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

Fight Chat Control

fightchatcontrol.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 528 posts

Re: Fight Chat Control

#491

Post by mantas »

myaccountonhn wrote: post #486
nickslaughter02 wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly are you going to repeal ChatControl or ProtectEU when the same people who lobbied for these proposals/laws are the ones who would have to repeal it? Ursula survived a no confidence vote just a month ago.

It's not over yet. We can still fight it. I don't think democracy is perfect, especially in this case. But I come from a very regulated country, and have lived in countries with far less regulation. The comfort that comes knowing that my food is somewhat safe to eat, that I have access to healthcare, that most workers have good working condition with lots of holiday. This all came from regulation and democracy, and i…

The problem is once trust gets too high, government powers get abused and then we get shit like chat control. Which is not democratical. Over time, less trust should bring government back under control and the cycle repeats. Hopefully. If democratical feedback process still works.

Of course it’s nicer to live where you can trust your government to represent your interests. But blind trust just because mistrust is not nice is one of the worst options.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#492

Post by mantas »

myaccountonhn wrote: post #489
nickslaughter02 wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not over but sorry - they have lost all my trust. With governments like these who needs enemies?

There's absolutely reason to lose faith in the system, I'm just as guilty of that. At the same time, it has helped me to know that in many parts of the world there's been slides into authoritarianism, and in cases where there's been strong push-back its been possible to reverse it. It's when there's no push back that it becomes worse. Objectively, it's still possible to fight it and democracy is still a good venture…

Applied modern democracy and theoretical democracy are two different things. But yes, we should strive to get to a better version of democracy. Instead of just saying democracy BAD.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#493

Post by immibis »

account42 wrote: post #344
tamimio wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would be naive to think this is after porn, it’s just for public consumption and justification, the whole idea is more control and surveillance, once the infrastructure is there, the laws and resources too, it will be just some quick small amendment to expand it further for something else, that’s how always it works, one step at a time, boil the frog slowly.

Yes. And the next step will be to ensure that these censorship laws can be enforced on international websites which will be a great excuse to firewall international communications.

All developed countries, plus the USA, already do this. They all have international firewalls but they are implemented by pressuring ISPs rather than by forcing all traffic to go through an actual firewall.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#494

Post by immibis »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #283
Centigonal wrote: post #25

In the US, we have government programs like PRISM and unchecked oligopolies that surveil us and use that information to identify dissent, sell us ads, and alter our behavior. In the EU, there are these initiatives to surveil us in the name of safety. Is there any regime out there who's not trying to mass-surveil their citizens for one reason or another?

> In the US, we have government programs like PRISM and unchecked oligopolies In the US we also enjoy probably the most expansive protection of speech in the world at present. Our own government created Tor. Yet simultaneously the majority of the population willingly hands over the minute details of their daily lives to half a dozen or more megacorps for the sake of some minor conveniences. It's beyond perplexing. I…

It's consistent when viewed from a perspective of accountability evasion. They don't need to make actual anti free speech laws, because you already don't have free speech without the laws. And by not making the laws, they get to claim they give you free speech.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#495

Post by immibis »

mvieira38 wrote: post #418
josh2600 wrote: post #184

This is actually one of the major fights of our generation. If signal/whatsapp/e2ee are desecrated, only criminals will have encryption for a short period of time until we all come to our senses and realize that some semblance of personal privacy is a human right. IMHO, we should fight for the maximum amount of privacy possible within the context of a civil society. In every generation there is a battle, sometimes qu…

> "whatsapp" Please don't include it in this conversation. That app is spyware and collects enough metadata on you for actual conversations not to matter, proven by them being bold enough to introduce personalized advertising inside the "e2ee" app

Also it uploads all your decrypted chats to Google every week.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#496

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

bigfudge wrote: post #473
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which people? The responsibility is distributed across hundreds, the decisions that led to the breach were made by committees, etc.

The person nominated by that company as their age verification guardian? Or the CEO. Or both. The defence for either could be that they took reasonable steps to know what was going on in their companies or were actively mislead. This isn’t complicated. If it’s the law companies should comply. Fines won’t make a difference to corporate behaviour but this Might.

I think that person's title is Designated Patsy. If your idea of justice is them finding someone who's willing to gamble that they won't be called out before their term is up in return for fat paychecks until it happens or they can "move on", I don't think we have compatible senses of justice.

>This isn’t complicated.

Not only is it complicated, it is deliberately complicated expressly for the purpose of making it impossible for justice to occur.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#497

Post by rimunroe »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #483
rimunroe wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think their confusion was on how numerical comparisons work, it was on how a "maximum term of imprisonment" could also come with a minimum duration. In other words, what does a "maximum term" mean if it's not the actual longest time someone could be imprisoned for? Are there lesser terms?

Right. The confusion here is that this document isn't setting some maximum term, it's providing a constraints for multiple implementations of the law - it mandates that whatever maximum term any given country chooses, it must be no less than one year.

Yes, I think we all understand this. The thing which is confusing is why bother specifying a minimum length of one year if you're allowed to have lesser sentences?

Re: Fight Chat Control

#498

Post by immibis »

random9749832 wrote: post #327

When they locked everything down and forced you to wear masks they already told you who they are. They don't care about your freedom or you as an individual and your rights.

sorry, this is stupid. Preventing a pandemic (we failed to prevent a pandemic because large numbers of us deliberately chose not to prevent a pandemic) is not the same as the Nazis.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#499

Post by immibis »

isaacremuant wrote: post #175
ncr100 wrote: post #149

WTFF. Fight !! Why is this Thought Policing tolerated? Are we so End Stage Growth Economy that EVERY power broker see now as the time to employer (IC)Enforcement? Gestapo much, anyone?

> Why is this Thought Policing tolerated? Because it's what everyone and their mother was calling for during covid to fight the dangerous for opposing authoritarian policies. Because we have to stop Russia, the republicans, extremists, anti war protests who are actually just , because we have to protect kids, or fight racism... It was all bullshit and people loved it. Now it's almost too late. If you don't reject it…

Should I be allowed to go on national news and present irrefutable evidence (AI-generated of course) that the president is a lizard person?

By default, I should, because it's a free country. But what if enough people start believing me that the country falls apart? Should the country let itself fall apart or should it perhaps try to stop the whole thing?

Re: Fight Chat Control

#500

Post by AnimalMuppet »

immibis wrote: post #499
isaacremuant wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is this Thought Policing tolerated? Because it's what everyone and their mother was calling for during covid to fight the dangerous for opposing authoritarian policies. Because we have to stop Russia, the republicans, extremists, anti war protests who are actually just , because we have to protect kids, or fight racism... It was all bullshit and people loved it. Now it's almost too late. If you don't reject it…

Should I be allowed to go on national news and present irrefutable evidence (AI-generated of course) that the president is a lizard person? By default, I should, because it's a free country. But what if enough people start believing me that the country falls apart? Should the country let itself fall apart or should it perhaps try to stop the whole thing?

By default, you should be allowed to say that the president is a lizard person, and show your "irrefutable evidence". On national news? Only if you can persuade a national news show that they should (or unless you own a national network).

But if you don't own them, they're not going to show your "proof" (except perhaps as comedy), because they have a reputation they need to maintain. And if you own them, they're still not going to, because they'd lose reputation (and therefore market share), and they'd get sued for slander and lose.

That leaves you showing your "proof" to whoever you can persuade to listen, without going on national news. I'm not sure I see the problem with that.

Post reply on HN