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

European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

patrick-breyer.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 434 posts

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#421

Post by alkonaut »

bruce343434 wrote: post #420
alkonaut wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So he is outraged by this and the worst thing is… not in this legislation but in a potential follow up legislation that might contain those bad parts?

At this point I'm assuming you are arguing in bad faith. Again, no one is reporting on this. People should be made aware that if the vote happens, they can nag their reps beforehand. But they aren't being made aware.

You must be misunderstanding what I’m arguing.

I’m saying nothing about the actual law passed or how it wasn’t reported on.

What I’m saying is that the article linked talks about banning encryption or mandating back doors, and that law would be very controversial (much more than this one) so that law couldn’t just be passed unnoticed.

The future law text about banning encryption might be written some day and I too hope we have plenty of time to nag reps before it ever gets to a vote. This could be years from now, if ever.

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#422

Post by exporectomy »

smitty1e wrote: post #373
exporectomy wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inalienable is just as worthless a fundamental. Obviously the US govt takes away its citizens' rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness through actions such as death penalty, imprisonment, compulsory military draft, and all kinds of less severe restrictions for criminals and suspects.

Disagree. > Obviously the US govt takes away its citizens' rights There is a system of laws enacted by representatives of the people and proven out in courts, for example Eminent Domain. To your point, that "nation of laws" concept is tending toward more of a theoretical than practical thing.

Then they're alienable by law, not inalienable.

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#423

Post by dredmorbius »

briefcomment wrote: post #295
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #287

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)

No rights are objectively fundamental. It's subjective. If people in power don't agree to act as though certain rights are fundamental, they cease to be enforced, even if lip service is paid.

"Fundamental" in the sense of "foundational to civil society".

Not "fundamental" in the sense of "impossible to deny".

Where fundamental rights are routinely denied, civil society is impossible.

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#424

Post by dredmorbius »

exporectomy wrote: post #344
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excellent point. So I’ll ignore “fundamental right” next time I read it. I note that the United States uses “inalienable rights”, meaning ones which can’t be given or taken away. The only things that can’t be given or taken from me without a lobotomy are my education and internal thoughts and beliefs (that includes things like self-worth and dignity).

Inalienable is just as worthless a fundamental. Obviously the US govt takes away its citizens' rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness through actions such as death penalty, imprisonment, compulsory military draft, and all kinds of less severe restrictions for criminals and suspects.

That's a misunderstanding of "inalienable" or "unalienable".

An alienable right is one which can be assigned to another.

Your physical, real (land), and usefruct rights (as with intellectual property rights) can be alienated in the sense that you can be deprived of them and then they can be assigned to another entity.

Inalienable rights can be denied to you, but cannot be made alien in the sense that another receives their benefits. Your own life, your own happiness, your own liberty, among other privileges you may enjoy, can be deprived of you. But nobody else can receive their benefits.

The notion of inalienable rights is not absolutely fixed. In 1800, you would have had an inalienable right to the function of your own heart, lungs, kidneys, liver, etc. With organ transplants, these are now alienable rights, as those organs (and others) can be removed and given to others, through advances in medical technology.

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#425

Post by dredmorbius »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #335
WalterBright wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a right to liberty regardless of whether you are enslaved or free.

A right without a remedy isn't a right at all.

I don't see either your claim or WalterBright's as clearly grounded.

Each of you needs to define how you mean "right".

(NB: The definition in the OED spans 8 pages.)

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#426

Post by dredmorbius »

WalterBright wrote: post #310
briefcomment wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No rights are objectively fundamental. It's subjective. If people in power don't agree to act as though certain rights are fundamental, they cease to be enforced, even if lip service is paid.

If governments bestow rights, then the citizens have no business revolting against an oppressive government.

Governments bestow, enforce, and adjudicate legal rights.

There may well be other types of rights that are being discussed here, and much of the confusion in discussions of rights seems to revolve around disagreement on those definitions. It becomes something of a mott-and-bailey tactic, or one of terms expressed and understood quite differently by participants.

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#427

Post by dredmorbius »

WalterBright wrote: post #309
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #287

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)

> 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.

So, "inalienable" I can understand.

"Bestowed by their Creator" starts leaning very heavily on a specific religion's doctrines, and given that there is no religion which is universally adhered to by all persons, dominant in all nations, or indeed acknowleging that "no religion" is the belief of a substantial portion of the population, then regardless of the legacy of the phrase, it's not especially useful in discussion and to me seems to obscure more than it reveals.

Could you choose an alternate phrasing?

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#428

Post by dredmorbius »

Datagenerator wrote: post #332
WalterBright wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The ten commandments as benchmark and foundation applies to many common situations.

The majority of the commandments are not rights but restrictions, the "thou shall not"s. Even the positively-phrased commandments are obligations ("honour thy father and mother...").

These are not rights.

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#429

Post by dredmorbius »

dredmorbius wrote: post #424
exporectomy wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inalienable is just as worthless a fundamental. Obviously the US govt takes away its citizens' rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness through actions such as death penalty, imprisonment, compulsory military draft, and all kinds of less severe restrictions for criminals and suspects.

That's a misunderstanding of "inalienable" or "unalienable". An alienable right is one which can be assigned to another. Your physical, real (land), and usefruct rights (as with intellectual property rights) can be alienated in the sense that you can be deprived of them and then they can be assigned to another entity . Inalienable rights can be denied to you, but cannot be made alien in the sense that another receive…

Note that your usefruct rights and your property rights can be alienated, but your right to property, as a separate concept, cannot.

That is, the benefits or possession of property can be transferred to another. The ability to benefit or possess cannot. Those last can be denied, and the objects of them transferred, but the right to enjoy, much as happiness or enjoyment itself, is inalienable.

Re: European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

#430

Post by asdfzxh8 »

alkonaut wrote: post #421
bruce343434 wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point I'm assuming you are arguing in bad faith. Again, no one is reporting on this. People should be made aware that if the vote happens, they can nag their reps beforehand. But they aren't being made aware.

You must be misunderstanding what I’m arguing. I’m saying nothing about the actual law passed or how it wasn’t reported on. What I’m saying is that the article linked talks about banning encryption or mandating back doors, and that law would be very controversial (much more than this one) so that law couldn’t just be passed unnoticed. The future law text about banning encryption might be written some day and I too ho…

nah, you are bsing, the article is about legit concerns, you failing to see any of that or naively/foolishly believing the innocence of the legislators is your own problem.
Post reply on HN