Chat control: EU Commission presents mass surveillance plan on May 11(patrick-breyer.de)
patrick-breyer.de
Chat control: EU Commission presents mass surveillance plan on May 11
https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/chat-control-eu-commission-presents-mass-surveillance-plan-on-may-11%ef%bf%bc/
337 comments
> Ms von der Leyen
I'm deeply sceptical of Ms von der Leyen. Not least because of how she got her job.
She manages to get the press to talk about the EU giving Ukraine "a speedy response" re: joining the EU[0][1][2]
Then Macron says it will take "take decades"[3] [4]
I'm sorry, but once you reach that threshold of political posturing, if von der Leyen promised that tomorrow is definitely Wednesday then I'd immediately start checking my calendar :(
[0] https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/news/statemen... [1] https://www.euronews.com/2022/04/08/von-der-leyen-gives-ukra... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/08/ursula-von-der...
[3] https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20220509-live-russia-read... [4] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61383632
I'm deeply sceptical of Ms von der Leyen. Not least because of how she got her job.
She manages to get the press to talk about the EU giving Ukraine "a speedy response" re: joining the EU[0][1][2]
Then Macron says it will take "take decades"[3] [4]
I'm sorry, but once you reach that threshold of political posturing, if von der Leyen promised that tomorrow is definitely Wednesday then I'd immediately start checking my calendar :(
[0] https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/news/statemen... [1] https://www.euronews.com/2022/04/08/von-der-leyen-gives-ukra... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/08/ursula-von-der...
[3] https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20220509-live-russia-read... [4] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61383632
Ms von der Leyen career is a train wreck of non stopping disasters. It makes sense she would end up as the non-elected European Commission chief...
"Ursula von der Leyen has always left a trail of disaster": https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/ursula-von-der-leyen-has...
"The scandal hanging over Ursula von der Leyen": https://www.politico.eu/article/the-scandal-hanging-over-urs...
"Ursula von der Leyen has always left a trail of disaster": https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/ursula-von-der-leyen-has...
"The scandal hanging over Ursula von der Leyen": https://www.politico.eu/article/the-scandal-hanging-over-urs...
Well, it is an old saying/tradition by now, to banish incompetent politicians towards Brussels.
That solution was probably adequate, as long as the EU did not had any actual power.
That solution was probably adequate, as long as the EU did not had any actual power.
[deleted]
For those who won't read the article: it provides a few ways to protest [0] (contact Commissioners, request media to cover this issue, get active on social media) and offers a list of arguments [1] (such policies don't work against CSAM but make it worse, while better/more targeted methods are being ignored).
If anyone has experience calling to protest, could they share it here? Otherwise, the simplest course of action might be to copy-paste the arguments given in [1] into an email addressed to the parties mentioned in the parent comment.
[0]: https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/messaging-and-chat-co...
[1]: https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/messaging-and-chat-co...
If anyone has experience calling to protest, could they share it here? Otherwise, the simplest course of action might be to copy-paste the arguments given in [1] into an email addressed to the parties mentioned in the parent comment.
[0]: https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/messaging-and-chat-co...
[1]: https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/messaging-and-chat-co...
> the simplest course of action might be to copy-paste the arguments given [..]
Not wishing to seem defeatist, but is there much (any?) evidence that sending copy-pasted arguments to elected representatives actually achieves anything?
Not wishing to seem defeatist, but is there much (any?) evidence that sending copy-pasted arguments to elected representatives actually achieves anything?
Probably little to no effect, but I'd hope it's slightly more effective than just tweeting a hashtag (which is arguable simpler than my "simplest" suggestion) because it will actually pierce the techie anti-privacy bubble and be heard by/bother the .
To be honest, I'd wager that most of the benefit in doing something as little as sending copy-pasted emails is that it increases the probability of the protester doing a more meaningful action in the future (by generating some cognitive dissonance, by reinforcing a positive internal narrative, by weakening the illusion of powerlessness, etc.).
To be honest, I'd wager that most of the benefit in doing something as little as sending copy-pasted emails is that it increases the probability of the protester doing a more meaningful action in the future (by generating some cognitive dissonance, by reinforcing a positive internal narrative, by weakening the illusion of powerlessness, etc.).
It does because these are EU officials. They are four layers removed from contact with any EU citizens. Sometimes they do bump into one, while exiting some of the best Brussels restaurants after a lunch with a lobbyist.
CSAM versus explicitly mandated mass surveillance, is there even a shred of doubt about which is more important? …
Complete and total invasion of privacy.
They always choose the most egregious crime to push through a cecession of rights. If you oppose this, you are supporting pedophiles. But fuck them. Don't let them gaslight you.
There are countless broken laws that could be caught if only they could see our data.
How long until they force Google or Apple to report someone to the authorities if their GPS says they are travelling 100mph on a road.
How long until there is AI that can use your biometrics to determine if you are too impaired to drive?
There are countless broken laws that could be caught if only they could see our data.
How long until they force Google or Apple to report someone to the authorities if their GPS says they are travelling 100mph on a road.
How long until there is AI that can use your biometrics to determine if you are too impaired to drive?
Think about all the american politicians who visited jeff epstiens island and then backed bills to allegedly fight pedophilia.
Not only politicians...
"Friendly Reminder That Bill Gates Took The Lolita Express Four Years After Epstein Was A Registered Sex Offender"
https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/bill-gates-took-lolita-exp...
"Friendly Reminder That Bill Gates Took The Lolita Express Four Years After Epstein Was A Registered Sex Offender"
https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/bill-gates-took-lolita-exp...
> How long until there is AI that can use your biometrics to determine if you are too impaired to drive?
That's an actual requirement in US vehicles in a few years.
https://nypost.com/2021/11/15/bidens-infrastructure-bill-to-...
> “To ensure the prevention of alcohol-impaired driving fatalities, advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology must be standard equipment in all new passenger motor vehicles,” the bill says in summing up the findings of Congressional research.
> “Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue a final rule prescribing a Federal motor vehicle safety standard … that requires passenger motor vehicles manufactured after the effective date of that standard to be equipped with advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology,”
That's an actual requirement in US vehicles in a few years.
https://nypost.com/2021/11/15/bidens-infrastructure-bill-to-...
> “To ensure the prevention of alcohol-impaired driving fatalities, advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology must be standard equipment in all new passenger motor vehicles,” the bill says in summing up the findings of Congressional research.
> “Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue a final rule prescribing a Federal motor vehicle safety standard … that requires passenger motor vehicles manufactured after the effective date of that standard to be equipped with advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology,”
[deleted]
It is also generally an unsolvable crime. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to use the argument again and again.
Erm, there are actual solutions, like teachers and social workers who are not burned out and can pay attention to the kids - and act if they spot something weird.
But this solution would cost money.
But this solution would cost money.
If EU really wants to curb risk to children:
-significantly raise the penalty for sexual child abuse
-provide clinics and medications for people with this mental disease
> -significantly raise the penalty for sexual child abuse
I'm sure some dark comic (Boyle, Gervais?) made a joke along these lines, but presumably the problem with this tack is that you end up with more dead children?
Biology, consensus-morality-abiding or otherwise, is a hard thing to ignore and little befearing the meagre laws of man in those that suffer from it.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but I don't see 'sterner sentencing' having much truck here, as much as I'd personally mete the death sentence for anyone raping kids or.. well, anyone.
I'm sure some dark comic (Boyle, Gervais?) made a joke along these lines, but presumably the problem with this tack is that you end up with more dead children?
Biology, consensus-morality-abiding or otherwise, is a hard thing to ignore and little befearing the meagre laws of man in those that suffer from it.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but I don't see 'sterner sentencing' having much truck here, as much as I'd personally mete the death sentence for anyone raping kids or.. well, anyone.
It was Louis CK.
Edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73Fy8zVp63w
Edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73Fy8zVp63w
Ah, 'Thank you'! Yes that's the skit I remembered, and by golly, as fucked up an idea as it is, he's entirely right.
"I don't know what to do with that information. I don't have way to apply that to anything that's helpful", indeed.
"I don't know what to do with that information. I don't have way to apply that to anything that's helpful", indeed.
He’s not right.
Lowering penalties makes it more acceptable to society. I think we do agree that allowing child abuse is a net negative for society.
Lowering penalties makes it more acceptable to society. I think we do agree that allowing child abuse is a net negative for society.
I guess the usual child abuser doesn't think along the line that they do it for potential 10 years but not for 25 years in prison.
While I believe that the schedule of kids is vastly overstuffed with senseless crap, more eyes on the target probably helps identifying cases of abuse. That means funding child care and schools. But that is more expensive and doesn't have positive side effects like a law for content control. UvdL is known to have had and probably still has many private gatherings to discuss policy in a privileged group. Maybe we should ask her what her secrecy was about and where the chat protocol is from these meetings. I suspect more criminal behavior than in the average internet chat.
While I believe that the schedule of kids is vastly overstuffed with senseless crap, more eyes on the target probably helps identifying cases of abuse. That means funding child care and schools. But that is more expensive and doesn't have positive side effects like a law for content control. UvdL is known to have had and probably still has many private gatherings to discuss policy in a privileged group. Maybe we should ask her what her secrecy was about and where the chat protocol is from these meetings. I suspect more criminal behavior than in the average internet chat.
> raise the penalties
That never works. Raising the risks of being caught does work, but it costs money.
> people with this mental disease
Not all such people are ill; there are different reasons people get involved in child-porn. Some of them are just shitty people; some are traumatised; some are simply ignorant.
That never works. Raising the risks of being caught does work, but it costs money.
> people with this mental disease
Not all such people are ill; there are different reasons people get involved in child-porn. Some of them are just shitty people; some are traumatised; some are simply ignorant.
So throw the baby out with the bathwater? Point 1 does work as shown by cities giving up and letting petty criminals run wild (see san francisco). Point 2: so no help for anyone? I'm not sure what you're even saying here because it's just naysaying and not really offering any potential solutions.
I wasn't advocating no penalties; I was saying that increasing the penalties doesn't work (unless you are a politician trying to get re-elected).
And I wasn't saying 'no clinics'; I was griping about the term "mental illness". Not all bad behaviour is the result of a psychiatric disorder.
And I wasn't saying 'no clinics'; I was griping about the term "mental illness". Not all bad behaviour is the result of a psychiatric disorder.
I'm just tired, to be honest. Even if we prevent this exact law (proposal), a few years down the line there probably will be another attempt. And again, and again. Just like it happend with the mandatory data retention laws for ISPs.
I really try to stay optimistic on this topic, but it's really hard. :/
I really try to stay optimistic on this topic, but it's really hard. :/
I have come to accept that the only long-term solution to digital privacy must be in the form of technology. No amount of vigilance and democracy will be able to keep the wolves away forever.
It has not really been a technological problem for a long time. End to end encryption is mature technology. Human institutions require humans to function, and humans are easily swayed based on circumstances in a way that make them willing to simply hand over their rights.
And it's not just the humans that can easily be swayed, their hardware and software too. The mathematically perfect and formally verified messaging software is usually sandwiched between a bazillion layers of questionable technology.
It's kind of like when a website begs for permission to use your location over and over even though you say no every time, until you screw up and say yes — and then you never hear about it again. These ideas arise over and over until one makes it through, and then we have lost that bit of liberty for good.
Which browser are you using? Chrome doesn't ask again if you say no.
I may honestly be misremembering, because I use Brave, whose behavior usually follows Chrome. At any rate, it's typical of the "Can we? You sure? You sure? You sure? OK, thanks!" anti-pattern we all hate.
That’s why sites ask you first with their own dialog, and only if you say yes do they pop up the browser dialog.
There's a fix though - pull power back to the local level. These sorts of initiatives crop up when politicians feel too safe or remote from voters (who generally always have other priorities, often the economy or violent crime).
So it's not any real surprise that this stuff is so often emerging at the EU level. The Commission doesn't have to care what voters think - it is in many ways a textbook dictatorship complete with a not-really Parliament - and so they focus on whatever ideas are trendy amongst the eurocrat set. Those people aren't much like the typical European. They're obsessed with certain ideas and ignore others completely. Information control is high up their priority lists, as are any issues that can be exploited to levy giant fines on American companies. They especially love those because the money goes straight into EU coffers the moment the decision is made by the Commissioners, without having to actually win any court cases and so it can be used to enhance their own power without having to get member states to agree to budget increases. Hence why there's a constant flood of internet related laws despite public dis-interest in the issue:
https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2553
"Europeans thought that the most important issues facing the EU at the moment of the survey were the environment and climate change (26%), rising prices, inflation, cost of living (24%) and immigration (22%). 41% of respondents mentioned prices, inflation, cost of living as one of the most important issues facing their country, before health (32%) and the economic situation (19%)."
Other than the recent climb in the rankings for climate change, the results always look like that. People care about the basics - their personal wealth, health and who's in their local community.
So it's not any real surprise that this stuff is so often emerging at the EU level. The Commission doesn't have to care what voters think - it is in many ways a textbook dictatorship complete with a not-really Parliament - and so they focus on whatever ideas are trendy amongst the eurocrat set. Those people aren't much like the typical European. They're obsessed with certain ideas and ignore others completely. Information control is high up their priority lists, as are any issues that can be exploited to levy giant fines on American companies. They especially love those because the money goes straight into EU coffers the moment the decision is made by the Commissioners, without having to actually win any court cases and so it can be used to enhance their own power without having to get member states to agree to budget increases. Hence why there's a constant flood of internet related laws despite public dis-interest in the issue:
https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2553
"Europeans thought that the most important issues facing the EU at the moment of the survey were the environment and climate change (26%), rising prices, inflation, cost of living (24%) and immigration (22%). 41% of respondents mentioned prices, inflation, cost of living as one of the most important issues facing their country, before health (32%) and the economic situation (19%)."
Other than the recent climb in the rankings for climate change, the results always look like that. People care about the basics - their personal wealth, health and who's in their local community.
The EU is used to introduce laws that aren't supported on a national level. The parliament doesn't really help as an organ for control since it is dependent as an institution. I more and more believe that the EU is fundamentally defunct and instances like this and the ISP spying is further evidence. It is just making everyone poorer with its monetary policies and the civil liberties it fights for are not much more than smokescreens.
Life is struggle, and I do not mean that in a pessimist way. If someone wants to take something from you, you just have to resist. Over and over and over, forever. Your life is meant to end anyway, no reason to give up sooner than that. It is of course logical to not have the energy and time to do everything and be everywhere. But whatever you do you keep moving.
I went three indirections down and I still can't find any actual quotes or even summaries of concrete proposals, so I'm surprised how many people can confidently judge that these unexplained proposals are a dumpster fire solely on the basis that they aim to precent child sexual abuse material...
The most specific thing I found was a linked document that laid out three possible legislation options, all in very loose language, of which one was an entirely voluntary system.
Found from here https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-sa...
The most specific thing I found was a linked document that laid out three possible legislation options, all in very loose language, of which one was an entirely voluntary system.
Found from here https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-sa...
Anytime something starts out with "think of the children" (paraphrased), hold on to your wallet, your pocket-size Constitution, and pocket-size "rights of man". They are coming for your freedom.
I've heard there is a need to improve primary education, but you'd have me believe this is a ploy to steal my copy of the constitution?
As you can easily check, Mr. Breyer's website has been at the top of HN multiple times in the past year or so, and invariably the comment section becomes an anti-EU pitchfork party based on nothing more than the linked text and various unhelpful stereotypes. Comments like yours, which justifiably ask for a primary source, have never been getting the attention they deserve.
So let me explicitly go against the grain here: I believe the linked text to be fear-mongering and I also believe that the EU will not "break secure encryption" (or make it illegal) in the foreseeable future. And if Mr. Breyer or anyone else would like to convince me of the alternative then please show me some concrete evidence first.
So let me explicitly go against the grain here: I believe the linked text to be fear-mongering and I also believe that the EU will not "break secure encryption" (or make it illegal) in the foreseeable future. And if Mr. Breyer or anyone else would like to convince me of the alternative then please show me some concrete evidence first.
>"... I also believe that the EU will not "break secure encryption" (or make it illegal) in the foreseeable future. And if Mr. Breyer or anyone else would like to convince me of the alternative then please show me some concrete evidence first..."
"EU’s resolution on encryption foreshadows likely anti-encryption push": https://protonmail.com/blog/eu-attack-on-encryption/
"EFF Tells E.U. Commission: Don't Break Encryption": https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/03/eff-tells-eu-commissio...
"Encryption: Council adopts resolution on security through encryption and security despite encryption": https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2020...
Particularly in the last reference you can hear it directly from the wolf's mouth: "...resolution on security through encryption and security despite encryption..."
In other words, encryption they can access...
"EU’s resolution on encryption foreshadows likely anti-encryption push": https://protonmail.com/blog/eu-attack-on-encryption/
"EFF Tells E.U. Commission: Don't Break Encryption": https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/03/eff-tells-eu-commissio...
"Encryption: Council adopts resolution on security through encryption and security despite encryption": https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2020...
Particularly in the last reference you can hear it directly from the wolf's mouth: "...resolution on security through encryption and security despite encryption..."
In other words, encryption they can access...
Thank you for your efforts but I am sorry to say that I am still not convinced.
The Protonmail link is not a primary source but let me dignify it with a response anyway. The authors of that blog post themselves admit that the resolution they link to "is non-binding and does not provide any specifics for new laws or regulations and, on the surface, seems fairly innocuous." They then go on to say how actually it is really dangerous, and the tone is very threatening, but their reasoning is simply not substantial enough to convince me.
I was sad to see that the EFF's very first link to a 'proposal' from the EU commission simply links back to Mr. Breyer's website. (But I am very happy with the letter co-signed by the EFF, which I think is well-written and a lot less alarmist.)
And once you do get to a primary source, in your third link, you can only make your case by rephrasing "security despite encryption", which I can happily interpret as being entirely in line with the direction suggested by the aforementioned letter, as "encryption they can access".
So I remain unconvinced, mainly because your "in other words" really do a lot of heavy lifting in your comment.
The Protonmail link is not a primary source but let me dignify it with a response anyway. The authors of that blog post themselves admit that the resolution they link to "is non-binding and does not provide any specifics for new laws or regulations and, on the surface, seems fairly innocuous." They then go on to say how actually it is really dangerous, and the tone is very threatening, but their reasoning is simply not substantial enough to convince me.
I was sad to see that the EFF's very first link to a 'proposal' from the EU commission simply links back to Mr. Breyer's website. (But I am very happy with the letter co-signed by the EFF, which I think is well-written and a lot less alarmist.)
And once you do get to a primary source, in your third link, you can only make your case by rephrasing "security despite encryption", which I can happily interpret as being entirely in line with the direction suggested by the aforementioned letter, as "encryption they can access".
So I remain unconvinced, mainly because your "in other words" really do a lot of heavy lifting in your comment.
