91–100 of 300 posts
VPN is a trust exercise, but, I’m sure if Mullvlad isn’t the best out there, they’re far from the worst.
They are not the best because they no longer support port forwarding. Their IPs are low quality and get you flagged as suspicious.
How long before the EU comes out with a social credit system like China? How long before the EU has its own version of China's Great Firewall?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
This framing is extremely counterproductive, though. Most societal problems cannot be fixed entirely. There will always be child sex abuse just like there will always be murder, theft, tax evasion, and drunk driving. It makes sense to see if things can be improved, but any action proposed must be weighed against its downsides. Continued action by police is a good thing, but laws for that have been established for a l…
This is that. What you are seeing, repeated attempts to discuss a proposal, is the process by which the EU bureaucracy weighs the downsides. When you see it being pushed, that's evidence that some member states do not find "the correct answer" to be "no further change". That will eventually necessitate a compromise, as all things do.
> (Ab)using child sex abuse to push through surveillance overreach is particularly egregious
You are editorializing to a degree that makes it impossible to have a rational discussion with you. You HAVE to assume the best in your political adversaries, otherwise you will fail to understand them. They are not abusing anything, and they don't think it's "surveillance overreach". They believe it to be just and fair, otherwise they wouldn't propose it.
Until people lobby for these privacy rights to be enshrined in law, this will continue to be a problem. Defeating one bad law isn't enough.
These should be enshrined into law... and there needs to be some sort of rule to prevent lawmakers from trying to ram through laws with the same spirit without some sort of cool down period. The fact that lawmakers have tried to push the same crap multiple times in the last 4 years despite a ton of opposition and resistance is ridiculous.
Until people lobby for these privacy rights to be enshrined in law, this will continue to be a problem. Defeating one bad law isn't enough.
These should be enshrined into law... and there needs to be some sort of rule to prevent lawmakers from trying to ram through laws with the same spirit without some sort of cool down period. The fact that lawmakers have tried to push the same crap multiple times in the last 4 years despite a ton of opposition and resistance is ridiculous.
This doesn't make any sense as policy. It's often the case that the first crack at a law has oversights that come to light and cause it to fail. Then a reworked version that takes those issues into consideration is brought forward and passes. That's the process functioning correctly.
What might make sense is something akin to the judicial systems "dismissal with prejudice". A way for the vote on a law to fail and arguments to be made to bar similar laws from being resubmitted, at least for a time. So one vote to dismiss the bill, and another can be called to add prejudice.
That sounds good to me. I'm not sure if it would actually yield good results in practice.
Until people lobby for these privacy rights to be enshrined in law, this will continue to be a problem. Defeating one bad law isn't enough.
Not that anyone gives a shit, apparently. Laws are useless when governments aren't interested in applying them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SCOTUS will simply say that since the constitution didn't explicitly state that electronic data and communications was protected, then it isn't. Even if it did explicitly say that this information is protected, SCOTUS would just make up a new interpretation that would allow surveillance anyway. Same as they made up presidential immunity, even though all men being subject to the law was pretty explicit purpose of the…
Text, phone calls and emails which are not encrypted are the equivalent of a postcard. They don't need to seize the effects, only observe them. Encrypting, end to end, would be the equivalent of posting a letter. The contents are concealed and thus are protected.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These should be enshrined into law... and there needs to be some sort of rule to prevent lawmakers from trying to ram through laws with the same spirit without some sort of cool down period. The fact that lawmakers have tried to push the same crap multiple times in the last 4 years despite a ton of opposition and resistance is ridiculous.
People need to do a better job of voting out people who push such laws.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also a bit like when the government bans opioids because they're an addictive narcotic, but then allows their use in specific circumstances where the benefit outweighs the downsides, and then works with the industry to try and make it harder to abuse them. It's like a lot of things.
But they aren't working with industry here.