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

Stop the proposal on mass surveillance of the EU

mullvad.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 534 posts

Re: Stop the proposal on mass surveillance of the EU

#81

Post by worldsayshi »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #65
ethbr0 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We probably all know that they will show reasons [...], whereas the real motivation is to control people's freedom of speech and communication even though they will 100% deny it. I don't think this is how it works, absent an already existent police state. In democracies, it really is pushed for {good reasons}. Once built, it's then used by law enforcement, because it exists and gets the job done. Pretending there's…

There is no need to pretend. People with power want more power. As a thought exercise consider how you would arrange the world were you in a position to do so and try to determine placement of structures that could undermine your benevolent rule. Freedom of speech is such a structure. It is not really a paranoia if there are people out there working on just that. Now, just because there are also fellow travelers who…

>People with [goals] want more power

Sometimes those goals align with other people's interests. Sometimes not. Unless there's a way to portion out power across a population on a case by case basis there's going to be conflict of interest.

Re: Stop the proposal on mass surveillance of the EU

#82

Post by kwanbix »

oauea wrote: post #55
ethbr0 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We probably all know that they will show reasons [...], whereas the real motivation is to control people's freedom of speech and communication even though they will 100% deny it. I don't think this is how it works, absent an already existent police state. In democracies, it really is pushed for {good reasons}. Once built, it's then used by law enforcement, because it exists and gets the job done. Pretending there's…

The reason is, and always has been, to enable lazy police work. They won't have to do their jobs if facebook will just tell them who the criminals are.

So, if everything is encrypted, how do you expect the police to catch ped0philes, for example?

Re: Stop the proposal on mass surveillance of the EU

#83

Post by carlosjobim »

stinos wrote: post #7
ecmascript wrote: post #3

This is really, really scary and what scares me even more is these proposals just seems to keep coming and in time some of them will probably make their way into law. Used to be for EU but if any regulation like this goes through, I will immedietly vote for any politician willing to exit the EU. Honestly, I am kind of for leaving the EU anyway since I don't like the large centralized power it has become. There is lit…

I will immedietly vote for any politician willing to exit the EU Willing to exit EU might however be completely orthogonal to preferences regarding surveillance laws. I mean, such politician might just as well propose similar laws like Chat Control after the country leaves the EU. And looking at some of the specimens around here that would not even be unlikely.

"Better the devil you know than the devil you don't" is the idiom used for this kind of thinking.

The pessimist says "Things can't get worse, I'll vote to leave the EU", the optimist says "Things can always get worse, let's stay in the EU".

Re: Stop the proposal on mass surveillance of the EU

#84

Post by alphazard »

ur-whale wrote: post #50
raxxorraxor wrote: post #2

The best way to deal with this is non-compliance and there need to be technical solutions to deny such attempts. One major factor that works against users is central authentication. Schemes like oauth2 might bring convenience and security in many cases, but will endanger net freedom overall. Google just added age restriction on blogger. Result is that you need to provide Google with ID information to access some cont…

> The best way to deal with this is non-compliance and there need to be technical solutions to deny such attempts. I disagree. While these are good to have, they are not enough. The reason is always the same: if you are found to be using the circumventing tech., you'll likely be in breach of the law, which will give the goons a legitimate reason to come and harass you. In a civilized country, that can translate into…

It's much easier for people to resist by using "forbidden" systems in private, than to affect political change. In the context of the EU, other rights afforded to citizens make things like this hard to enforce.

Re: Stop the proposal on mass surveillance of the EU

#85

Post by throwbadubadu »

ethbr0 wrote: post #41
can16358p wrote: post #10

We certainly need decentralized systems that cannot be controlled by EU, US, or any government/entity. Privacy is a human right. We probably all know that they will show reasons like "fighting terrorism", "preventing national threats" or "hunting down child pornography" etc, whereas the real motivation is to control people's freedom of speech and communication even though they will 100% deny it. Anyone who is really…

> We probably all know that they will show reasons [...], whereas the real motivation is to control people's freedom of speech and communication even though they will 100% deny it. I don't think this is how it works, absent an already existent police state. In democracies, it really is pushed for {good reasons}. Once built, it's then used by law enforcement, because it exists and gets the job done. Pretending there's…

> Pretending there's a sinister, organized New World Order (aka "them"

How did you got this out of GP? I think you both saying/meaning the same.