And there you have the press release of today:
"Questions and Answers –New rules to fight child sexual abuse" https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_...
Exactly as predicted in this thread it's a "think of the children" and at the same time also as mentioned by others in this thread, mandated obligations but preparing for the excuse of "we never actually asked for this way of doing it"
"Does the proposal cover encrypted material?"
"The proposed obligations on service providers as regards the detection of child sexual abuse material are technologically neutral, meaning they do not prescribe which technology should be used for detection. It is an obligation of result not of means, leaving to the provider the choice of technology to be operated, subject to its compliance with strict safeguards."
"This includes the use of encryption technology. Encryption is an important tool for the protection of cybersecurity and confidentiality of communications. At the same time, its use as a secure channel could be abused of by criminals to hide their actions, thereby impeding efforts to bring perpetrators of child sexual abuse to justice."
"A large portion of reports of child sexual abuse, which are instrumental to starting investigations and rescuing children, come from services that are already encrypted or may become encrypted in the future. If such services were to be exempt from requirements to protect children and to take action against the circulation of child sexual abuse images and videos via their services, the consequences would be severe for children"
It will be probably 6 to 12 months before this is extended to "Terrorism" and another 6 months to be extended to subversive talk on "Vaccine Risk".
"Questions and Answers –New rules to fight child sexual abuse" https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_...
Exactly as predicted in this thread it's a "think of the children" and at the same time also as mentioned by others in this thread, mandated obligations but preparing for the excuse of "we never actually asked for this way of doing it"
"Does the proposal cover encrypted material?"
"The proposed obligations on service providers as regards the detection of child sexual abuse material are technologically neutral, meaning they do not prescribe which technology should be used for detection. It is an obligation of result not of means, leaving to the provider the choice of technology to be operated, subject to its compliance with strict safeguards."
"This includes the use of encryption technology. Encryption is an important tool for the protection of cybersecurity and confidentiality of communications. At the same time, its use as a secure channel could be abused of by criminals to hide their actions, thereby impeding efforts to bring perpetrators of child sexual abuse to justice."
"A large portion of reports of child sexual abuse, which are instrumental to starting investigations and rescuing children, come from services that are already encrypted or may become encrypted in the future. If such services were to be exempt from requirements to protect children and to take action against the circulation of child sexual abuse images and videos via their services, the consequences would be severe for children"
It will be probably 6 to 12 months before this is extended to "Terrorism" and another 6 months to be extended to subversive talk on "Vaccine Risk".
> It will be probably 6 to 12 months before this is extended to "Terrorism"
Alright, I'll take that bet if you got actually got the conviction to stake your HN-account.
Alright, I'll take that bet if you got actually got the conviction to stake your HN-account.
If this proposal is ever approved, I am willing to bet you a dinner at any restaurant of your choice, that within two years it will be extended to track terrorism and other subversive activities. After all the principle of mandating all providers, to monitor all communications for specific behaviors will be set by law...
Immediately moving the goalposts and not putting up the stake requested, can I take this as you declining to stand by the quote and thus the bet overall?
I moved the goal posts that YOU sat on the ground? :-)
> In other words, encryption they can access...
Access under the conditions that the
> Technical solutions for gaining access to encrypted data must comply with the principles of legality, transparency, necessity and proportionality including protection of personal data by design and by default.
Which means that the right to put something that clones the authentication session on a targeted device would do the job, no need to ban maths.
Access under the conditions that the
> Technical solutions for gaining access to encrypted data must comply with the principles of legality, transparency, necessity and proportionality including protection of personal data by design and by default.
Which means that the right to put something that clones the authentication session on a targeted device would do the job, no need to ban maths.
Yes but so what? EU regulation is always like this, it contradicts itself and is impossible to interpret. Governments must be able to access encryption (unstated but obvious: without the target knowing they're being spied on), but the solution must also protect personal data and be "transparent".
"Which means that the right to put something that clones the authentication session on a targeted device would do the job, no need to ban maths."
You don't actually know that, you're just hoping that it means something like that. In reality, they will keep the rules vague and then attach massive fines to non-compliance so they get to do the following trick: make everyone involved in implementation super scared so they use a maximalist interpretation, then when people complain to the Commission they say "no we didn't intend that, our rules are actually super reasonable, go complain to the companies". Or one day the ECJ will 'discover' an interpretation that nobody knew about and everyone suddenly has to change the way they do things overnight, then the usual EU water carriers will post here on HN claiming everyone should always have known it from the start.
Same thing that was seen with GDPR, EU competition law and other cases. It's become a standard trick. Good law doesn't have this problem; the meanings and consequences are always clear.
"Which means that the right to put something that clones the authentication session on a targeted device would do the job, no need to ban maths."
You don't actually know that, you're just hoping that it means something like that. In reality, they will keep the rules vague and then attach massive fines to non-compliance so they get to do the following trick: make everyone involved in implementation super scared so they use a maximalist interpretation, then when people complain to the Commission they say "no we didn't intend that, our rules are actually super reasonable, go complain to the companies". Or one day the ECJ will 'discover' an interpretation that nobody knew about and everyone suddenly has to change the way they do things overnight, then the usual EU water carriers will post here on HN claiming everyone should always have known it from the start.
Same thing that was seen with GDPR, EU competition law and other cases. It's become a standard trick. Good law doesn't have this problem; the meanings and consequences are always clear.
> solely on the basis that they aim to precent child sexual abuse material...
Solely on the basis of having to undermine end-to-end encryption in order to even begin working. Always use the most charitable interpretation of other people's arguments.
Solely on the basis of having to undermine end-to-end encryption in order to even begin working. Always use the most charitable interpretation of other people's arguments.
Here's one regulatory measure that's enforced already and seems to fit within the criteria being described: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1232/oj
(agreed, it would be nice to have direct links to the enacted and proposed regulations to compare and understand the language used)
(agreed, it would be nice to have direct links to the enacted and proposed regulations to compare and understand the language used)
'Enforced' isn't the right word for that legislation - it's a derogation, meaning it's removing rules, not creating them.
Specifically, that regulation gives service providers a temporary legal mechanism to continue to scan their own traffic for CSAM, if and only if they want to do so, without breaking the law due to GDPR etc (which otherwise made doing so arguably illegal). It just re-legalized the scanning that service providers were doing voluntarily before GDPR, and which they're doing regardless outside the EU anyway.
Specifically, that regulation gives service providers a temporary legal mechanism to continue to scan their own traffic for CSAM, if and only if they want to do so, without breaking the law due to GDPR etc (which otherwise made doing so arguably illegal). It just re-legalized the scanning that service providers were doing voluntarily before GDPR, and which they're doing regardless outside the EU anyway.
Thanks for the explainer, that makes sense.
I tried to find the proposal as well, without success.
Nope.
And I say that as a committed european and general approver of the EU.
This is daft and contrary to fundamental human rights but as is so often the case in such matters it points towards the obvious solution.
Do not rely on third party services for human rights. In other words self-host.
Yes self-hosting is tedious and error-prone. It also means I am the only individual running daft but compliant algorithms on my data, and that's enough. If I witness criminality I am already obliged to perform my civic duties.
I really, truly, utterly, neither require nor desire some twerp in a pink shirt pushing new marketing analysis methodologies on the enforcers of an data analysis regime legislated poorly by dementocrats.
So, yeah, nope.
And I say that as a committed european and general approver of the EU.
This is daft and contrary to fundamental human rights but as is so often the case in such matters it points towards the obvious solution.
Do not rely on third party services for human rights. In other words self-host.
Yes self-hosting is tedious and error-prone. It also means I am the only individual running daft but compliant algorithms on my data, and that's enough. If I witness criminality I am already obliged to perform my civic duties.
I really, truly, utterly, neither require nor desire some twerp in a pink shirt pushing new marketing analysis methodologies on the enforcers of an data analysis regime legislated poorly by dementocrats.
So, yeah, nope.
Aren't you still subject to these laws even if you're self-hosted?
Yes, but I get to choose the algorithms and their implementation, and can return such data as I see fit, within the limits of the law
The interesting thing about EU is that, because it’s a bureaucratic dictatorship, it can force it (worse, citizens are mostly obedient). So it’s particularly dangerous.
Imagine France orders this! It’s not like Apple responding to consumers’ opinion.
Imagine France orders this! It’s not like Apple responding to consumers’ opinion.
Dictatorship means total authority over a domain. EU is so very far from that. If anything it’s the opposite of dictatorship. The federal EU institutions are mostly toothless with respect to the nation states.
The EU is a partially constructed dictatorship. Within the domains delegated to it in the treaties, it has total power without voter accountability (the most voters can do is elect MEPs who slow things down a bit). Also in some areas where the EU has effectively seized power without a treaty change, this is also true e.g. corporate tax law.
In some areas like health and defense it has failed (so far) to take powers, and so the usual democratic mechanisms at the state level are mostly still working.
So I think you're not really disagreeing with aborsy, unless by "domain" you mean exclusively physical domains.
In some areas like health and defense it has failed (so far) to take powers, and so the usual democratic mechanisms at the state level are mostly still working.
So I think you're not really disagreeing with aborsy, unless by "domain" you mean exclusively physical domains.
> dictatorship
Any source?
Any source?
I really really look forward to a world where internet service providers simply stop bowing to shitty unhealthy demands of sovereign powers.
I (admittedly, a no-one) have no intent to respect this & every intent to eacallate my efforts to help people fight off pernicious piece of shit legislation.
On the plus side, the pushes towards hosting-it-yourself keep going up. The fact that all our rights online are granted by way of vast corporate intermediaries is systematically broken & vile, allows endless encroachment g degredation of base liberies. We can keep fighting battles, but starting to assert more natural rights, making this an ask not against service providers but against private persons, is how to tip this war back against the ever encroaching monstrous survelliance regime.
I (admittedly, a no-one) have no intent to respect this & every intent to eacallate my efforts to help people fight off pernicious piece of shit legislation.
On the plus side, the pushes towards hosting-it-yourself keep going up. The fact that all our rights online are granted by way of vast corporate intermediaries is systematically broken & vile, allows endless encroachment g degredation of base liberies. We can keep fighting battles, but starting to assert more natural rights, making this an ask not against service providers but against private persons, is how to tip this war back against the ever encroaching monstrous survelliance regime.
"I really really look forward to a world where internet service providers simply stop bowing to shitty unhealthy demands of sovereign powers."
rsync.net is not an ISP, but … way ahead of you there:
https://rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt
Every Monday morning for 16 years.
rsync.net is not an ISP, but … way ahead of you there:
https://rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt
Every Monday morning for 16 years.
> Every Monday morning for 16 years
Not wishing to seem defeatist, but if the Feds pitched up and threatened you with "bad things" if you didn't a) bow to their demands and b) keep signing the coming weeks' canary messages, how would we [strangers] be expected to detect this?
Not wishing to seem defeatist, but if the Feds pitched up and threatened you with "bad things" if you didn't a) bow to their demands and b) keep signing the coming weeks' canary messages, how would we [strangers] be expected to detect this?
> making this an ask not against service providers but against private persons,
Good luck convincing a divided mass of people to do the same thing.
Good luck convincing a divided mass of people to do the same thing.
The moment this shit passes is the moment I straight up tell people I will not discuss about anything meaningful in our private online chats and if they want to talk we will have to arrange with proven FOSS tools.
I think there has never been good reason to believe that most proprietary tools are properly encrypted at all. The most common form of this is that while the messages may indeed be end-to-end encrypted, the keys are stored in the cloud, which allows them to be given to the authorities upon request, perhaps secretly.
A real concern. I suspect the chain of trust is already undermined by states to a large degree. At least that should be assumed if secure communication is required.
Still, policy decision like this should be rejected and used as an example of bad policy crafting in the future. It isn't the first deed of UvdL on this topic.
Still, policy decision like this should be rejected and used as an example of bad policy crafting in the future. It isn't the first deed of UvdL on this topic.
Ok, i'm not defending this, but as i might have a bit more insight on how the EU actually work, i will share my limited knowledge.
The commission is the European executive power. It is a mostly unelected body.
The parliament is the one you vote for if you do vote during the european elections
The council is composed by representative of the head of state from the 27 countries.
Once a law is drafted by the European commission (i don't think they can have the idea themselve btw, they just help draft the proposition to try to make it pass through the european court, but i believe they are not the originators of the proposition. 90% sure i'd say), it can follow two procedures: either the ordinary (also called codecision procedure) or the special (consultation procedure). The second case rarely happen, and is limited right now to trade laws basically. So the law we're talking about will have to follow the ordinary procedure.
This procedure will set this law proposition in front of the parliament. The parliament will either accept or modify (cannot abandon the law that fast sadly). Then the european council will decide if they agree on the text. If they do not, they either reject it or they modify it (yes, i know) and send it to the parliament a second time. Once again review, modifications, and, if not enough support, rejection. This will certainly end the proposition here. If it is not rejected but simply modified, then the council will debate on this. Any government can choose to stop and/or reject the text at this point. I think there is one more step if the text isn't rejected yet but i'm not exactly sure what this step entails (i assume a special commission between the EU parliament and the countries that did not agree to the text/that push the text)
It is interesting to have this information, but keep indignation low. I don't believe this will pass step 3.
The commission is the European executive power. It is a mostly unelected body.
The parliament is the one you vote for if you do vote during the european elections
The council is composed by representative of the head of state from the 27 countries.
Once a law is drafted by the European commission (i don't think they can have the idea themselve btw, they just help draft the proposition to try to make it pass through the european court, but i believe they are not the originators of the proposition. 90% sure i'd say), it can follow two procedures: either the ordinary (also called codecision procedure) or the special (consultation procedure). The second case rarely happen, and is limited right now to trade laws basically. So the law we're talking about will have to follow the ordinary procedure.
This procedure will set this law proposition in front of the parliament. The parliament will either accept or modify (cannot abandon the law that fast sadly). Then the european council will decide if they agree on the text. If they do not, they either reject it or they modify it (yes, i know) and send it to the parliament a second time. Once again review, modifications, and, if not enough support, rejection. This will certainly end the proposition here. If it is not rejected but simply modified, then the council will debate on this. Any government can choose to stop and/or reject the text at this point. I think there is one more step if the text isn't rejected yet but i'm not exactly sure what this step entails (i assume a special commission between the EU parliament and the countries that did not agree to the text/that push the text)
It is interesting to have this information, but keep indignation low. I don't believe this will pass step 3.
> i don't think they can have the idea themselve btw
Actually the European Commission is exactly where EU legislation comes from. It probably doesn't come from the commissioners themselves; they're mostly ex-politicians who are too unpopular and incompetent to get elected in their home countries. But those commissioners control the EU civil service; it's those bureaucrats that produce these ideas.
As you say, the ordinary procedure is that the proposal is then passed to the toothless Parliament; and I think it then goes to the Council of Ministers to be passed. The Parliament can pass it back to the Commission for reconsideration, and that can happen several times. I don't know how often that happens; I'd guess not often.
Actually the European Commission is exactly where EU legislation comes from. It probably doesn't come from the commissioners themselves; they're mostly ex-politicians who are too unpopular and incompetent to get elected in their home countries. But those commissioners control the EU civil service; it's those bureaucrats that produce these ideas.
As you say, the ordinary procedure is that the proposal is then passed to the toothless Parliament; and I think it then goes to the Council of Ministers to be passed. The Parliament can pass it back to the Commission for reconsideration, and that can happen several times. I don't know how often that happens; I'd guess not often.
This is a typical way for unpopular laws to pass. Pretend it's to save kids, to spread democracy or to whatever else you really care about.
Ugh, the EU should be enshrining the right to privacy as a human right, and instead we get this garbage.
These pathetic fucks should stop pretending to worry about children. What they really want is subversive populace living under the constant threat of being made criminals.
FFS China, Russia, India etc are proud of you.
FFS China, Russia, India etc are proud of you.
In Russia it has started with "child porno" blocking.
Fast forward 10 years, the list of things your web site may be blocked for is unbound.
So it's not just slippery slope, rather an euphemism.
Fast forward 10 years, the list of things your web site may be blocked for is unbound.
So it's not just slippery slope, rather an euphemism.
Ah the classic "But think of the children" appeal...
Anybody know how this will impact proton?
Anybody know how this will impact proton?
It shouldn't (directly) affect ProtonMail — they're based in Switzerland, which is not an EU member and thus not bound by EU law.
That said, it's possible that this could be implemented in a GDPR-like fashion, where non-EU companies offering services to EU persons would be required to follow these laws.
It's also worth noting that the EU and Switzerland do have some bilateral agreements [1] for single market access, though, which involves it adopting some required EU law to facilitate this access; however, that should not be relevant for this specific issue.
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/cs/MEMO_1...
That said, it's possible that this could be implemented in a GDPR-like fashion, where non-EU companies offering services to EU persons would be required to follow these laws.
It's also worth noting that the EU and Switzerland do have some bilateral agreements [1] for single market access, though, which involves it adopting some required EU law to facilitate this access; however, that should not be relevant for this specific issue.
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/cs/MEMO_1...
[deleted]
I don't think Switzerland is subject to this but I could be wrong. I setup my own mail and xmpp server to be safe. I recommend others to do the same. Yunohost.org makes it easy.
I don't appreciate the way privacy advocates attack the "think of the children" cliche. It comes off as a flippant rejection of the importance of protecting the vulnerable.
The issue isn't the justification, it's that the ends don't justify the means. Sometimes you can't take an action even if you perceive it'll have a good result (spying on people [immoral means] to protect children [moral end]).
The issue isn't the justification, it's that the ends don't justify the means. Sometimes you can't take an action even if you perceive it'll have a good result (spying on people [immoral means] to protect children [moral end]).
But it's a completely fake argument in these scenarios. It's always invoked when you want to do something different to infringe on personal liberties. If anything it's the people abusing vulnerable groups for their agenda are at fault for the argument becoming laughable, however I think most people in this discussion are able to differentiate fake "think of the children" from actually protecting vulnerable groups.
This isn't a debate about the merits of that. Europe has a lot of problems with human trafficking in general but this is about information control. And the strategy to get that realised with emotional topics was correctly predicted decades ago.
> This will require them to monitor and scan the communications of citizens en masse – even if they are still securely encrypted end-to-end so far.
how does this work though? Or do they want to force communication services to have backdoor into their encryption technology?
how does this work though? Or do they want to force communication services to have backdoor into their encryption technology?
Afaik the legislation will force communication service providers (WhatsApp, MSN Messenger, ...) to scan any chat message for illegal material before it is encrypted and sent. The scanning happens against a known database of data fingerprints.
So what happens with self-hosted or decentralized services? Like matrix.
Depends entirely on how the law itself will be phrased. Maybe there is an exception to services below a certain size. But I don't expect the politicians behind this initiative to have matrix on the radar or even understand decentralized chat protocols.
