocent, the burden is on you to prove it.

you are hung up on your pre-made assumption that the EU(state) in this case can have perfect control - which is fallacious in itself - and therefore are just arguing in bad faith. When they have such perfect control this is already a totalitarian state, that requires no such thing as due process.

all of that to push forward your point:

>We must have unbreakable encryption, and yet also we cannot have it.

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

#404

Post by Xelbair »

ben_w wrote: post #281
gf000 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "white-noise.wav is a test file and I'm an acoustics engineer": tough, supply the seed to the PRNG which created it or fine time. It's a photo I took yesterday. Now what? It may or may not have a secret message that only the target knows how to decrypt. Or maybe it's just more "traditional" text encryption with code names, but real human-legible text. It's technically unfeasible to ban encryption.

> It's a photo I took yesterday. Now what? If that seed doesn't generate that particular white noise sequence, or if you can't supply that photo, then you go to jail. > It's technically unfeasible to ban encryption. It's also economically unfeasible. Am I using moonspeak without realising it when I say "I can't square this circle"? Is this a phrase that people are unfamiliar with and I just haven't realised?

the issue is that you've made a lot of a priori assumptions that do not hold up

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

#405

Post by gregbot »

hrimfaxi wrote: post #355
Fnoord wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US Constitution. What a beautiful piece of paper, such a nice theory. Yet your current president is circumventing Congress. Your president is bullying states. You don't even have a functional popular vote. Your SCOTUS is dysfunctional. And, this 1st amendment, is that why peaceful protestors got shot by rubber bullets when they were protesting against the war in Iraq? Which, as it turned out, was started for dish…

Which data sources would you point to for ranking freedom of speech by country?

That’s a great question. The answer (of course) depends on what result you want to get and nothing else.

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

#406

Post by gregbot »

aaronmdjones wrote: post #366
gregbot wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>doesn't mean your actions do not have consequences YES IT DOES THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT You obviously do not believe in freedom of speech as defined by US law. You are conflating extremely narrow exceptions with broad politically motivated violations of freedom of political speech

> You obviously do not believe in freedom of speech as defined by US law. Neither do you. The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly held in numerous rulings that freedom of speech and/or freedom of expression is not absolute and you can be sanctioned, prosecuted and/or imprisoned for some forms of speech and/or expression -- i.e. you do have consequences. - Schenck v. United States (1919) -- Speech that h…

Provide 11 meaningful examples of things that are legal to say in the US and not legal in the UK or EU and then reevaluate your position.

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

#407

Post by gregbot »

Fnoord wrote: post #364
gregbot wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats like asking kim jong un who the freest country is and being proud that he say its north korea

'Being proud that he say' [sic]. You're not even a native English speaker, are you, 'greg'? First you say freedom of speech is about after the speech (it is about before the speech, as after that the law is applied pragmatic). Then you come with this KJU joke. North Korea doesn't make these indices. [1] [2] [3]. In each of these, USA is decidedly below the vast majority of the free West, including the very countries…

both of these sources are European

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

#408

Post by hrimfaxi »

Fnoord wrote: post #364
gregbot wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats like asking kim jong un who the freest country is and being proud that he say its north korea

'Being proud that he say' [sic]. You're not even a native English speaker, are you, 'greg'? First you say freedom of speech is about after the speech (it is about before the speech, as after that the law is applied pragmatic). Then you come with this KJU joke. North Korea doesn't make these indices. [1] [2] [3]. In each of these, USA is decidedly below the vast majority of the free West, including the very countries…

By one of your own references USA is in the top 3 for freedom of speech.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries...

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

#409

Post by Fnoord »

hrimfaxi wrote: post #408
Fnoord wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Being proud that he say' [sic]. You're not even a native English speaker, are you, 'greg'? First you say freedom of speech is about after the speech (it is about before the speech, as after that the law is applied pragmatic). Then you come with this KJU joke. North Korea doesn't make these indices. [1] [2] [3]. In each of these, USA is decidedly below the vast majority of the free West, including the very countries…

By one of your own references USA is in the top 3 for freedom of speech. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries...

Yep, in fafs in 2021. Pew 2015: 8th. gsod 2023: 28th.

On all of the freedoms, USA tends to do best on freedom of speech. But how can you say such, when the press has less freedom than in other rich West countries? Isn't that counter interactive?

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

#410

Post by LexiMax »

hrimfaxi wrote: post #387
bluebarbet wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pretty much.

At the point where tensions rise beyond polite disagreement, HN ceases to be a functional social space and turns into a game of "who can make the other's opinions disappear first."

Doing so is technically against the rules, but either the moderators don't care, aren't doing it on a large enough scale to be an effective deterrent, or are knowingly complicit.

Post reply on HN