> and listen to the loudest and most organized group. Which tends to be intelligence or law enforcement.

Yep, and their actual desire is to control people's freedom (even admitting that some or all of them themselves belief that this is only for good cause, the reasons that also GP listed.. ).

Re: Stop the proposal on mass surveillance of the EU

#86

Post by wizzwizz4 »

oauea wrote: post #59
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you're a gunsmith, it's not really comparable. Anyone with a sufficiently-powerful desk calculator can use illegal encryption, but not everyone can procure an illegal firearm.

Don't call encryption illegal. That's letting them shape the narrative.

Isn't the whole point that they're trying to make mathematics illegal? To my knowledge, encryption is currently legal.

To those who say "it's impossible to make encryption illegal": there have been sillier laws. George Orwell once imagined a society where 2+2=5 was a law. While they usually do, laws don't have to make sense.

Re: Stop the proposal on mass surveillance of the EU

#87

Post by xorry »

xenonite wrote: post #57
dijit wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roughly translates to: I prefer liberty with danger to peace with servitude/slavery.

> "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." malo ... quam ... ⇒ I prefer ... to ... Preferring what to what? This is why all other words are in accusative singular as simple enumeration: periculosam ⇒ dangerousness libertatem ⇒ freedom quietam ⇒ quietness servitutem ⇒ slavery Hence I would take his statement as: "I prefer dangerousness and freedom to quietness and slavery."

periculosam and quietam are adjectives (the comma is wrong)

Re: Stop the proposal on mass surveillance of the EU

#88

Post by ethbr0 »

brookst wrote: post #62
mach1ne wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even though something has a benevolent rationalization, it doesn’t mean the true motives are benevolent. It doesn’t need any New World Order conspiracy either. People in ruling positions often enjoy power, and they may be clueless as to how this desire is affecting their decisionmaking.

I’m always skeptical of phrases like “true motives”. Sometimes people can do the wrong thing for the right reasons, or totally amorally. There doesn’t have to be a secret agenda. Framing things in terms of shadowy cabals that hide their secret motivations weakens the argument and reduces odds of successful resistance to these programs by misunderstanding the opposition.

Better said than me. There are different approaches to changing someone's mind if they're misunderstanding something, versus if they're straight-up lying to you.

The fact that there exist highly public straight-up lying politicians doesn't mean the mass of politicians are liars. Most are trying to do a decent thing, with the understanding they have.

Casting one's democratic agents as "other" corrodes democracy, decreases participation, and generally furthers the problem being bemoaned: lack of attention to citizen desires.

Re: Stop the proposal on mass surveillance of the EU

#89

Post by daneel_w »

Every SMS and phone call on the PSTN of most European countries is already part of a long-term archiving process dating back more than two decades. This legislation is in part meant to bring purely Internet-based communications into the dragnet, and part just retroactive legal gyrations to publically formalize the already established mass-surveillance of the PSTN.

Re: Stop the proposal on mass surveillance of the EU

#90

Post by ethbr0 »

throwbadubadu wrote: post #85
ethbr0 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We probably all know that they will show reasons [...], whereas the real motivation is to control people's freedom of speech and communication even though they will 100% deny it. I don't think this is how it works, absent an already existent police state. In democracies, it really is pushed for {good reasons}. Once built, it's then used by law enforcement, because it exists and gets the job done. Pretending there's…

> Pretending there's a sinister, organized New World Order (aka "them" How did you got this out of GP? I think you both saying/meaning the same. > and listen to the loudest and most organized group. Which tends to be intelligence or law enforcement. Yep, and their actual desire is to control people's freedom (even admitting that some or all of them themselves belief that this is only for good cause, the reasons that…

Intelligence and law enforcement aren't typically empowered voters in democratic legislative bodies.
Post reply on HN