You could program the clients to look for blacklisted URLs or picture hashes or whatever and still have end to end encryption I guess. Would defeat the point though and the eavesdropping could just aswell be on the server with no end to end encryption.
So the draft hasn't been published? Have there been public committee meetings? I'd like to know more about the actual content of the bill.
I don't understand who wants this. does any of their actual constituency want it? Or is it literally just the actual elected officials getting power hungry?
Stuff like abortion, etc where I don't really understand the other side. I've at least met real people who are pro life.
I've never met the people who want these clownish surveillance things but they keep coming up anyways.
Stuff like abortion, etc where I don't really understand the other side. I've at least met real people who are pro life.
I've never met the people who want these clownish surveillance things but they keep coming up anyways.
Yes Minister covers it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahgjEjJkZks
Tell them you're going to have their messages scanned on behalf of the government and nobody wants it. Tell them you're going to introduce measures for online safety and to crack down on child abuse, and everybody wants it.
Unless you're pre-informed on the issues, whoever presents it to you can just pick the side that gets you to the answer they want.
Tell them you're going to have their messages scanned on behalf of the government and nobody wants it. Tell them you're going to introduce measures for online safety and to crack down on child abuse, and everybody wants it.
Unless you're pre-informed on the issues, whoever presents it to you can just pick the side that gets you to the answer they want.
> Unless you're pre-informed on the issues, whoever presents it to you can just pick the side that gets you to the answer they want.
This summarizes a good 75% of modern political discourse.
This summarizes a good 75% of modern political discourse.
Ironically, this is why a lot of people argue everyone shouldn't vote. Basically, if you add some minor barriers to voting you'll get only those who know and care about what's going on to vote.
Otherwise, you'll have lemmings. Where people with a bit of propaganda will drive everyone else off the cliff.
Otherwise, you'll have lemmings. Where people with a bit of propaganda will drive everyone else off the cliff.
Except the people voting on these laws are not everyone but those that have been chosen to act as informed agents on behalf of the people. How is that working out again?
> Basically, if you add some minor barriers to voting you'll get only those who know and care about what's going on to vote.
You'll get people with a lot of time on their hands for sure, that's about the only thing one can say with certainty.
You'll get people with a lot of time on their hands for sure, that's about the only thing one can say with certainty.
(It's not «everyone shouldn't vote», it's «not everyone should vote».) «Minor barriers» are not the only way to achieve that - you can use sophisticated voting systems -, and the definition of such «barriers» is not trivial on many levels (of effectiveness, of fariness etc).
[deleted]
"Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" - Churchill
There's a reason this quote gets echoed so frequently. Picking special electors to drive the government in a more informed manner is a dangerous path which includes a lot of danger around how to pick those electors.
It might be nice if there was a way to fairly filter out the politically illiterate but then again even the best system is likely just going to result in systemic discrimination against the disenfranchised class... and I think it's pretty damn likely that the filter would be quickly manipulated to shape the voting block in some partisan direction beyond just political literacy.
There's a reason this quote gets echoed so frequently. Picking special electors to drive the government in a more informed manner is a dangerous path which includes a lot of danger around how to pick those electors.
It might be nice if there was a way to fairly filter out the politically illiterate but then again even the best system is likely just going to result in systemic discrimination against the disenfranchised class... and I think it's pretty damn likely that the filter would be quickly manipulated to shape the voting block in some partisan direction beyond just political literacy.
The argument I've seen is making a national voting day (everyone's off), then they have to travel to a particular area vote.
You can combine it with ID checks and/or proof of residency.
All of which are minor, but easily doable and universally accessible. You don't need a test, just a little bit of effort to remember to bring your wallet and travel 10-30 minutes.
You can combine it with ID checks and/or proof of residency.
All of which are minor, but easily doable and universally accessible. You don't need a test, just a little bit of effort to remember to bring your wallet and travel 10-30 minutes.
> universally accessible
Somewhat - these things take money. State IDs aren't free and neither are proofs of residency. ID laws are discriminatory against the poor which is likely somewhat aligned with political illiteracy but through a correlation in our current system.
A national voting day coupled with advanced voting would probably help our vote equality quite a bit and having the actual voting day be a holiday would likely discourage folks who'd rather spend a day at the beach.
Somewhat - these things take money. State IDs aren't free and neither are proofs of residency. ID laws are discriminatory against the poor which is likely somewhat aligned with political illiteracy but through a correlation in our current system.
A national voting day coupled with advanced voting would probably help our vote equality quite a bit and having the actual voting day be a holiday would likely discourage folks who'd rather spend a day at the beach.
> ID laws are discriminatory against the poor which is likely somewhat aligned with political illiteracy but through a correlation in our current system.
To get public services in the U.S. you need to have an ID, i.e. food stamps. It's a talking point that is not a real problem. Identifiers of who you are, are a requirement for free and fair elections. Otherwise, everyone just cheats and there is no democracy.
Further, everyone can get an ID, it costs $5-$10 in most states and most states will waive fees if you cannot afford it. Finally, if people can't get to a voting booth during a pre-designated, national holiday, then they don't care enough to vote. Even the homeless could make it happen, if they wanted to.
> A national voting day coupled with advanced voting would probably help our vote equality quite a bit and having the actual voting day be a holiday would likely discourage folks who'd rather spend a day at the beach.
The whole point of my statement was to present the argument (without judgement), the goal is to create a less equal and more discouraged voting system, bias towards those who actually care / follow politics. We want to limit it to the politically literate.
To get public services in the U.S. you need to have an ID, i.e. food stamps. It's a talking point that is not a real problem. Identifiers of who you are, are a requirement for free and fair elections. Otherwise, everyone just cheats and there is no democracy.
Further, everyone can get an ID, it costs $5-$10 in most states and most states will waive fees if you cannot afford it. Finally, if people can't get to a voting booth during a pre-designated, national holiday, then they don't care enough to vote. Even the homeless could make it happen, if they wanted to.
> A national voting day coupled with advanced voting would probably help our vote equality quite a bit and having the actual voting day be a holiday would likely discourage folks who'd rather spend a day at the beach.
The whole point of my statement was to present the argument (without judgement), the goal is to create a less equal and more discouraged voting system, bias towards those who actually care / follow politics. We want to limit it to the politically literate.
Unless one of the two parties decides that your race is less likely to vote for them, so goes around making the forms of ID most commonly held by people of your race ineligible as voter ID.
I have come to believe Yes Minister needs to be required viewing for everyone. Just yesterday, my son shared with me this excellent BBC look back at the show:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=GRocvuyAMeI
If you're a Yes Minister fan, it's a must see IMO.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=GRocvuyAMeI
If you're a Yes Minister fan, it's a must see IMO.
>Unless you're pre-informed on the issues, whoever presents it to you can just pick the side that gets you to the answer they want.
You don't need to be "pre-informed".
You just need to be skeptical. Some knowledge of history is a good start.
You don't need to be "pre-informed".
You just need to be skeptical. Some knowledge of history is a good start.
Hence the recent crackdown on “misinformation”. Skepticism and dissent can’t be prevented, but its spread can be suppressed. Many otherwise good people have fallen hook line and sinker for the “misinformation pandemic” propaganda campaign.
There's a huge difference between skepticism (expressing some contrary opinion) and misinformation (putting forward lies as facts), although I have to admit the spreaders of misinformation have gotten very good at innocently claiming they're "just asking questions."
Skepticism is not "expressing some contrary opinion". It is a rationalist discipline, very much rooted in logic. A true skeptic will do one of two things:
- put forward sound arguments why a specific viewpoint or presented fact could be wrong
- reserve judgement altogether
Expressing a contrary opinion is not in the skeptic's playbook, because it would be self-defeating: they would be making the same categorical error as they're arguing against.
- put forward sound arguments why a specific viewpoint or presented fact could be wrong
- reserve judgement altogether
Expressing a contrary opinion is not in the skeptic's playbook, because it would be self-defeating: they would be making the same categorical error as they're arguing against.
That isn't a viable critique. You have to prepare the right answers and bad faith questions are easy to counter. Or maybe not, but you still have to be able to do that. I have seen much more instances where no answers could be provided when people asked legitimate questions that weren't in bad faith at all.
Yes, they are different, but it’s extremely easy to conflate them if the skepticism is contrary to the interests of the powerful and you hold the power to censor.
> crack down on child abuse
Actually today you don't use cracking down on child abuse as a reason, you use the danger of the far-right. All the leading left-wing publications, New York Times, The Guardian, Washington Post, CNN, Vox have been running articles about how dangerous encrypted chat apps are:
> Why right-wing extremists’ favorite new platform is so dangerous. Telegram’s lax content moderation and encrypted chats make it a convenient tool for extremists.
https://www.vox.com/recode/22238755/telegram-messaging-socia...
> In collaboration with anti-fascist research group the White Rose Society, the Guardian has tracked McLean’s activity through the rabbit warren of largely unregulated Telegram groups and found that he describes a vastly different version of his intentions.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/26/where...
> Far-right groups move online conversations from social media to chat apps — and out of view of law enforcement
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/14/telegram-war...
> White supremacists openly organize racist violence on Telegram, report finds
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/26/tech/white-supremacists-t...
> Are Private Messaging Apps the Next Misinformation Hot Spot? Telegram and Signal, the encrypted services that keep conversations confidential, are increasingly popular. Our tech columnists discuss whether this could get ugly.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/technology/personaltech/t...
> A report this week found that the messaging app had emerged as a central hub for several conspiracy movements espousing antisemitic tropes and memes, including QAnon, as well as others on the extreme right promoting violence.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/15/parler-...
Actually today you don't use cracking down on child abuse as a reason, you use the danger of the far-right. All the leading left-wing publications, New York Times, The Guardian, Washington Post, CNN, Vox have been running articles about how dangerous encrypted chat apps are:
> Why right-wing extremists’ favorite new platform is so dangerous. Telegram’s lax content moderation and encrypted chats make it a convenient tool for extremists.
https://www.vox.com/recode/22238755/telegram-messaging-socia...
> In collaboration with anti-fascist research group the White Rose Society, the Guardian has tracked McLean’s activity through the rabbit warren of largely unregulated Telegram groups and found that he describes a vastly different version of his intentions.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/26/where...
> Far-right groups move online conversations from social media to chat apps — and out of view of law enforcement
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/14/telegram-war...
> White supremacists openly organize racist violence on Telegram, report finds
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/26/tech/white-supremacists-t...
> Are Private Messaging Apps the Next Misinformation Hot Spot? Telegram and Signal, the encrypted services that keep conversations confidential, are increasingly popular. Our tech columnists discuss whether this could get ugly.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/technology/personaltech/t...
> A report this week found that the messaging app had emerged as a central hub for several conspiracy movements espousing antisemitic tropes and memes, including QAnon, as well as others on the extreme right promoting violence.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/15/parler-...
Nah - cracking down on child abuse remains the best way to get anything done. That is how Florida officials sold HB 1557 and it continues to be a mainstay, especially, in the UK.
Why Telegram is mentioned (which according to HN has no security)? Is Signal mentioned?
A few of them mention both, but generally Telegram has more users, and gets more mentions accordingly.
> does any of their actual constituency want it?
While one can technically argue that the EU Commission has constituency, it's worth noting that it's a few layers of abstraction away: Commissioners are typically people with industry background who are nominated by the "EU Council". The EU Council is in turn made up of state leaders. (The "EU Parliament" is a separate body that is actually elected by voters).
Lobbyists also have much more direct access to commissioners than any constituents ever would.
For some context, Thierry Breton is the current EU Commissioner for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, Defence Industry and Space, Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs. His background is running France Télécom & acquiring Xerox IT outsourcing. (He's also the former French Minister of Finance, but ministries are not elected positions in France).
While one can technically argue that the EU Commission has constituency, it's worth noting that it's a few layers of abstraction away: Commissioners are typically people with industry background who are nominated by the "EU Council". The EU Council is in turn made up of state leaders. (The "EU Parliament" is a separate body that is actually elected by voters).
Lobbyists also have much more direct access to commissioners than any constituents ever would.
For some context, Thierry Breton is the current EU Commissioner for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, Defence Industry and Space, Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs. His background is running France Télécom & acquiring Xerox IT outsourcing. (He's also the former French Minister of Finance, but ministries are not elected positions in France).
He basically destroyed Bull's engineering culture, and still help them get contracts they don't deserve, by "subtle" political pressure. If you want to get on European PPPs as a tech company, better have good relation with Bull/Atos.
My former manager worked at Thompson during Breton's presence there, let's say he was unsurprised when he learned about the suicide waves at France Telecom.
I don't know much about corruption, but he is the prime example of what i would consider corruption in France.
My former manager worked at Thompson during Breton's presence there, let's say he was unsurprised when he learned about the suicide waves at France Telecom.
I don't know much about corruption, but he is the prime example of what i would consider corruption in France.
In theory Commissioners are appointed by the Council.
In practice the head of the Commission has a veto. In the treaties this veto power doesn't exist, but Juncker admitted he regularly vetoed appointees and it's unlikely vDL gave up that power.
So that leads to the question of how the head of the Commission is picked. Again, by treaty it's up to the Council to decide. How do they do that? Nobody knows. They walk into a room and have a secret meeting, at the end they jointly announce the decision. Is there a vote? Does everyone even get to express their view? Do countries make threats to get their way? How are the candidates selected? What did the different country leaders think? Do their statements in private even match their statements in public (sometimes not, it seems). The process is entirely opaque.
After that was done, just to make the comparisons with North Korea super-duper obvious, they gave the European Parliament a "vote" on who should be Commission head. The voting slip had a single option on it - vDL. MEPs could either vote for her, or not vote at all.
In practice the head of the Commission has a veto. In the treaties this veto power doesn't exist, but Juncker admitted he regularly vetoed appointees and it's unlikely vDL gave up that power.
So that leads to the question of how the head of the Commission is picked. Again, by treaty it's up to the Council to decide. How do they do that? Nobody knows. They walk into a room and have a secret meeting, at the end they jointly announce the decision. Is there a vote? Does everyone even get to express their view? Do countries make threats to get their way? How are the candidates selected? What did the different country leaders think? Do their statements in private even match their statements in public (sometimes not, it seems). The process is entirely opaque.
After that was done, just to make the comparisons with North Korea super-duper obvious, they gave the European Parliament a "vote" on who should be Commission head. The voting slip had a single option on it - vDL. MEPs could either vote for her, or not vote at all.
> Or is it literally just the actual elected officials getting power hungry?
For some maybe yes.
But in many cases they don't understand technology, they often end up with very incomplete and wrong partial understandings by extrapolating from things they do understand, but which do also have very different dynamics.
Also while they often insist on their broken understanding they are not stupid and do realize that there is a lot they don't understand. That frightens them.
Then there are real problems around child abuse/porn in the internet. But they are hard to solve without doing much more damage in other ways. But because they don't understand the dynamics of the internet they don't realize that. Like in the world they understad requiring a thing which allows people to publish things to (skimingly) check the things published isn't hard or a problem (as it's something like a printed book or newspaper, few publisher, many consumer). But if you try to apply this to modern internet platforms it all falls apart. But they don't see it for them e.g. a dating app is nothing more then a fancy "locking for people" section in a small regional newspaper or something like that.
So in my opinion it's less because of power hunger then more because of arrogance and incompetence.
And without question there are exceptions.
For some maybe yes.
But in many cases they don't understand technology, they often end up with very incomplete and wrong partial understandings by extrapolating from things they do understand, but which do also have very different dynamics.
Also while they often insist on their broken understanding they are not stupid and do realize that there is a lot they don't understand. That frightens them.
Then there are real problems around child abuse/porn in the internet. But they are hard to solve without doing much more damage in other ways. But because they don't understand the dynamics of the internet they don't realize that. Like in the world they understad requiring a thing which allows people to publish things to (skimingly) check the things published isn't hard or a problem (as it's something like a printed book or newspaper, few publisher, many consumer). But if you try to apply this to modern internet platforms it all falls apart. But they don't see it for them e.g. a dating app is nothing more then a fancy "locking for people" section in a small regional newspaper or something like that.
So in my opinion it's less because of power hunger then more because of arrogance and incompetence.
And without question there are exceptions.
? I don't get it, it's the easiest thing to understand.
Terrorism, human trafficking, 'high treason' (i.e. nuclear secrets, spying).
Those are very real things and I think it would be relatively easy to convince the population that some degree of oversight is necessary. Because there's legitimacy.
I fully support the idea, nominally, except that I don't trust the bureaucracy at all, and so I'm pretty much against it, other than in careful situations with a ton of oversight. To the point where I think a national committee ought to validate every single surveillance request, not even a local judge.
And FYI the issues is far more nuanced - it's going to be politicized to narrow the range of acceptable behaviour and thought, as various groups try to designate 'the others views' as 'hate speech' etc..
We've always had high common standards of morality, but there were always many escapes - nobody cares what 'the guy said at the beer hall / pub'. It was just some boozing up. It 'didn't count' so to speak. Now we record everything everywhere and context is lost.
Terrorism, human trafficking, 'high treason' (i.e. nuclear secrets, spying).
Those are very real things and I think it would be relatively easy to convince the population that some degree of oversight is necessary. Because there's legitimacy.
I fully support the idea, nominally, except that I don't trust the bureaucracy at all, and so I'm pretty much against it, other than in careful situations with a ton of oversight. To the point where I think a national committee ought to validate every single surveillance request, not even a local judge.
And FYI the issues is far more nuanced - it's going to be politicized to narrow the range of acceptable behaviour and thought, as various groups try to designate 'the others views' as 'hate speech' etc..
We've always had high common standards of morality, but there were always many escapes - nobody cares what 'the guy said at the beer hall / pub'. It was just some boozing up. It 'didn't count' so to speak. Now we record everything everywhere and context is lost.
> To the point where I think a national committee ought to validate every single surveillance request, not even a local judge.
Which wouldn’t make it mass-surveillance.
The problem is when the government enforces an infrastructure of mass-surveillance where information about everybody, in their homes, outside, their communication, and so on, is being collected. Regular people like you and I will have zero ability to vet how this information is used. We can’t let the government have this much power over us. The best way to prevent this mass-surveillance is by not allowing this data to be collected in the first place.
Selective surveillance is something different. It’s not logistically possible for your government to selectively surveil everyone the same way they do with the mass-surveillance infrastructures that are being deployed. This logistical limitation is a feature, not a bug.
Which wouldn’t make it mass-surveillance.
The problem is when the government enforces an infrastructure of mass-surveillance where information about everybody, in their homes, outside, their communication, and so on, is being collected. Regular people like you and I will have zero ability to vet how this information is used. We can’t let the government have this much power over us. The best way to prevent this mass-surveillance is by not allowing this data to be collected in the first place.
Selective surveillance is something different. It’s not logistically possible for your government to selectively surveil everyone the same way they do with the mass-surveillance infrastructures that are being deployed. This logistical limitation is a feature, not a bug.
Yes, but it's more complicated.
For example - I think in the US, Verizon etc. has to keep a history of 'call records' - so that, in the event of some issues, that information can be acquired. I don't know how much oversight goes into that later part, but ideally, it would be a lot.
Even in that case, there is kind of a 'record' or 'background tracking' related to what would otherwise be 'very legit' situation.
Same for search, tweets, DMs etc. etc..
I'm fine with it as long as there is 'really good oversight' ... which I don't trust any of our governments to do. Not the EU/UK/US/Canada etc..
The answer is always the same: 'it depends' , 'it's nuanced', and always requires 'high degree of competence', 'transcend politicization', 'transcend descent into bureaucracy' and 'unforeseen situations' esp. 'data leaks', 'weird constitutional rulings' and 'weird populist political situations'. Etc..
For example - I think in the US, Verizon etc. has to keep a history of 'call records' - so that, in the event of some issues, that information can be acquired. I don't know how much oversight goes into that later part, but ideally, it would be a lot.
Even in that case, there is kind of a 'record' or 'background tracking' related to what would otherwise be 'very legit' situation.
Same for search, tweets, DMs etc. etc..
I'm fine with it as long as there is 'really good oversight' ... which I don't trust any of our governments to do. Not the EU/UK/US/Canada etc..
The answer is always the same: 'it depends' , 'it's nuanced', and always requires 'high degree of competence', 'transcend politicization', 'transcend descent into bureaucracy' and 'unforeseen situations' esp. 'data leaks', 'weird constitutional rulings' and 'weird populist political situations'. Etc..
I never understand this apparent motive of "elected officials getting power hungry". How would this legislation make the people in the EU Commission more powerful? Am I just lacking imagination?
I mean, intercepting private business communications about say, factory openings or closings, would put the people with that information in a position to make large amounts of money by buying or selling property in those areas. There are dozens of similar examples that don't require much imagination to envisage. Blackmail material on politicians, insider knowledge on energy transactions and plans, advance warning on populist protests against EU policies, etc.
Just look at the history of any mass surveillance state to see how that works out in practice. The East German STASI is a relevant example, and there are others one could think of as well. Recommended watching: "The Lives of Others".
Just look at the history of any mass surveillance state to see how that works out in practice. The East German STASI is a relevant example, and there are others one could think of as well. Recommended watching: "The Lives of Others".
> I mean, intercepting private business communications about say, factory openings or closings, would put the people with that information in a position to make large amounts of money by buying or selling property in those areas.
Like the US did with Airbus in the echelon scandal even before the pervasive surveillance that came in after 9/11. Just saying this is not a remote "worst case" scenario but a real-world one.
Like the US did with Airbus in the echelon scandal even before the pervasive surveillance that came in after 9/11. Just saying this is not a remote "worst case" scenario but a real-world one.
Agreed. History is replete with examples. We might like to think we're more civilized and tolerant, that we've evolved morally since then. But we're still the same humans we've always been.
This legislation means the EC gets to decide what is allowed and what's not in private communications. It always starts with child pornography, because everybody finds it abhorrent. But once you open that door...
> Am I just lacking imagination?
Yes.
The EU is becoming a totalitarian regional government of elites.
Originally it wasn't even supposed to have a military presence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_forces_of_the_European...
It was supposed to prevent the need of passports. https://www.covidpasscertificate.com/europe-digital-green-pa...
All the good things are going out the door and all the bad things are walking on in.
Yes.
The EU is becoming a totalitarian regional government of elites.
Originally it wasn't even supposed to have a military presence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_forces_of_the_European...
It was supposed to prevent the need of passports. https://www.covidpasscertificate.com/europe-digital-green-pa...
All the good things are going out the door and all the bad things are walking on in.
In the interest in saving peoples time when responding to this: don’t.
It’s trolling at worst and nerd sniping at best. The author of this comment knows this full well. His comment history is full of this kind of “drop bomb” and run crap.
“covid passports” being required is not exactly the fault of the EU, if anything it’s because of the freedoms the EU still has. Anti-covid rhetoric needs to die, anti-EU bad faith propaganda needs to die.
This is a legitimate constitutional crisis, not a time to try to pile on with nonsense.
It’s trolling at worst and nerd sniping at best. The author of this comment knows this full well. His comment history is full of this kind of “drop bomb” and run crap.
“covid passports” being required is not exactly the fault of the EU, if anything it’s because of the freedoms the EU still has. Anti-covid rhetoric needs to die, anti-EU bad faith propaganda needs to die.
This is a legitimate constitutional crisis, not a time to try to pile on with nonsense.
> is full of this kind of “drop bomb” and run crap.
Hello. I usually keep responding to people. I'm not from the EU, so if you disagree with me I'll respond. It's not unlikely I'm wrong.
I am a crazy anti-government guy though, so you've got me there.
Hello. I usually keep responding to people. I'm not from the EU, so if you disagree with me I'll respond. It's not unlikely I'm wrong.
I am a crazy anti-government guy though, so you've got me there.
Well, I'm going to take this argument in good faith then and assume you're not trolling, but I'll be extremely disappointed if I'm proven wrong.
I'll start by saying that the EU does have issues, I can talk fairly about what the EU even is first, why it evolved and then talk about those issues as fairly as I can.
FD: I am pro-EU but it's not like I can't understand that people can have exactly the same information as me and disagree, the EU is trade-offs and I'm personally in favour of those trade-offs; I can understand why some people would not.
----
The EU, at its core started off, as everyone mentions repeatedly: as an economic union; the purpose of which was to make the idea of war in Europe unpalatable.
This core fact is why when people complain about "jobs moving to x,y,z EU country where the labour is cheaper" they're right, but that was the purpose of the economic union from the beginning and not the EU; since that's the point of the EEC (the pre-cursor to what became the EU).
Over time it became apparent (during the cold war, specifically) that Europe is directly in the crossfire of two super powers, and each of us alone is not capable of fending off either of them, either economically (since the power imbalance in economics means Russia, the US or even China can basically dictate terms to us) or in terms of defence (a scrambled response will be slow and ineffective).
Thus: the EU was formed, to try to compete at the same level as the Soviet Union and USA. (and, recently, China is a super power).
The way the EU functions is actually the most democratic system that exists in Europe itself; no government is more transparent, more directly elected or more advanced with regards to how it decides who gets seats. This is probably contestable on some level, maybe there's some more balanced democracy that I'm not aware of, but as a Swedish/British citizen: the EU parliament is far more representative of votes than the UK parliament or Swedish Riksdag (though the Swedish one comes a lot closer).
Every time someone complains about the EU they're doing so from either a place of ignorance ("the EU mandates bananas cant be too bendy!"[0]) or a place of understanding of inefficiency (France being unwilling to release the EU parliament from being moved between cities half of the year[1]; or the growing right wing totalitarian regime in Poland and Hungary[2]).
When you conflate ignorant topics with important topics it muddies the water; it's impossible to have a reasonable conversation about reform.
Why would we need reform instead of abolishing the institution though?
Because the EU countries are actually under serious threat from Russia, the USA and China (as mentioned). While it might not be obvious to those living in the EU; the same way the presence of a military or police is sort of invisible and people act "reasonably" most of the time; you might wonder if you even need the police or the military.
I might sound like I'm fear mongering, but I'm not, it's just the reality of trading and defending as a bloc; the same is true at nearly any scale. For example in Sweden it's common for an entire apartment building to negotiate for internet, and the rates that they get are significantly cheaper than if they had negotiated alone. Apes together strong.
The downside of that negotiation is: everyone must be aligned on the decision being made, and you lose the individual freedom to choose a provider. But the result is a better experience for everyone. Most of the time you elect representatives, in Sweden this is a board in a housing community, and they act on behalf of the interests of the bloc.
Crucially, this is what the EU is doing; and what you said about COVID passports is one of those things that's there because the EU does not impose itself on member states, the EU is very hands off on many areas.
There's a few projects or initiatives which go through the (directly) elected parliament, but they often must get unanimous consent of all member states, not just "Germany throwing its weight around" as is commonly suggested, that's not really possible with the way the EU is structured, the EU is structured in a way that it's easy for most member states to stop the EU from doing something; and really difficult to make something new happen.
This is why certain problems are occurring: the French holding on to the EU parliament for 6 months of the year, the French can simply say "no" to proposals to stop that inefficiency from existing and the EU can't really do anything about it.
The same is true for any potential sanctions against Poland and Hungary suppressing freedom of the press. Obviously the potentially sanctioned country can't vote on if it gets sanctions, but if Hungary say "no" to sanctions against Poland, there's nothing the EU can do.
The EU is optimised for ensuring basically nobody is doing anything against their will, except in rare cases where everyone but 1 member state agrees; but historically there have been "opt-outs" to many things. The UK being in the country in the EU has the most asterisks of every country combined in any treaty usually.
[0]: Overly disfigured bananas are supposed to bear a classification, they're not banned: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/news-and-pre...
[1]: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/faq/18/why-does-parli...
[2]: https://cepa.org/what-can-we-do-about-poland-and-hungary/
I'll start by saying that the EU does have issues, I can talk fairly about what the EU even is first, why it evolved and then talk about those issues as fairly as I can.
FD: I am pro-EU but it's not like I can't understand that people can have exactly the same information as me and disagree, the EU is trade-offs and I'm personally in favour of those trade-offs; I can understand why some people would not.
----
The EU, at its core started off, as everyone mentions repeatedly: as an economic union; the purpose of which was to make the idea of war in Europe unpalatable.
This core fact is why when people complain about "jobs moving to x,y,z EU country where the labour is cheaper" they're right, but that was the purpose of the economic union from the beginning and not the EU; since that's the point of the EEC (the pre-cursor to what became the EU).
Over time it became apparent (during the cold war, specifically) that Europe is directly in the crossfire of two super powers, and each of us alone is not capable of fending off either of them, either economically (since the power imbalance in economics means Russia, the US or even China can basically dictate terms to us) or in terms of defence (a scrambled response will be slow and ineffective).
Thus: the EU was formed, to try to compete at the same level as the Soviet Union and USA. (and, recently, China is a super power).
The way the EU functions is actually the most democratic system that exists in Europe itself; no government is more transparent, more directly elected or more advanced with regards to how it decides who gets seats. This is probably contestable on some level, maybe there's some more balanced democracy that I'm not aware of, but as a Swedish/British citizen: the EU parliament is far more representative of votes than the UK parliament or Swedish Riksdag (though the Swedish one comes a lot closer).
Every time someone complains about the EU they're doing so from either a place of ignorance ("the EU mandates bananas cant be too bendy!"[0]) or a place of understanding of inefficiency (France being unwilling to release the EU parliament from being moved between cities half of the year[1]; or the growing right wing totalitarian regime in Poland and Hungary[2]).
When you conflate ignorant topics with important topics it muddies the water; it's impossible to have a reasonable conversation about reform.
Why would we need reform instead of abolishing the institution though?
Because the EU countries are actually under serious threat from Russia, the USA and China (as mentioned). While it might not be obvious to those living in the EU; the same way the presence of a military or police is sort of invisible and people act "reasonably" most of the time; you might wonder if you even need the police or the military.
I might sound like I'm fear mongering, but I'm not, it's just the reality of trading and defending as a bloc; the same is true at nearly any scale. For example in Sweden it's common for an entire apartment building to negotiate for internet, and the rates that they get are significantly cheaper than if they had negotiated alone. Apes together strong.
The downside of that negotiation is: everyone must be aligned on the decision being made, and you lose the individual freedom to choose a provider. But the result is a better experience for everyone. Most of the time you elect representatives, in Sweden this is a board in a housing community, and they act on behalf of the interests of the bloc.
Crucially, this is what the EU is doing; and what you said about COVID passports is one of those things that's there because the EU does not impose itself on member states, the EU is very hands off on many areas.
There's a few projects or initiatives which go through the (directly) elected parliament, but they often must get unanimous consent of all member states, not just "Germany throwing its weight around" as is commonly suggested, that's not really possible with the way the EU is structured, the EU is structured in a way that it's easy for most member states to stop the EU from doing something; and really difficult to make something new happen.
This is why certain problems are occurring: the French holding on to the EU parliament for 6 months of the year, the French can simply say "no" to proposals to stop that inefficiency from existing and the EU can't really do anything about it.
The same is true for any potential sanctions against Poland and Hungary suppressing freedom of the press. Obviously the potentially sanctioned country can't vote on if it gets sanctions, but if Hungary say "no" to sanctions against Poland, there's nothing the EU can do.
The EU is optimised for ensuring basically nobody is doing anything against their will, except in rare cases where everyone but 1 member state agrees; but historically there have been "opt-outs" to many things. The UK being in the country in the EU has the most asterisks of every country combined in any treaty usually.
[0]: Overly disfigured bananas are supposed to bear a classification, they're not banned: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/news-and-pre...
[1]: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/faq/18/why-does-parli...
[2]: https://cepa.org/what-can-we-do-about-poland-and-hungary/
I've done some thinking over this and reading of the history, but I don't know that I disagree with any of your points, and clearly what you've said is factual. I mostly disagree from an opinion standpoint.
Particularly the following statement.
> The EU is optimised for ensuring basically nobody is doing anything against their will
To me, just because representatives from member states vote for something, it doesn't mean that individuals aren't being made to do something against their will.
Democracy itself always gives rights to the majority against the will of the minority. On top of that their are many issues with representative democracy to begin with including media manipulation and corruption.
As a defensive mechanism against other blocs I see your point, and its a catch 22. Governments are generally the cause of major wars. So, it feels counterintuitive to band together as another larger government with centralized control.
I wish that people would never rationalize "following orders." If that alone went away, then governments would become impotent.
I'll try to do some more research regarding my original post and get back to here again. These are just some of my initial thoughts. At this point, nobody else is watching this comment thread, so it's really just a discussion between you and I. No need to prove anything, so I'll try to be correct, researched, take my time.
Good chatting, and I'll follow up again in another day or so.
Cheers!
Particularly the following statement.
> The EU is optimised for ensuring basically nobody is doing anything against their will
To me, just because representatives from member states vote for something, it doesn't mean that individuals aren't being made to do something against their will.
Democracy itself always gives rights to the majority against the will of the minority. On top of that their are many issues with representative democracy to begin with including media manipulation and corruption.
As a defensive mechanism against other blocs I see your point, and its a catch 22. Governments are generally the cause of major wars. So, it feels counterintuitive to band together as another larger government with centralized control.
I wish that people would never rationalize "following orders." If that alone went away, then governments would become impotent.
I'll try to do some more research regarding my original post and get back to here again. These are just some of my initial thoughts. At this point, nobody else is watching this comment thread, so it's really just a discussion between you and I. No need to prove anything, so I'll try to be correct, researched, take my time.
Good chatting, and I'll follow up again in another day or so.
Cheers!
Thanks for taking the time to think about it.
> Democracy itself always gives rights to the majority against the will of the minority.
this is true and it has a name I believe; the "Tyranny of the Majority", I think.
> The tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses) is an inherent weakness to majority rule in which the majority of an electorate pursues exclusively its own objectives at the expense of those of the minority factions.
Unfortunately, as you mentioned, being _more democratic_ ultimately lends itself to being this way.
However one neat trick the EU has (and I promise I'm not trying to spin this as pro-EU, as it's only in one place): is that the direct votes are split proportionally. This means that lesser represented groups get a voice in the EU parliament.
For the UK with their "First past the post" system, and winner take all government; where a party like UKIP can get 12.6% of all votes and win 0 representation in parliament.... well, lets say it's a stark contrast. explained very nicely; here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9rGX91rq5I
The EU voting system (the way in which we elect MEPs to parliament) is detailed in this video by the BBC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CU3F3ToIIg ; as you'll see it's much more representative.
I know of other videos that speak pragmatically about the EU, its problems and if it's worth it (though with a slight pro-EU stance): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4Uu5eyN6VU
I also found this video that asks the question if the EU is democratic, which I think makes good points and you can draw different conclusions from it: https://youtu.be/XxutY7ss1v4
I like this explanation of what the EU even is, since you mentioned you might not be informed I think it's beneficial and very impartial (and pre-brexit): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O37yJBFRrfg
> Democracy itself always gives rights to the majority against the will of the minority.
this is true and it has a name I believe; the "Tyranny of the Majority", I think.
> The tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses) is an inherent weakness to majority rule in which the majority of an electorate pursues exclusively its own objectives at the expense of those of the minority factions.
Unfortunately, as you mentioned, being _more democratic_ ultimately lends itself to being this way.
However one neat trick the EU has (and I promise I'm not trying to spin this as pro-EU, as it's only in one place): is that the direct votes are split proportionally. This means that lesser represented groups get a voice in the EU parliament.
For the UK with their "First past the post" system, and winner take all government; where a party like UKIP can get 12.6% of all votes and win 0 representation in parliament.... well, lets say it's a stark contrast. explained very nicely; here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9rGX91rq5I
The EU voting system (the way in which we elect MEPs to parliament) is detailed in this video by the BBC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CU3F3ToIIg ; as you'll see it's much more representative.
I know of other videos that speak pragmatically about the EU, its problems and if it's worth it (though with a slight pro-EU stance): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4Uu5eyN6VU
I also found this video that asks the question if the EU is democratic, which I think makes good points and you can draw different conclusions from it: https://youtu.be/XxutY7ss1v4
I like this explanation of what the EU even is, since you mentioned you might not be informed I think it's beneficial and very impartial (and pre-brexit): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O37yJBFRrfg
> However one neat trick the EU has (and I promise I'm not trying to spin this as pro-EU, as it's only in one place): is that the direct votes are split proportionally. This means that lesser represented groups get a voice in the EU parliament.
That's pretty cool. There are a lot of voting systems that make a ton more sense than first past the post.
One of my favorites on the topic is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
CGP Grey's video uses animals and whatnot. It's cute, but then he talks about alternatives and it's clear anything would be better than first past the post.
In the US, this is one of many reasons why I'm cynical about the federal government. Everyone knows our voting system is useless--none more than the politicians in the system. But, once they're in the system, they're taking advantage of it and never bother with voting system reforms.
I also still mostly disagree with governments in general. A group of people shouldn't be allowed the rights a single person doesn't have. No matter the system, there are people in it that never agreed to be a part of it. That said, from a pragmatic standpoint it doesn't really matter. As you've mentioned, it's dog-eat-dog out there.
I've been fairly busy these past few days, but I'll make it a point to watch the videos you've linked today (not to exceed 1hr of viewing--I haven't checked the length, lol).
That's pretty cool. There are a lot of voting systems that make a ton more sense than first past the post.
One of my favorites on the topic is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
CGP Grey's video uses animals and whatnot. It's cute, but then he talks about alternatives and it's clear anything would be better than first past the post.
In the US, this is one of many reasons why I'm cynical about the federal government. Everyone knows our voting system is useless--none more than the politicians in the system. But, once they're in the system, they're taking advantage of it and never bother with voting system reforms.
I also still mostly disagree with governments in general. A group of people shouldn't be allowed the rights a single person doesn't have. No matter the system, there are people in it that never agreed to be a part of it. That said, from a pragmatic standpoint it doesn't really matter. As you've mentioned, it's dog-eat-dog out there.
I've been fairly busy these past few days, but I'll make it a point to watch the videos you've linked today (not to exceed 1hr of viewing--I haven't checked the length, lol).
Thank you for the well thought response. I'll try to respond in kind, but it may be a day or so. Particularly as I want to attempt a researched opinion, but the EU is not an area I know a ton about.
Do you remember which are
> All the good things
when you wrote your comment? Those that
> are going out the door
?
Maybe my criticism was grave regarding the post, but still though I'd be grateful if you give what you coined positive more insight.
> All the good things
when you wrote your comment? Those that
> are going out the door
?
Maybe my criticism was grave regarding the post, but still though I'd be grateful if you give what you coined positive more insight.
Well, mostly that it was a union for peace and cooperation and now there are digital ID initiatives along with bills like the one in the article, operational military forces, and regulations galore.
My view (although very limited and I'm here to expand it) is that every time a larger governmental body takes some power with some promise of prosperity, it's nice for a short while, but governments only grow till they crash.
Much of the promise of the EU (again a feeling that I'm researching so I can back up or disprove) is being lost to the trend of governments that grow until they no longer represent their people and then fall.
My view (although very limited and I'm here to expand it) is that every time a larger governmental body takes some power with some promise of prosperity, it's nice for a short while, but governments only grow till they crash.
Much of the promise of the EU (again a feeling that I'm researching so I can back up or disprove) is being lost to the trend of governments that grow until they no longer represent their people and then fall.
You don't answer for him but for those that read the chain of arguments.
It is a valid approach to naively ask for the obvious repercussions even if it isn't done honestly.
It is a valid approach to naively ask for the obvious repercussions even if it isn't done honestly.
[deleted]
Which can be easily seen as it proclaims "many good things" without naming a single one. It's written to play with feelings in a very cheap way.
Nono, you are getting all your facts wrong.
> Originally it wasn't even supposed to have a military presence.
Because each country has its own military presence and they all already cooperate anyway together in the NATO so they already had a connected military presence as part of NATO. The reason they consider making that plan explicit is due to a massive lost of trust in the US and realization that the US will put its interest before their interest. If you look at politics in the US in recent years a very sane thing to do.
EDIT: I mixed up passport and official ID below, still not needing a passport (or more precise being able to use your ID as passport) was more a beneficial side effect then a core goal.
> It was supposed to prevent the need of passports.
No definitely not. All or at least many of the EU countries have relatively strict requirements for citizens owing a passport. Strict as in _it being legal required for all adults_. You always had been required to carry a passport when traveling in the EU you just practically could (and still can) travel a lot without showing it. Having a passport is the norm in the EU, you won't get more or less anything done without. For EU citicens it can be quite hard to understand why "requiring a passport" (e.g. for votes) is a problem in the US, as it isn't in general in the EU.
> totalitarian regional government of elites
No, it's a mess without question. But it's very far away from being totalitarian. Or at least most member states are. There are a few problematic exceptions.
> Originally it wasn't even supposed to have a military presence.
Because each country has its own military presence and they all already cooperate anyway together in the NATO so they already had a connected military presence as part of NATO. The reason they consider making that plan explicit is due to a massive lost of trust in the US and realization that the US will put its interest before their interest. If you look at politics in the US in recent years a very sane thing to do.
EDIT: I mixed up passport and official ID below, still not needing a passport (or more precise being able to use your ID as passport) was more a beneficial side effect then a core goal.
> It was supposed to prevent the need of passports.
No definitely not. All or at least many of the EU countries have relatively strict requirements for citizens owing a passport. Strict as in _it being legal required for all adults_. You always had been required to carry a passport when traveling in the EU you just practically could (and still can) travel a lot without showing it. Having a passport is the norm in the EU, you won't get more or less anything done without. For EU citicens it can be quite hard to understand why "requiring a passport" (e.g. for votes) is a problem in the US, as it isn't in general in the EU.
> totalitarian regional government of elites
No, it's a mess without question. But it's very far away from being totalitarian. Or at least most member states are. There are a few problematic exceptions.
> due to a massive lost of trust in the US and realization that the US will put its interest before their interest.
Sure. And that's reasonable. The US will do that.
I just think it goes against the original promises, and national sovereignty is being widdled away by larger governing bodies like the EU.
> But it's very far away from being totalitarian.
Okay, the legislation being suggested to monitor communications isn't totalitarian?
There are regulations on toasters!
Sure. And that's reasonable. The US will do that.
I just think it goes against the original promises, and national sovereignty is being widdled away by larger governing bodies like the EU.
> But it's very far away from being totalitarian.
Okay, the legislation being suggested to monitor communications isn't totalitarian?
There are regulations on toasters!
> Okay, the legislation being suggested to monitor communications isn't totalitarian?
Problematic, Misguided, and can be abused by totalitarian regimes. Oh and also likely in conflict with EU law, Human Rights and some member constitution.
Which are very good reasons to prevent it.
But it's not necessary totalitarian by itself.
Problematic, Misguided, and can be abused by totalitarian regimes. Oh and also likely in conflict with EU law, Human Rights and some member constitution.
Which are very good reasons to prevent it.
But it's not necessary totalitarian by itself.
You always had been required to carry a passport when traveling in the EU
Yes and no. A passport is a specific means of a legal identity document, and specifically a passport is not mandatory: you can also use a European Identity Card [1]. This serves as legal identification anywhere in the EU, but not outside. And inside your home country, a driver's license also suffices as legal identity document (for certain uses: in NL, you can use it to identify yourself to the police or when collecting packages at the post office, but you can't use it to open a new back account).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_identity_cards_in_the...
Yes and no. A passport is a specific means of a legal identity document, and specifically a passport is not mandatory: you can also use a European Identity Card [1]. This serves as legal identification anywhere in the EU, but not outside. And inside your home country, a driver's license also suffices as legal identity document (for certain uses: in NL, you can use it to identify yourself to the police or when collecting packages at the post office, but you can't use it to open a new back account).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_identity_cards_in_the...
Thanks for the answer, but I'm wondering more about the mechanism of how the individuals in the EU Commission would benefit from any kind of misuse of this legislation. I get how surveillance can benefit people (edit: I mean benefit those who surveil), but the people who propose this are not who can exercise this power, am I wrong? I just struggle to understand how would this many people conspire to get more power, especially if the people who have the opportunity to misuse this need to be involved too.
If one can suggest such a law and perhaps even get it through, it already shows how much power one has usurped.
It is about the doing already, and less about what can be even done afterwards.
It is about the doing already, and less about what can be even done afterwards.
> The EU is becoming a totalitarian regional government of elites.
"Becoming"? That's how it was designed. Well, not "totalitarian", exactly; it was designed to make sure that the member governments stayed tightly in charge. The EU Commission is composed of government appointees from the member governments, and is the most powerful EU institution. EU commissioners don't go rogue (not against the wishes of their own government; but they are infinitely corrupt).
"Becoming"? That's how it was designed. Well, not "totalitarian", exactly; it was designed to make sure that the member governments stayed tightly in charge. The EU Commission is composed of government appointees from the member governments, and is the most powerful EU institution. EU commissioners don't go rogue (not against the wishes of their own government; but they are infinitely corrupt).
Perhaps not designed, but the rest of the EU has to dance to the waltz - or break/exit.
Yes, you are lacking in imagination.
The ability to almost arbitrarily spy on people especially in a politicized environment is 'powerful'.
It's the 'most powerful thing'.
There are innumerable ways for a program like this to go wayward.
There are a few legit reasons for such things but 'proper oversight' is hard.
The ability to almost arbitrarily spy on people especially in a politicized environment is 'powerful'.
It's the 'most powerful thing'.
There are innumerable ways for a program like this to go wayward.
There are a few legit reasons for such things but 'proper oversight' is hard.
Really? I meet "regular"(non tech) people all the time who really believe that full surveillance is the only way to stop pedophiles and terrorists and all kinds of criminals - and who absolutely have no issue with any of this. You can try using the usual privacy-focussed arguments with them but it all falls on deaf ears.
Clearly today "emulsional" pseudo-societies have developed in which communion is ruled out: people which should not be mixed are pooled in a single pot. The social crisis extends today from past base instances to, nowadays, irreconcilable divergences in aspirations.
> Or is it literally just the actual elected officials getting power hungry?
Pretty much. While no one supports it, few people see it as something that directly affects them so they don't fight it.
Pretty much. While no one supports it, few people see it as something that directly affects them so they don't fight it.
> I've never met the people who want these clownish surveillance things
I'd guess the much older folks that don't use any of these means of communication wouldn't be strongly opposed and will probably be voting for some social benefit carrot program that is included as part of the package.
That said I have no data on this whatsoever and am just speculating.
I'd guess the much older folks that don't use any of these means of communication wouldn't be strongly opposed and will probably be voting for some social benefit carrot program that is included as part of the package.
That said I have no data on this whatsoever and am just speculating.
> I've never met the people who want these clownish surveillance things but they keep coming up anyways.
Try looking past IT-affine circles, there the mindset of "nothing to hide, my info is not worth anything anyway" is shockingly prevalent. Particularly once the virtue signaling starts along the lines of "People who oppose this, support organized crime, terrorism and child abuse!", once these topics are brought up pretty much everybody has to fall in line, or risk being accused being one of those nasties.
There is also a substantial part of the Zoomer generation that openly, and loudly, demand censorship, to hide those opinions online that don't fit their Overton window. Thanks to a decade of propaganda about disinformation by "social bots", relying on technology that ain't even a thing yet. People literally demanding to be protected from views that make them uncomfortable.
And it's apparently not censorship because private corporations do it, the same corporations that dominate the majority of the online discourse these days. But who cares about details like that, when it's about protecting "democracy, freedom and the children"?
Try looking past IT-affine circles, there the mindset of "nothing to hide, my info is not worth anything anyway" is shockingly prevalent. Particularly once the virtue signaling starts along the lines of "People who oppose this, support organized crime, terrorism and child abuse!", once these topics are brought up pretty much everybody has to fall in line, or risk being accused being one of those nasties.
There is also a substantial part of the Zoomer generation that openly, and loudly, demand censorship, to hide those opinions online that don't fit their Overton window. Thanks to a decade of propaganda about disinformation by "social bots", relying on technology that ain't even a thing yet. People literally demanding to be protected from views that make them uncomfortable.
And it's apparently not censorship because private corporations do it, the same corporations that dominate the majority of the online discourse these days. But who cares about details like that, when it's about protecting "democracy, freedom and the children"?
I really hate to fall for zoomer stereotypes but I do get the feeling that this generation is (on average) broadly more open to all forms of authoritarianism. It seems to apply across the political spectrum with the zoomer right being NatCon/alt-right and the zoomer left being what you describe. They also seem comfortable with a lack of privacy in general and with hyper-centralization of businesses and services they use.
I mean, who can really blame them? Most of them only know the web in this centralized state [0], and most people older than them keep telling them how much progress, and how everything is so much better, with that "digital economy" revolving around a handful of fat unicorns.
So from their perspective, it's easy to see it as the natural progression where things should head even more.
[0] https://staltz.com/the-web-began-dying-in-2014-heres-how.htm...
So from their perspective, it's easy to see it as the natural progression where things should head even more.
[0] https://staltz.com/the-web-began-dying-in-2014-heres-how.htm...
> risk being accused being one of those nasties
"Risk"?! If in your environment that is part of survival, I encourage to reconsider the value of survival.
Edit: interesting that this post, disparaging social conformity that would bow to the demands of what is low, was soon hit by a sniper - such silence is consistent with what a side disagreeing on such principle could look like.
"Risk"?! If in your environment that is part of survival, I encourage to reconsider the value of survival.
Edit: interesting that this post, disparaging social conformity that would bow to the demands of what is low, was soon hit by a sniper - such silence is consistent with what a side disagreeing on such principle could look like.
I assume some corporations are lobbying for it. So they can harvest more data, and maybe sell the tech that will do this.
In the past some stuff like this has either gotten through of been attempted, and its usually in some trade deal with the US. So apparently the US really wants this all over the world.
In the past some stuff like this has either gotten through of been attempted, and its usually in some trade deal with the US. So apparently the US really wants this all over the world.
They could also be lobbying for it simply because it creates more barriers to competition. If this passes you'd never be able to make another chat/IM/etc. startup. Compliance would be crazy complex or expensive or both.
Complex or difficult to comply with regulations are a regressive tax on businesses, impacting smaller or new businesses far more than large ones. The cost of compliance drops with scale.
Complex or difficult to comply with regulations are a regressive tax on businesses, impacting smaller or new businesses far more than large ones. The cost of compliance drops with scale.
There is a difference between having your data intercepted by statal agencies or by having it intercepted by private entities. The latter would be harder, in absolute terms, to justify.
(And still PSD2 has given private entities accesses to dashboards of financial details of individuals - some of us have not yet understood in which terms.)
Moreover, there is a matter of legal boundaries for each involved agent, and also a matter of a will for those legal boundaries to be actually enforced (as opposed to being expressed as an appeasing veneer).
(And still PSD2 has given private entities accesses to dashboards of financial details of individuals - some of us have not yet understood in which terms.)
Moreover, there is a matter of legal boundaries for each involved agent, and also a matter of a will for those legal boundaries to be actually enforced (as opposed to being expressed as an appeasing veneer).
But what about the drugs! And think about the children! And if you’re not doing anything wrong, you don’t have anything to hide!
In general a large portion of the electorate doesn’t actually care or can be swayed using the flimsiest of arguments.
In general a large portion of the electorate doesn’t actually care or can be swayed using the flimsiest of arguments.
Royalty and their kids, probably. Those people who just own land, collect rent, and are scared that one day people will realise that they don't need that ballast.
> Or is it literally just the actual elected officials getting power hungry?
What elected officials? They are appointed.
Its been a technocracy from the start and they are open about this.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/faq/7/how-are-the-com...
What elected officials? They are appointed.
Its been a technocracy from the start and they are open about this.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/faq/7/how-are-the-com...
The commission is unelected.
However, they don't write the proposal (i least i don't think so), they just review the proposal and help with the parts that would be striked down by EU court. Doesn't always work btw). I think that this have to come from either a citizen petition, a quarter of the nations, ECB or the parliament itself.
However, they don't write the proposal (i least i don't think so), they just review the proposal and help with the parts that would be striked down by EU court. Doesn't always work btw). I think that this have to come from either a citizen petition, a quarter of the nations, ECB or the parliament itself.
As far as I understand it, it's always been the European Commission who wants this, and the European Parliament that opposes this. Hopefully they will do so again, but it might be prudent to remind them that they need to oppose this.
The very idea of the EU is to move control away from democratically elected governments. It is designed to prevent democratic participation of its people. The one direct democratic structure, the European Parliament, is toothless, and being defanged, and the Commission is an organisation made up by politicians you want to get rid of at home (because of looming political scandals usually).
Can't get your dystopian policy through at home? Delegate it to Brussels, then publicly claim that 'it can't be helped, it's an EU directive', washing your hands in innocence.
I do understand why the British decided to leave. It was a crazy idea, it's incredibly damaging to their economy, but subjectively, I can understand them.
Can't get your dystopian policy through at home? Delegate it to Brussels, then publicly claim that 'it can't be helped, it's an EU directive', washing your hands in innocence.
I do understand why the British decided to leave. It was a crazy idea, it's incredibly damaging to their economy, but subjectively, I can understand them.
I'm a brit that voted exit because of the EU democratic deficit, not because of xenophobia. I expected it to damage the economy for a decade, and I stilll wanted out. I knew that would put me in the same group as the xenophobic racists, but I still voted out.
I also knew it would cause pain; the last people I wanted at the wheel during Brexit was Boris Johnson and the Tories. But I voted Brexit anyway, because I figured that it would be a very long time before we'd be allowed a referendum on EU membership again.
I consider myself European, and I welcomed the UK joining the EU back then. But over the years, I've seen new entrants promptly ignoring the financial rules, the division-of-powers rules, and a bunch of other rules, and not get kicked out, or even sanctioned. I don't want to be in a union of governments with authoritarian racists.
I also knew it would cause pain; the last people I wanted at the wheel during Brexit was Boris Johnson and the Tories. But I voted Brexit anyway, because I figured that it would be a very long time before we'd be allowed a referendum on EU membership again.
I consider myself European, and I welcomed the UK joining the EU back then. But over the years, I've seen new entrants promptly ignoring the financial rules, the division-of-powers rules, and a bunch of other rules, and not get kicked out, or even sanctioned. I don't want to be in a union of governments with authoritarian racists.
> and a bunch of other rules, and not get kicked out, or even sanctioned.
So you're saying you voted for Brexit because the EU didn't have enough power to punish member states? Do you think that these new entrants were the only ones breaking the rules with no consequences?[0]
> I don't want to be in a union of governments with authoritarian racists.
Leaving the EU doesn't help make Hungary (for example) become any less authoritarian or racist, and it certainly hasn't made Boris Johnson and the Tories any less authoritarian or racist, so you're still in such a union.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/04/uk-has-b...
So you're saying you voted for Brexit because the EU didn't have enough power to punish member states? Do you think that these new entrants were the only ones breaking the rules with no consequences?[0]
> I don't want to be in a union of governments with authoritarian racists.
Leaving the EU doesn't help make Hungary (for example) become any less authoritarian or racist, and it certainly hasn't made Boris Johnson and the Tories any less authoritarian or racist, so you're still in such a union.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/04/uk-has-b...
> the only ones breaking the rules
Of course not. Rules get broken all the time. But as the years went by, I came to realise that the EU didn't embody the principles it claimed to stand for (and of which I approved).
> Leaving the EU doesn't help make Hungary (for example) become any less authoritarian
Moderating the atavistic instincts of other countries isn't a good reason for being in a political union.
> Boris Johnson and the Tories
I have half a chance of voting them out. It's not possible to vote Hungary and Poland off the EU Commission.
The fact is, we're out; I voted to leave; I'm not regretful. I knew there would be consequences. They've not been as severe as I expected (yet).
I generally avoid debating Brexit with people; it's done and dusted. When it was still a live debate it was VERY divisive, because EU membership embraces so many aspects of life and politics. It's almost impossible to win (or lose) a Brexit debate.
But I'm not ashamed of my decision, so I'm prepared to stand up and defend it. I think a renewed Brexit debate would be off-topic here, though.
FTR, I have nothing against Poles or Hungarians. Their governments have never been aligned with what I thought were the EU principles, though. Greece acceded despite not meeting the financial requirements for membership; it was then financially crushed by Germany (more specifically, German bankers). That did cause me shame.
Of course not. Rules get broken all the time. But as the years went by, I came to realise that the EU didn't embody the principles it claimed to stand for (and of which I approved).
> Leaving the EU doesn't help make Hungary (for example) become any less authoritarian
Moderating the atavistic instincts of other countries isn't a good reason for being in a political union.
> Boris Johnson and the Tories
I have half a chance of voting them out. It's not possible to vote Hungary and Poland off the EU Commission.
The fact is, we're out; I voted to leave; I'm not regretful. I knew there would be consequences. They've not been as severe as I expected (yet).
I generally avoid debating Brexit with people; it's done and dusted. When it was still a live debate it was VERY divisive, because EU membership embraces so many aspects of life and politics. It's almost impossible to win (or lose) a Brexit debate.
But I'm not ashamed of my decision, so I'm prepared to stand up and defend it. I think a renewed Brexit debate would be off-topic here, though.
FTR, I have nothing against Poles or Hungarians. Their governments have never been aligned with what I thought were the EU principles, though. Greece acceded despite not meeting the financial requirements for membership; it was then financially crushed by Germany (more specifically, German bankers). That did cause me shame.
Thank you for your honest answers. For what it's worth, I don't think you're a bad person for voting the way you did.
> the EU didn't embody the principles it claimed to stand for (and of which I approved).
But is it possible that you were holding it to a higher standard than you hold your own country to?
> Moderating the atavistic instincts of other countries isn't a good reason for being in a political union.
Turning that around, though: reducing the moderation on those atavistic instincts is not a good way to further the principles you claim to support. In any case, there are other, more positive, reasons to be an international trade and peace agreement than just a duty to look out for your neighbours.
> I have half a chance of voting them out. It's not possible to vote Hungary and Poland off the EU Commission.
But the problem isn't the nationality of the commissioners, because you're not a racist, right? The Council of Ministers only nominates the various members of the Commission, in agreement with the nominated President, and the 27 members as a team are then subject to a vote of approval by the European Parliament.[0] So you had more chance of voting out an atavistic Hungarian or Polish commissioner (through your MEP, and President) than you had of determining the composition of Boris Johnson's cabinet (especially considering the more proportional voting system used by the EU).
> Greece acceded despite not meeting the financial requirements for membership; it was then financially crushed by Germany (more specifically, German bankers)
If Greece did not meet the financial requirements, it is because of fraud carried out by Greece itself, without the EU's knowledge[1]. Greece abusing its position in the Eurozone to leverage itself into an unsustainable economic position is not something you need to be ashamed of, no matter the nationality of the bankers who were Greece's creditors.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Greece#Eurozone_ent...
> the EU didn't embody the principles it claimed to stand for (and of which I approved).
But is it possible that you were holding it to a higher standard than you hold your own country to?
> Moderating the atavistic instincts of other countries isn't a good reason for being in a political union.
Turning that around, though: reducing the moderation on those atavistic instincts is not a good way to further the principles you claim to support. In any case, there are other, more positive, reasons to be an international trade and peace agreement than just a duty to look out for your neighbours.
> I have half a chance of voting them out. It's not possible to vote Hungary and Poland off the EU Commission.
But the problem isn't the nationality of the commissioners, because you're not a racist, right? The Council of Ministers only nominates the various members of the Commission, in agreement with the nominated President, and the 27 members as a team are then subject to a vote of approval by the European Parliament.[0] So you had more chance of voting out an atavistic Hungarian or Polish commissioner (through your MEP, and President) than you had of determining the composition of Boris Johnson's cabinet (especially considering the more proportional voting system used by the EU).
> Greece acceded despite not meeting the financial requirements for membership; it was then financially crushed by Germany (more specifically, German bankers)
If Greece did not meet the financial requirements, it is because of fraud carried out by Greece itself, without the EU's knowledge[1]. Greece abusing its position in the Eurozone to leverage itself into an unsustainable economic position is not something you need to be ashamed of, no matter the nationality of the bankers who were Greece's creditors.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Greece#Eurozone_ent...
> The Council of Ministers only nominates the various members of the Commission
That's not right, in practice. Each member government appoints a commissioner. The Council of Ministers is nothing more than an ad-hoc meeting of relevant ministers from member governments, whose membership varies depending on what is being discussed. The parliament always approves all the proposed commissioners. The parliament can dismiss a commissioner, but only by dismissing the entire commission. This has only ever happened once, when it became obvious that most of them were crooks.
> fraud carried out by Greece itself, without the EU's knowledge
There was "fraud" by Greece; they weren't prepared to balance their budget. But actually everyone knew about it; it wasn't fraud in the sense of covert shenanigans. Government budgets tend to be public information. Germany, in particular, wanted Greece to accede.
That's not right, in practice. Each member government appoints a commissioner. The Council of Ministers is nothing more than an ad-hoc meeting of relevant ministers from member governments, whose membership varies depending on what is being discussed. The parliament always approves all the proposed commissioners. The parliament can dismiss a commissioner, but only by dismissing the entire commission. This has only ever happened once, when it became obvious that most of them were crooks.
> fraud carried out by Greece itself, without the EU's knowledge
There was "fraud" by Greece; they weren't prepared to balance their budget. But actually everyone knew about it; it wasn't fraud in the sense of covert shenanigans. Government budgets tend to be public information. Germany, in particular, wanted Greece to accede.
Not fair really to blame Greece. Everyone knew the euro was going to cause huge problems.
Romano Prodi (president of the European Commission at the time) : 'I am sure the euro will oblige us to introduce a new set of economic policy instruments. It is politically impossible to propose that now. But some day there will be a crisis and new instruments will be created'.
They wanted to use the problems they created to force through more centralisation.
I'm not blaming Greece. They have been the victims in that story.
especially considering the more proportional voting system used by the EU
What do you mean by that, exactly? Because EU votes are only proportional by country; each country is allocated a fixed number of seats based on its population, and each country only votes for its own representation. A UK vote has zero effect on the Hungarian MEP distribution.
What do you mean by that, exactly? Because EU votes are only proportional by country; each country is allocated a fixed number of seats based on its population, and each country only votes for its own representation. A UK vote has zero effect on the Hungarian MEP distribution.
I meant that the system for electing MEPs (using the D'Hondt and STV methods) was more proportional than FPTP as used in UK general elections. Thus a UK vote in a European election was better reflected in the composition of MEPs elected (and thus the party of the European commission president) than an equivalent UK vote in a general election.
Actually, to be clear, I haven't compared the Gallagher index[0] values of UK general elections and UK elections of MEPs, so I accept the possibility that quirks of the two systems and the UK political scene might mean that the real world outcomes don't match the theory.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallagher_index
Actually, to be clear, I haven't compared the Gallagher index[0] values of UK general elections and UK elections of MEPs, so I accept the possibility that quirks of the two systems and the UK political scene might mean that the real world outcomes don't match the theory.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallagher_index
How can it be a "crazy idea" to leave what you describe in your first 2 paragraphs? Crazy just economically?
In the end, most people are even happy living under the most brutal of dictatorships as long as they themselves live a relatively comfortable life, and for that you need a working economy (and the hand of luck protecting you from being in the group that said dictatorship thinks the scapegoat should be).
The same is much more true for "well, this is essentially not a democracy anymore, and has some weird tendencies, but at least we're not forced to salute the flag every morning in school" style systems.
The same is much more true for "well, this is essentially not a democracy anymore, and has some weird tendencies, but at least we're not forced to salute the flag every morning in school" style systems.
>I've never met the people who want these clownish surveillance things but they keep coming up anyways.
They're you, your neighbors, your coworkers, your family. Authoritarians are everywhere.
They won't outright support the surveillance state but they'll say things like "well, government gonna government amirite" when these dragnets get used against people they don't like (usually various breeds of petty criminals and scofflaws who aren't really harming anyone at their scale). And of course they act all outraged when the .gov is using the same mechanisms to go after stuff they do like.
If cognitive dissonance was a physical object I would bludgeon people with it.
They're you, your neighbors, your coworkers, your family. Authoritarians are everywhere.
They won't outright support the surveillance state but they'll say things like "well, government gonna government amirite" when these dragnets get used against people they don't like (usually various breeds of petty criminals and scofflaws who aren't really harming anyone at their scale). And of course they act all outraged when the .gov is using the same mechanisms to go after stuff they do like.
If cognitive dissonance was a physical object I would bludgeon people with it.
Abortion is especially strange since a supermajority of Americans, across the political spectrum, of both genders, generally agree that some abortions should be permitted [1]. 70% want to keep the status quo. [2] It's even arguably a violation of the religious freedom of Jewish folks to ban abortion [3]. It's not forbidden by the Bible either - the Bible makes it clear that life begins 'at first breath' (Genesis 2:7) [4]. Super weird. [edit] Feels like the anti-abortion folks are the dog that caught the bus.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/06/about-six-i...
[2] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-americans-stand-o...
[3] https://www.businessinsider.com/abortion-bans-may-violate-je...
[4] https://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/26087-abortion-nontract#w...
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/06/about-six-i...
[2] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-americans-stand-o...
[3] https://www.businessinsider.com/abortion-bans-may-violate-je...
[4] https://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/26087-abortion-nontract#w...
> It's even arguably a violation of the religious freedom of Jewish folks to ban abortion
This argument, and arguments like it, miss the nature of the issue.
If abortion is the immoral killing of an innocent human being/person, as pro-lifers claim, then it doesn't matter if it's a Christian/jewish/other religious ritual [see note] (we don't allow child sacrifice even if it's a sincerely held religious ritual).
If abortion is amoral, simply removing unwanted cells/not violating the rights of any individual then and only then does the religious ritual argument for remaining legal make sense.
To summarize, the "religious ritual" argument only works if you presume that the pro-choice view is correct. If pro-life claims are correct it's irrelevant. This and similar arguments distract from the true issue and prevent people from understanding the other.
---
Note: I understand abortion isn't necessarily a "ritual" in Judaism, just that it's permitted (mandated?) in certain situations. I simply use the term "ritual" to signify either a ritual or a religiously allowed practice.
This argument, and arguments like it, miss the nature of the issue.
If abortion is the immoral killing of an innocent human being/person, as pro-lifers claim, then it doesn't matter if it's a Christian/jewish/other religious ritual [see note] (we don't allow child sacrifice even if it's a sincerely held religious ritual).
If abortion is amoral, simply removing unwanted cells/not violating the rights of any individual then and only then does the religious ritual argument for remaining legal make sense.
To summarize, the "religious ritual" argument only works if you presume that the pro-choice view is correct. If pro-life claims are correct it's irrelevant. This and similar arguments distract from the true issue and prevent people from understanding the other.
---
Note: I understand abortion isn't necessarily a "ritual" in Judaism, just that it's permitted (mandated?) in certain situations. I simply use the term "ritual" to signify either a ritual or a religiously allowed practice.
> If abortion is the immoral killing of an innocent human being/person, as pro-lifers claim
Yeah, but is it? Both legally and biblically, personhood starts at birth. Nobody I know of holds funerals for their miscarriage, or gives it a name. At least not for early stage miscarriages (which, as with abortions, are far, far more common than miscarriages and abortions late in the pregnancy).
Yeah, but is it? Both legally and biblically, personhood starts at birth. Nobody I know of holds funerals for their miscarriage, or gives it a name. At least not for early stage miscarriages (which, as with abortions, are far, far more common than miscarriages and abortions late in the pregnancy).
That Bible passage is about God blowing His breath into Adam who was non-biological clay up to that point. It has nothing to do with Adam taking his first breath. Obviously, Adam was never a foetus, nor was he a child, nor a teenager. As according to this passage life starts when you are a full grown man, should we allow abortions into the 108th trimester?
the Old Testament does say you can stone your belligerent child to death outside the city walls if you like (Deuteronomy 21:18-21 [1]) - after all, what is the death penalty if not a very late abortion plus some due diligence?
However, more interestingly, do you think you could cite where (a) the Bible forbids abortion or (b) the Bible makes clear that life begins at any point prior to birth?
[1] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%202...
However, more interestingly, do you think you could cite where (a) the Bible forbids abortion or (b) the Bible makes clear that life begins at any point prior to birth?
[1] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%202...
I have no interest in discussing The Bible further with you given that you blatantly misrepresented a passage and then shifted the goal posts when questioned about it.
> However, more interestingly, do you think you could cite where (a) the Bible forbids abortion or (b) the Bible makes clear that life begins at any point prior to birth?
I too, am interested in this answer and have not misrepresented any biblical passages.
I too, am interested in this answer and have not misrepresented any biblical passages.
Ok, if you're willing to renounce the style of 14 year old who just saw their first Hitchslap video, I will offer you some Biblical and non-Biblical Christian arguments against abortion. Various Psalms (22, 139) in which the narrator speaks of themselves in the womb being created by God. The Gospel of Luke also uses the same word for an infant before and after He is born. It is also a heresy to suggest that Jesus in the womb was fully God but not Human. Of course, Paul's letters to the Galatians suggests that God had set him apart in the womb, which seems an odd thing to do to a non-living clump of cells.
Given the above information, I don't find the idea that The Bible doesn't directly condemn abortion to be the gotcha that reddit atheists think it is. I think it suggests that life-at-conception was so obvious to the authors that they didn't feel the need to distinguish between abortion and murder, much in the same way that life-at-conception was mainstream biology until the moment it became politicized. The Bible doesn't go very in depth about the benefits of exercise, do we therefore interpret it to suggest we should all get fat, or is this just so obvious that the authors didn't bother to put it in? Should we start using 50 layers of abstraction and euphemism to believe that being fat is fine, just as we do with abortion (oh, we started doing that too).
Furthermore, (and this might surprise you if you are from an American context) most Christians in the world do not believe in Sola Scriptura, the belief that the Bible is the soul source of authority. We also venerate saints and the Church Fathers, and the Church itself (whether it be the Catholic Church or one of several Orthodox Churches), all of which we believe to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Abortion was condemned very early on by the Church Fathers. This is all to say that The Bible is not the soul source of authority for most of the world's Christians and therefore not the soul battleground for the religious debate on abortion.
Given the above information, I don't find the idea that The Bible doesn't directly condemn abortion to be the gotcha that reddit atheists think it is. I think it suggests that life-at-conception was so obvious to the authors that they didn't feel the need to distinguish between abortion and murder, much in the same way that life-at-conception was mainstream biology until the moment it became politicized. The Bible doesn't go very in depth about the benefits of exercise, do we therefore interpret it to suggest we should all get fat, or is this just so obvious that the authors didn't bother to put it in? Should we start using 50 layers of abstraction and euphemism to believe that being fat is fine, just as we do with abortion (oh, we started doing that too).
Furthermore, (and this might surprise you if you are from an American context) most Christians in the world do not believe in Sola Scriptura, the belief that the Bible is the soul source of authority. We also venerate saints and the Church Fathers, and the Church itself (whether it be the Catholic Church or one of several Orthodox Churches), all of which we believe to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Abortion was condemned very early on by the Church Fathers. This is all to say that The Bible is not the soul source of authority for most of the world's Christians and therefore not the soul battleground for the religious debate on abortion.
> Ok, if you're willing to renounce the style of 14 year old who just saw their first Hitchslap video
Well, this is a pleasant, open minded start... but thank you for the references.
> much in the same way that life-at-conception was mainstream biology until the moment it became politicized.
I think most mainstream biologist believe that a fetus is living cells and, hence, life. Most mainstream biologists would not, and did not, agree that humanity begins a conception, similarly most would agree a human is dead upon brain death and not "alive" simply because the corpse still has a heart beat. This is a discussion that was foisted upon biology and politicized, not vice versa.
The abortion debate is a fundamentally a religious debate, so it's good to understand it from that point of view.
Well, this is a pleasant, open minded start... but thank you for the references.
> much in the same way that life-at-conception was mainstream biology until the moment it became politicized.
I think most mainstream biologist believe that a fetus is living cells and, hence, life. Most mainstream biologists would not, and did not, agree that humanity begins a conception, similarly most would agree a human is dead upon brain death and not "alive" simply because the corpse still has a heart beat. This is a discussion that was foisted upon biology and politicized, not vice versa.
The abortion debate is a fundamentally a religious debate, so it's good to understand it from that point of view.
When I was an atheist, I eventually came to understand that the belief that saying that a new organism created by two humans wasn't itself human was essentially a euphemism I could use to keep myself sane while still arguing in favour of abortion on social harmony grounds. But it is difficult to lie to oneself.
saying that a new organism created by two humans wasn't itself human
If this is your idea of an open, honest debate you can keep it.
If this is your idea of an open, honest debate you can keep it.
At a minimum, it is logical to assume a human life biologically begins at the same time it ends ... using brain function. Any argument that a fetus with nothing but a brain stem, or a brain damaged adult with only a functioning brain stem remaining, is 'alive' is based on "sanctity of life" or other religious or pseudo religious beliefs.
As an atheist, I have no qualms or guilt about choosing to pull the plug on any biological "human" without a functioning cerebrum and cerebellum.
The third trimester is when the abortion debate gets at all tricky for me.
As an atheist, I have no qualms or guilt about choosing to pull the plug on any biological "human" without a functioning cerebrum and cerebellum.
The third trimester is when the abortion debate gets at all tricky for me.
> I think it suggests that life-at-conception was so obvious to the authors that they didn't feel the need to distinguish between abortion and murder
Mosaic law does distinguish between violently inducing a miscarriage (punishable by a fine to be paid to the father) and murder (punishable by death) in Exodus 21. It is unclear whether there was any penalty for a self-induced miscarriage, though that would not have been uncommon in other ancient societies.
Mosaic law does distinguish between violently inducing a miscarriage (punishable by a fine to be paid to the father) and murder (punishable by death) in Exodus 21. It is unclear whether there was any penalty for a self-induced miscarriage, though that would not have been uncommon in other ancient societies.
Do you mean Exodus 21:22-24? That's not what it says at all:
"When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
Not only is the fine specifically a punishment for inadvertently hitting the woman (in the case where the child is not harmed), but it says "life for life", proving that children in the womb are considered alive and their death is a capital offence, just like killing an adult.
"When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
Not only is the fine specifically a punishment for inadvertently hitting the woman (in the case where the child is not harmed), but it says "life for life", proving that children in the womb are considered alive and their death is a capital offence, just like killing an adult.
As with any ancient text, translations will vary. The one you've quoted seems to play up the ambiguity, which is non-standard for English renditions. The Common English Bible renders this passage as,
"When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that she has a miscarriage but no other injury occurs, then the guilty party will be fined what the woman’s husband demands, as negotiated with the judges. 23 If there is further injury, then you will give a life for a life"
The traditional Talmudic interpretation is that any harm to the fetus is to be punished with a fine, and any harm to the mother is punishable wound for wound: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/abortio....
> Not only is the fine specifically a punishment for inadvertently hitting the woman (in the case where the child is not harmed), but it says "life for life", proving that children in the womb are considered alive and their death is a capital offence, just like killing an adult.
I'm not sure what you're taking "so that her children come out" to mean, but it is usually understood as a reference to an induced miscarriage.
"When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that she has a miscarriage but no other injury occurs, then the guilty party will be fined what the woman’s husband demands, as negotiated with the judges. 23 If there is further injury, then you will give a life for a life"
The traditional Talmudic interpretation is that any harm to the fetus is to be punished with a fine, and any harm to the mother is punishable wound for wound: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/abortio....
> Not only is the fine specifically a punishment for inadvertently hitting the woman (in the case where the child is not harmed), but it says "life for life", proving that children in the womb are considered alive and their death is a capital offence, just like killing an adult.
I'm not sure what you're taking "so that her children come out" to mean, but it is usually understood as a reference to an induced miscarriage.
> I'm not sure what you're taking "so that her children come out" to mean
I took it to mean that the children are born prematurely. In any case, it doesn't say "so that the bundles of cells come out".
I took it to mean that the children are born prematurely. In any case, it doesn't say "so that the bundles of cells come out".
It was understood by ancient commentators (i.e., in the Talmud) to refer to miscarriage. This would mirror other laws in the ancient near east that imposed a fine for inducing miscarriages and death for murdering an adult, like the Code of Hammurabi (law 209).
It seems like you're taking one literal interpretation of a specific English translation as the only legitimate reading. There is plenty of scholarship and commentary by ancient and contemporary authors who can shed light on how the text was read (and, in this case, upheld in a legal setting) in the original Hebrew.
It seems like you're taking one literal interpretation of a specific English translation as the only legitimate reading. There is plenty of scholarship and commentary by ancient and contemporary authors who can shed light on how the text was read (and, in this case, upheld in a legal setting) in the original Hebrew.
You may disagree with OP's interpretation, but they would hardly be the first to interpret Genesis 2:7 as equating breath with life. Job 33:4 is a more direct assertion of the "life comes from God's breath" hypothesis, and Ezekiel uses a similar metaphor about God's breath giving life to dead matter.
Jumping immediately to an accusation of dishonesty is uncalled for.
Jumping immediately to an accusation of dishonesty is uncalled for.
So that's a no, then. Noted.
You've won the debate by proving yourself to be dishonest, congrats.
> should we allow abortions into the 108th trimester
Yes. That's not a viable fetus, and keeping it in the womb forever isn't going to change that
Yes. That's not a viable fetus, and keeping it in the womb forever isn't going to change that
Yes, we should. HN threads and Twitter would enjoy a significant improvement, at the very least.
reconsidering all my stances...
You are making the mistake of assuming that those deciding care about facts or public opinion, or can be shamed if shown to behave hypocritically or inconsistently. They simply don't care and will proceed to do as they please, inventing reasoning and interpretation to support whatever outcome they want, regardless of what % of the population disagrees. Tyranny of the minority has arrived.
I mean, the whole argument on the sacredness of life by the religious right is hypocritical as the new testament is anti war, and any justification of war doesn't come about until post 400 A.D. when the "saints" weigh in on the subjects. The apostles were pretty "hippy-ish" about it.[1]
Their pro-life stance would hold A LOT more weight if they were out protesting wars and military spending, not to mention foreign occupation through military means and trying to have that money spent on humanitarian programs. I give credit to the Amish for at least being consistent (and no, I'm not religious).
[1] https://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_war.htm
Their pro-life stance would hold A LOT more weight if they were out protesting wars and military spending, not to mention foreign occupation through military means and trying to have that money spent on humanitarian programs. I give credit to the Amish for at least being consistent (and no, I'm not religious).
[1] https://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_war.htm
How about opposition to the death penalty and support for good health care? That would be a lot more pro-life, and are things Jesus actually addressed: heal the sick, and "let he who is without sin throw the first stone".
I'm Christian, but I see no biblical argument against abortion. I'm not a fan of abortion, mind you; I think any abortion is a tragedy on some level, and unwanted pregnancies are better prevented than aborted, but sometimes medical complications simply make abortion necessary. And I'd rather leave the hard decisions in the hands of the people affected by them than having legislators force those decisions on them.
I'm Christian, but I see no biblical argument against abortion. I'm not a fan of abortion, mind you; I think any abortion is a tragedy on some level, and unwanted pregnancies are better prevented than aborted, but sometimes medical complications simply make abortion necessary. And I'd rather leave the hard decisions in the hands of the people affected by them than having legislators force those decisions on them.
>>unwanted pregnancies are better prevented than aborted<<
I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't agree with this statement. The narrative that abortion is used as a form of contraception is largely a false one, but accidents do happen. Most of the women who get abortions already have a child, surprisingly. [1] EDIT -> well, I was surprised, I guess I should say
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/12/14/upshot/who-ge...
I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't agree with this statement. The narrative that abortion is used as a form of contraception is largely a false one, but accidents do happen. Most of the women who get abortions already have a child, surprisingly. [1] EDIT -> well, I was surprised, I guess I should say
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/12/14/upshot/who-ge...
> I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't agree with this statement.
You'd think, and yet there are pro-lifers who oppose abortion and yet also want to make contraception less accessible.
Not everybody has a rational or even logically consistent position in this.
You'd think, and yet there are pro-lifers who oppose abortion and yet also want to make contraception less accessible.
Not everybody has a rational or even logically consistent position in this.
The stipulation comes at the definition of what life is and what taking life away is. It’s a very difficult thing to define what life is, thus legally it is for lack of a better phrasing “a can of worms.” If you’re programming minded, you may see how such a definition is ambiguous and opens many attack vectors for interpretation. After seeing it this way, I began to understand why it’s so hotly contested.
Best legal definition I've heard involves death. When is a person considered dead? Brain activity ceased irreversibly. In the opposite end you have first brain activity (around three months since fecundation) as the best milestone.
Of course there is philosophical discussion that goes beyond that, but since making it a crime is a legal matter, it's probably within reason.
Of course there is philosophical discussion that goes beyond that, but since making it a crime is a legal matter, it's probably within reason.
> Best legal definition I've heard involves death. When is a person considered dead?
Even that can become fiercely political.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_and_activism_in...
Even that can become fiercely political.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_and_activism_in...
> In the opposite end
Although it might be convenient to treat life as being somehow legally symmetrical, I think that is still a position that needs to be justified.
To give a strange analogy, if someone gathers all the materials needed to make a bomb, but doesn't mix them together, they can still be arrested for bomb-making, even though, in a strictly chemical sense, they haven't made anything that can donate.
Although it might be convenient to treat life as being somehow legally symmetrical, I think that is still a position that needs to be justified.
To give a strange analogy, if someone gathers all the materials needed to make a bomb, but doesn't mix them together, they can still be arrested for bomb-making, even though, in a strictly chemical sense, they haven't made anything that can donate.
[deleted]
Incidentally, about a third of Republicans and about a third of Democrats disagree with their party about abortion. This difference is not reflected the congresspeople of those parties, who are more united in their position than the people they ostensibly represent.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/06/18/three-in-te...
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/06/18/three-in-te...
[deleted]
All the left wing press is calling for this, by running articles about how the far right is using encrypted chats to organize violence:
> Why right-wing extremists’ favorite new platform is so dangerous. Telegram’s lax content moderation and encrypted chats make it a convenient tool for extremists.
https://www.vox.com/recode/22238755/telegram-messaging-socia...
> In collaboration with anti-fascist research group the White Rose Society, the Guardian has tracked McLean’s activity through the rabbit warren of largely unregulated Telegram groups and found that he describes a vastly different version of his intentions.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/26/where...
> Far-right groups move online conversations from social media to chat apps — and out of view of law enforcement
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/14/telegram-war...
> White supremacists openly organize racist violence on Telegram, report finds
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/26/tech/white-supremacists-t...
> Are Private Messaging Apps the Next Misinformation Hot Spot? Telegram and Signal, the encrypted services that keep conversations confidential, are increasingly popular. Our tech columnists discuss whether this could get ugly.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/technology/personaltech/t...
> A report this week found that the messaging app had emerged as a central hub for several conspiracy movements espousing antisemitic tropes and memes, including QAnon, as well as others on the extreme right promoting violence.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/15/parler-...
> Why right-wing extremists’ favorite new platform is so dangerous. Telegram’s lax content moderation and encrypted chats make it a convenient tool for extremists.
https://www.vox.com/recode/22238755/telegram-messaging-socia...
> In collaboration with anti-fascist research group the White Rose Society, the Guardian has tracked McLean’s activity through the rabbit warren of largely unregulated Telegram groups and found that he describes a vastly different version of his intentions.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/26/where...
> Far-right groups move online conversations from social media to chat apps — and out of view of law enforcement
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/14/telegram-war...
> White supremacists openly organize racist violence on Telegram, report finds
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/26/tech/white-supremacists-t...
> Are Private Messaging Apps the Next Misinformation Hot Spot? Telegram and Signal, the encrypted services that keep conversations confidential, are increasingly popular. Our tech columnists discuss whether this could get ugly.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/technology/personaltech/t...
> A report this week found that the messaging app had emerged as a central hub for several conspiracy movements espousing antisemitic tropes and memes, including QAnon, as well as others on the extreme right promoting violence.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/15/parler-...
In the past few years, every shit done to internet freedoms in Russia (mass surveillance, censorship, blocking, etc) was done under the pretense of fighting terrorism or protecting children (don't you want to protect children, you monsters!). Then, of course, it was used to suppress political opposition and dissidents.
This will happen in EU too, if it'll pass. Have wrong views on immigration/abortion/vaccination/economy/gender/sexuality? Your citizen rights after suspended, bank accounts frozen, kids taken away, etc. It is imperative to stop such initiatives in their infancy.
This will happen in EU too, if it'll pass. Have wrong views on immigration/abortion/vaccination/economy/gender/sexuality? Your citizen rights after suspended, bank accounts frozen, kids taken away, etc. It is imperative to stop such initiatives in their infancy.
This plan is useless. In this day and age it's trivial to create a system for private communication that works outside the mainstream apps.
When citizens start working around the law (if it passes), the forces who pushed for the law will start going after "unregulated" app stores and even websites that implement unfiltered chat / picture sending services.
Perhaps that was their end goal all along.
Perhaps that was their end goal all along.
Yes, it's so very obviously useless for the stated purpose that you've got wonder why they want it so badly.
A free society must tolerate a percentage of crime.
If not, they are not free.
If not, they are not free.
For the longest time I have been treating every communication that's not private, in-person with someone I know as essentially public (iow. this changes almost nothing to me, I consider anything online more-or-less public, under surveillance etc already).
Most in-person conversations today take place near internet-connected microphones (and more recently, integrated with smart-assistant technology specifically designed to collect your voice data).
In person conversation that occurs in a pre-approved 10x10 meter anechoeic chamber without any microphones.
Yeah. It's that difficult.
Yeah. It's that difficult.
Governments are not our friends. Ostensibly they're supposed to be tools to check powerful interests. In reality, the larger the governing body the more they work for the powerful.
The EU passes a bunch of token privacy regulations, but then tries to force mass surveillance.
It's all a control scheme. Never believe the government are the 'good guys.'
The EU passes a bunch of token privacy regulations, but then tries to force mass surveillance.
It's all a control scheme. Never believe the government are the 'good guys.'
Needlessly cynical. Human organizations of all kinds have problems, including governments. If you don't believe that government can ever function in a manner intended by the people it nominally represents, then everything is hopeless, since we (the vast majority of people) were also screwed over without representative government. I don't agree that one needs to conclude this. You can believe in government at the same time as believing that it sometimes (often!) screws up and/or is the subject of regulatory capture.
> since we (the vast majority of people) were also screwed over without representative government.
Without government we at least had choice. I think you're needlessly cynical. Humans can organize themselves quite well when they have maximum choice as individuals.
The robber barons of the early nineteenth century were bolstered by governments--not hindered. Governments have always been corrupt.
Without government we at least had choice. I think you're needlessly cynical. Humans can organize themselves quite well when they have maximum choice as individuals.
The robber barons of the early nineteenth century were bolstered by governments--not hindered. Governments have always been corrupt.
> Without government we at least had choice.
I don't consider "give me your stuff or I beat you" a choice.
I don't consider "give me your stuff or I beat you" a choice.
Only difference is now the government says "give me your stuff or I beat you" rather than your neighbor
'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick"'. - Mikhail Bakunin
If I had bezos money, I would buy a large swath of arable land, build a large wall around it, and offer 100k so called libertarians to walk in with some supplies. But they couldn't form government. Absolutely no form of mandatory taxation of any kind. And once they went in, they would be committed for five years.
Oh, since we can't have them benefiting from positive outcomes of collective action, we'll pipe in polluted air and river waste to help simulate a truly free market environmental policy.
Oh, since we can't have them benefiting from positive outcomes of collective action, we'll pipe in polluted air and river waste to help simulate a truly free market environmental policy.
> Oh, since we can't have them benefiting from positive outcomes of collective action, we'll pipe in polluted air and river waste to help simulate a truly free market environmental policy.
That’s a completely artificial and shoehorned idea. If you want to prove a point about libertarians, do it properly in a closed system. They must be left to their own devices and are left to clean their own pollution.
That’s a completely artificial and shoehorned idea. If you want to prove a point about libertarians, do it properly in a closed system. They must be left to their own devices and are left to clean their own pollution.
>closed system
That's the point libertarians don't get: there is no closed system. There is no green field hypothetical.
That's the point libertarians don't get: there is no closed system. There is no green field hypothetical.
Get a firearm and train with it. Your government prevents you from defending yourself effectively.
Without government we had a choice, and we chose to create governments.
Government was not dropped on our heads by the robber barons, it has been invented and re-invented throughout human history by regular people who need to solve problems.
> Humans can organize themselves quite well when they have maximum choice as individuals.
Yes, and then you’ll need a word to describe the collective actions of the organized humans. One such word is “government.”
Government was not dropped on our heads by the robber barons, it has been invented and re-invented throughout human history by regular people who need to solve problems.
> Humans can organize themselves quite well when they have maximum choice as individuals.
Yes, and then you’ll need a word to describe the collective actions of the organized humans. One such word is “government.”
Lysander Spooner wrote about this very thing in the 1800s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner
Many people didn't have a choice. Governments at the start are like mafias and will fight you until you acquiesce.
The history of the US is riddled with federal government takeovers and increased taxation of people who did not want it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner
Many people didn't have a choice. Governments at the start are like mafias and will fight you until you acquiesce.
The history of the US is riddled with federal government takeovers and increased taxation of people who did not want it.
The history of the US is not even 300 years at this point.
Humans have been creating societies and forms of governance for at least 10,000 years. Get some perspective.
Humans have been creating societies and forms of governance for at least 10,000 years. Get some perspective.
More people have existed in the last 300 years than in the previous 10,000 years.
Get some perspective.
Get some perspective.
We're talking about the nature of government and governance. Size/scale does matter to some extent, but much less than the range of variants that human societies have come up with over history.
Can you find me an example of this anarcho-libertarian system in the present/past that functions better than the current government systems of the developed world?
> Without government we at least had choice.
Yes, the choice between surrendering to the bandit (who happens to be stronger than you) or getting shot by him.
Yes, the choice between surrendering to the bandit (who happens to be stronger than you) or getting shot by him.
> the choice between surrendering to the bandit (who happens to be stronger than you) or getting shot by him.
"bandit" AKA government.
"bandit" AKA government.
> "bandit" AKA government.
No, sorry. If you're thinking using excessively coarse categories like "governments," you're going to get things pretty wrong in most cases.
If that's too hard, then try this: if you think the government-as-bandit is bad, it'll be a heck of a lot worse when you're dealing with bandits-as-bandits, who don't even theoretically have any accountability to or responsibility for you.
Individuals are extremely weak; groups are pretty much always stronger. If you don't want to bullied as a weak individual, you need to band together with others, but then you're subject to how the group governs itself.
No, sorry. If you're thinking using excessively coarse categories like "governments," you're going to get things pretty wrong in most cases.
If that's too hard, then try this: if you think the government-as-bandit is bad, it'll be a heck of a lot worse when you're dealing with bandits-as-bandits, who don't even theoretically have any accountability to or responsibility for you.
Individuals are extremely weak; groups are pretty much always stronger. If you don't want to bullied as a weak individual, you need to band together with others, but then you're subject to how the group governs itself.
The EU has always believed privacy only applies between private entities.
This falls into the category of a bill proposal, or maybe not even that, since it seems to be just a paragraph announcing a forthcoming proposal?
For a substantive HN thread, it's probably better to wait until there's something actual to discuss. For better and/or worse, proposed bills usually don't come to much (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).
For a substantive HN thread, it's probably better to wait until there's something actual to discuss. For better and/or worse, proposed bills usually don't come to much (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).
[deleted]
What's that "%ef%bf%bc" at the end of the link ?
From StackOverflow-
These look like corrupted URLs being inserted by a piece of Malware/Adware called "Adpeak"[1]
[1]https://stackoverflow.com/questions/25222973/weird-character....
These look like corrupted URLs being inserted by a piece of Malware/Adware called "Adpeak"[1]
[1]https://stackoverflow.com/questions/25222973/weird-character....
The submission URL looks nothing like the Adpeak-generated junk.
Some obscure unicode character U+FFFC, represented in the url bar as the %-escaped sequence of the bytes of its utf-8 encoding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specials_(Unicode_block)
No idea where it comes from, but it randomly peppers some people's comments and posts for no obvious reason:
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%EF%BF%BC
I'll paste one here between double quotes: " ". To me, it shows up variously as either "[obj]" or as invisible whitespace.
edit: It doesn't work -- HN removes that unicode character. (It filters out large ranges, particularly emojis). So how the heck did it get in those peoples' comments?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specials_(Unicode_block)
No idea where it comes from, but it randomly peppers some people's comments and posts for no obvious reason:
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%EF%BF%BC
I'll paste one here between double quotes: " ". To me, it shows up variously as either "[obj]" or as invisible whitespace.
edit: It doesn't work -- HN removes that unicode character. (It filters out large ranges, particularly emojis). So how the heck did it get in those peoples' comments?
Most likely those comments were posted before we started filtering out those char ranges.
firefox shows it as %uFFFC, which corresponds to this character https://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/fffc/index.htm
UTF-8 encoding of U+FFFC ("Object Replacement Character").
[1] https://www.compart.com/en/unicode/U+FFFC
[1] https://www.compart.com/en/unicode/U+FFFC
Stupid question:
Wouldnʼt it be alright if an open source messenger scans messages locally against a secret word list and only sends it to police if there's a hit, otherwise only send it to the recipient with the usual end-to-end encryption?
The secret word list would need to be curated and digitally signed by several parties, including data security advocates to ensure that it doesn't simply contain the entire dictionary.
The secret word list would need to be curated and digitally signed by several parties, including data security advocates to ensure that it doesn't simply contain the entire dictionary.
That's the Chinese approach: https://www.businessinsider.com/china-winter-olympics-app-ha...
Also, having a secret, local wordlist is a challenge. Eg. What is stopping someone from testing every possible one-word message, using the reporting functionality as an oracle?
Also, having a secret, local wordlist is a challenge. Eg. What is stopping someone from testing every possible one-word message, using the reporting functionality as an oracle?
It's like online voting. It works as long as the government does not have a malicious intent of staying in power indefinitely.
Then the secret word list might include stuff like "free speech" or "Uighur" and the world would go to hell.
Then the secret word list might include stuff like "free speech" or "Uighur" and the world would go to hell.
That's why I mentioned the multiple parties.
But I understand your point. It would just be the next step for them to sneak in all kinds of words.
We're not just talking about words here, though. You have to ask yourself:
* Who do I trust to look at the pictures in the government database?
* Who does the government trust to look at these pictures?
* Who would even be willing to look at these pictures?
These are probably disjoint sets, leading to a very empty intersection. Unfortunately, the logical impossibility of a government implementing a system that citizens should be happy with is not a barrier to it implementing some other system which it claims is good enough.
* Who do I trust to look at the pictures in the government database?
* Who does the government trust to look at these pictures?
* Who would even be willing to look at these pictures?
These are probably disjoint sets, leading to a very empty intersection. Unfortunately, the logical impossibility of a government implementing a system that citizens should be happy with is not a barrier to it implementing some other system which it claims is good enough.
I am not surprised. The EU consists of a bunch of bullies that force their views on member countries. Abide, or be sanctioned and bullied into compliance. Leaders of members countries are being bought to encourage membership. And when the people vote against it, there will be a new vote next year. And once you've joined, you can't leave out of fear of sanctions.
You have a really negative view on the EU. No you can leave the EU, like England did. We did not sanctioned them. It's not a smart move but it's what they wanted. Going forward we should join hands more not less. What is happening now with the war against Ukraine you really see the power of working together. Something we should do more .
Of course it has nothing to do with effective search for child porn. They should search for criminals in dark web, not in emails. Seriously, how many abusers would be so dumb to send those pictures by email.
It is same story again and again. Applying collective guilt was always terrible for society. And it is pure principle to implement totalitarian practices.
It is same story again and again. Applying collective guilt was always terrible for society. And it is pure principle to implement totalitarian practices.
The Panopticon is a marvelous machine which, whatever use one may wish to put it to, produces homogeneous effects of power.
How is this law supposed to work with text encryption? Write text, encrypt, copy to clipboard, paste into chat app? Will such encryption applications be prohibited? That seems unenforcable, these apps are everywhere, I've even written one with symmetric encryption myself.
It doesn’t. You cannot legislate math. You cannot change the laws of physics either. These so called “laws” will do absolutely nothing to stop or even deter an committed criminal from so much as sharing child porn. It’s completely unenforceable. Public key encryption is even more powerful than symmetric encryption because it gives everyone the ability to establish a shared secret completely out in the open, effectively securing communications over insecure networks. Complete strangers without ever having to meet in person can send secret messages in a manner they can guarantee no one else can read and no one else could forge.
Of course you can legislate math. For example, the only law that matters in Australia is the law of Australia[0].
[0] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140747-laws-of-mathema...
[0] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140747-laws-of-mathema...
Make it illegal to have them on "app stores" and they will be inaccessible to 95% of the plebs. The remaining who use free software are those who care about privacy and pedos.
Governments frequently ban encryption for private citizens to "prevent them from sharing child porn".
It’s completely uneffective.
- QTox for messaging.
- Thunderbird+Enigmail or ClawsMail+GPG for email.
- I2PD + mail.i2p account and general posting over NNTP and light web browsing.
- NNCPGO for the worst case + "sneakernet" with encrypted USB drivers.
http://www.nncpgo.org/
- Thunderbird+Enigmail or ClawsMail+GPG for email.
- I2PD + mail.i2p account and general posting over NNTP and light web browsing.
- NNCPGO for the worst case + "sneakernet" with encrypted USB drivers.
http://www.nncpgo.org/
One thing I don't understand is how this could even be enforced? You could mandate it in controlled ecosystems but without a disconnection from the global internet it would have as much a chance of prevailing as the US did in the original crypto wars.
Analysis thread, beginning with link to full-text PDF of draft law:
https://twitter.com/AlecMuffett/status/1524066299600683008
https://twitter.com/AlecMuffett/status/1524066299600683008
In theory (and in practice today), I’m strongly against this. However, I see a future where you will have to choose between mass surveillance or something close to extinction.
I might be wrong, but as technology progress, it seems almost inevitable that a single individual can do more and more damage. An amount of damage it took half an army to achieve a couple of hundred years ago, one individual can do today with the help of a bomb, a plane or a machine gun.
What happens the day that a few number of individuals can build a super virus (already possible for a few, but it will become more common), nuclear bomb or, heck, create a black hole in their basement? If that day comes, it doesn’t matter how strongly I hold the principle that everybody should have the right to privacy; I will gladly welcome our new AI surveillance overlords just to stay alive.
I might be wrong, but as technology progress, it seems almost inevitable that a single individual can do more and more damage. An amount of damage it took half an army to achieve a couple of hundred years ago, one individual can do today with the help of a bomb, a plane or a machine gun.
What happens the day that a few number of individuals can build a super virus (already possible for a few, but it will become more common), nuclear bomb or, heck, create a black hole in their basement? If that day comes, it doesn’t matter how strongly I hold the principle that everybody should have the right to privacy; I will gladly welcome our new AI surveillance overlords just to stay alive.
An evil individual can easily defeat mass surveillance, because there is inherent asymmetry in encryption. She can encrypt her evil messages with, say, 6-words passphrase that no government would be able to crack no matter how many billions of dollars they throw at the task.
Mass surveillance only works against innocents and low-wit criminals.
Mass surveillance only works against innocents and low-wit criminals.
Yeah, maybe I wasn’t clear enough. I’m talking about surveillance on the level of sticking a camera down your toilet and putting you in jail for even thinking that you could send an encrypted message to somebody.
Yes. This kind of scenario is really frightening. It's why we need to expand colonies off world.
There isn't much to add except that I've had the exact same thought several times before.
There isn't much to add except that I've had the exact same thought several times before.
>It's why we need to expand colonies off world.
If the technology in question that's gone awry due to a single rogue individual is AGI, it'd easily kick our ass across the cosmos if malevolent. There's very likely no running from it.
The point at which it becomes possible for a single person to create something like that, is the point where we'd such need a system of control lest we face extinction as a species.
Fortunately, said system of control would likely have to be implemented with AI anyways, and stands a good chance of being done correctly such that it doesn't infringe on individual freedom or human rights whatsoever.
One of my favorite things to ponder is the notion of a superintelligence created to protect us that renders itself invisible. A diety of our own creation as intangible and mythological as those found in historical scriptures.
If the technology in question that's gone awry due to a single rogue individual is AGI, it'd easily kick our ass across the cosmos if malevolent. There's very likely no running from it.
The point at which it becomes possible for a single person to create something like that, is the point where we'd such need a system of control lest we face extinction as a species.
Fortunately, said system of control would likely have to be implemented with AI anyways, and stands a good chance of being done correctly such that it doesn't infringe on individual freedom or human rights whatsoever.
One of my favorite things to ponder is the notion of a superintelligence created to protect us that renders itself invisible. A diety of our own creation as intangible and mythological as those found in historical scriptures.
So you are saying this evil group can create and spread a super virus; but can't figure out how to secure their devices against these government mass surveillance techniques?
My thoughts wasn’t particularly related to this suggestion. As I said, I’m against it. I’m talking about more or less watching your every move maybe even to the point of not letting you communicate with other human beings at all. Alternatively, we can all be held in some kind of future zoo where we only have access to technology pre Turing machines.
I mean, just based on evidence it seems like not many people are that crazy, and the ones who are are not in the state of mind for very well made plans. Already it would be easy to strap a pipe bomb with sharapnel to a drone and blow it up anywhere, but that hasnt happened. https://www.boredpanda.com/story-radioactive-boy-scout-david... most everything is really doable if you want to cause some damage. i think any ai surveillance overlord will be only on the premise of danger and it will be very overblown
I am close to a similar conclusion. Sufficiently determined individual can already do a lot of damage using easily accessible tools. Without looking very far, I can point to 'car attacks' in Canada or London.
And despite that ease of access to a tool of mass death, despite clear polarization of societies to near hysterical levels, actual crazies appear to make a small fraction of the population; a very visible fraction thanks to the media exposure, but a fraction nonetheless.
Most people appear to want one thing: that the day ahead of them is just like the day before.
And despite that ease of access to a tool of mass death, despite clear polarization of societies to near hysterical levels, actual crazies appear to make a small fraction of the population; a very visible fraction thanks to the media exposure, but a fraction nonetheless.
Most people appear to want one thing: that the day ahead of them is just like the day before.
Imagine the cost of all the compliance procedures that a tech company should implement in the EU: GDPR, Digital Markets Act, and maybe in the future: Chat control. I think that the EU is putting barriers to entry that can backfire and harm its own tech companies, even if the initial plan is limiting the influence of US corporations for digital services.
EU is economically a wasteland. Almost every traded company is 50 years old or more and derived from old national monopolies.
European Commission efforts at "strengthening the union" are desperate attempts to reap even larger monopoly rents on the government account, to offset the secular decline.
European Commission efforts at "strengthening the union" are desperate attempts to reap even larger monopoly rents on the government account, to offset the secular decline.
Hmm I wonder did any politician realize that their credit card transactions also are legal to scan and spy on using the same damn law?
maybe someone should point that out to them?
maybe someone should point that out to them?
This looks like a scare-story.
Firstly, the EU produces directives and regulations; it doesn't produce "laws".
Secondly, the phrase "child pornography" is in quotes, as if there's no such thing. There is such a thing.
Thirdly, the imputed "law" requires service providers to scan encrypted messages. That's impossible, unless the proposal is to ban properly-encrypted messages. If that were the proposal, then surely that's what should be in the headline? Like, I already assume anything that isn't properly encrypted is going to be scanned by someone.
Firstly, the EU produces directives and regulations; it doesn't produce "laws".
Secondly, the phrase "child pornography" is in quotes, as if there's no such thing. There is such a thing.
Thirdly, the imputed "law" requires service providers to scan encrypted messages. That's impossible, unless the proposal is to ban properly-encrypted messages. If that were the proposal, then surely that's what should be in the headline? Like, I already assume anything that isn't properly encrypted is going to be scanned by someone.
> This looks like a scare-story.
Let's hope you are right. The EU has a funny history of beating through brain-dead policies. The current EU commission chief, Ursula von der Leyen, is known as "Zensursula" (a portemanteau of "censorship" and her given name) in Germany because she attempted to install essentially the Chinese Firewall for Germany (complete with Stop signs) when she was still doing politics here.
> Firstly, the EU produces directives and regulations; it doesn't produce "laws".
A regulation is technically a law, as it is immediately binding in all EU countries. Directives are quasilaws, as local governments are forced to make them into local laws.
> Secondly, the phrase "child pornography" is in quotes, as if there's no such thing. There is such a thing.
Of course there is. But we have seen again and again that this phrase is being used by wannabe dictators to justify massive limitations of human rights for everyone.
> If that were the proposal, then surely that's what should be in the headline?
Just you wait, right now, very few people know what is in that draft. I'm willing to put money to the fact that it essentially outlaws E2E encryption (and, if we are unlucky, not "only" for messengers - which may be deliberate or by ignorance).
Let's hope you are right. The EU has a funny history of beating through brain-dead policies. The current EU commission chief, Ursula von der Leyen, is known as "Zensursula" (a portemanteau of "censorship" and her given name) in Germany because she attempted to install essentially the Chinese Firewall for Germany (complete with Stop signs) when she was still doing politics here.
> Firstly, the EU produces directives and regulations; it doesn't produce "laws".
A regulation is technically a law, as it is immediately binding in all EU countries. Directives are quasilaws, as local governments are forced to make them into local laws.
> Secondly, the phrase "child pornography" is in quotes, as if there's no such thing. There is such a thing.
Of course there is. But we have seen again and again that this phrase is being used by wannabe dictators to justify massive limitations of human rights for everyone.
> If that were the proposal, then surely that's what should be in the headline?
Just you wait, right now, very few people know what is in that draft. I'm willing to put money to the fact that it essentially outlaws E2E encryption (and, if we are unlucky, not "only" for messengers - which may be deliberate or by ignorance).
Agree about Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission. She’s completely serious about online surveillance and has been for many years. Now she has the power to push this really far.
> is in quotes, as if
You cannot read what people write the way /you/ would read it if you wrote it. So, you have to place lots of partial confidence values. Others for that quote place more bets in, "he could have placed the opening quotes of figurative speech two words earlier" (i.e. "under a pretense of a fight against Evil...").
You cannot read what people write the way /you/ would read it if you wrote it. So, you have to place lots of partial confidence values. Others for that quote place more bets in, "he could have placed the opening quotes of figurative speech two words earlier" (i.e. "under a pretense of a fight against Evil...").
"child pornography" is in quotes because it is listed as a good faith, legitimate motivation to spy on populations preemptively, when it isn't.
> Firstly, the EU produces directives and regulations; it doesn't produce "laws".
Even in legalese these are one and the same. And we have proposals like this regularly, so when is the time to get involved? Not that I would recommend that to anyone if I look at the state of the EU.
Even in legalese these are one and the same. And we have proposals like this regularly, so when is the time to get involved? Not that I would recommend that to anyone if I look at the state of the EU.
The EU has many types of legal acts and the European Commission is responsible for planning and proposing law. Also EU regulations are legal acts that apply automatically to all EU countries without needing to be transposed into national law.
For scanning encrypted messages, they can be scanned on device before encryption, like Apple’s approach to CSAM.
For scanning encrypted messages, they can be scanned on device before encryption, like Apple’s approach to CSAM.
My "device" is a laptop. You say "like Apple", but I believe Apple's CSAM is unique - nothing else tries to scan your messages between keyboard and encryption.
I think the term « device » is a bit misleading. I should have used client side instead. It doesn’t need to scan your messages between keyboard and encryption, the application handles your messages in plaintext and it can scan them without needing any decryption. The encryption is done just before sending the messages.
Well, I did say "properly encrypted". An encryption scheme that, by design, shares information from my plaintext with a third party, isn't "proper" in my book. That's phony encryption.
[Edit] I evidently don't understand your remark. If some "encryption app" processes the plaintext before it is encrypted, isn't it processing plaintext between the keyboard and the encryption?
[Edit] I evidently don't understand your remark. If some "encryption app" processes the plaintext before it is encrypted, isn't it processing plaintext between the keyboard and the encryption?
It's true that "regulations" are effectively laws. They are also quite rare, compared to directives.
Directives have to be implemented in national legislation; it is customary for nations to ignore deadlines on implementing directives they don't like, and to finally implement them in a way that serves the interests of the party in power. So the national legislation is often full of loopholes, or provides zero mechanisms and funding for enforcement.
The EU does nothing to ensure that the implementing legislation actually implements its directives.
I welcome the GDPR (which is a regulation); I can't think of another occasion on which a piece of EU legislation I thought was good, has been handed down as a regulation.
Directives have to be implemented in national legislation; it is customary for nations to ignore deadlines on implementing directives they don't like, and to finally implement them in a way that serves the interests of the party in power. So the national legislation is often full of loopholes, or provides zero mechanisms and funding for enforcement.
The EU does nothing to ensure that the implementing legislation actually implements its directives.
I welcome the GDPR (which is a regulation); I can't think of another occasion on which a piece of EU legislation I thought was good, has been handed down as a regulation.
Here's the uncommon opinion. Google/FB, by extension US government, already performs mass surveillance.
There are actually 2 solutions to this problem. One is stopping Google/FB. The other is making mass surveillance more common, lessening the impact of mass surveillance.
In that sense non-US govs taking mass surveillance is a boon to power balances and competition amongst nations and economies.
Does this opinion have any issues? what are they?
There are actually 2 solutions to this problem. One is stopping Google/FB. The other is making mass surveillance more common, lessening the impact of mass surveillance.
In that sense non-US govs taking mass surveillance is a boon to power balances and competition amongst nations and economies.
Does this opinion have any issues? what are they?
No matter what, mass surveillance is always wrong. Mass surveillance is basically for against every constitution, Grundgesetz, declaration of rights that is worth its salt
Are you saying the FBI doesn't inquire to FB about chats for reasons?
It seems to be the status quo in US, Russia, China at least.
Why tolerate it there, while not tolerating it in smaller countries too?
It seems to be the status quo in US, Russia, China at least.
Why tolerate it there, while not tolerating it in smaller countries too?
How does making mass surveillance more common lessen it's impact? To me, that's like saying making COVID more common will lessen it's impact.
For one, it would create
more investment opportunities for privacy focused services. It's a way to dismantle big techs giant advantage and increase competition.
When surveillance is less valuable and more common, privacy is more valuable and less common, so we might get it.
Again, this might be totally flawed, but I would be curious why it is necessarily flawed.
When surveillance is less valuable and more common, privacy is more valuable and less common, so we might get it.
Again, this might be totally flawed, but I would be curious why it is necessarily flawed.
Neither Google nor Facebook has built concentration camps in the past. The same can not be said about state actors. Thus, private companies, especially those in some other country, are inherently more trustworthy than a local government body could ever be.
Apart from your point being a complete non-sequitur (an example doesn't prove anything), you ought to look at the history of IG Farben (aka Bayer, BASF and other). Or how privatisation is getting to the carceral industry (thank you USA for giving the world the signal that this is the way to go). Or how Total and others high-stakes companies are mixed up with private mercenaries and dealing with terrorists in the middle east. Or how child labour is conveniently hidden behind layers of subcontracting in the electronic and fashion industry.
Private companies are all over the place in the facist avant-garde (and this is very relevant today).
At least i can vote, inquiry and have theoretically have some means of insight and control into my state, because afaik i don't have these powers, not even in theory, for private megacorps (which in fact have quite much in common with states).
Private companies are all over the place in the facist avant-garde (and this is very relevant today).
At least i can vote, inquiry and have theoretically have some means of insight and control into my state, because afaik i don't have these powers, not even in theory, for private megacorps (which in fact have quite much in common with states).
> Neither Google nor Facebook has built concentration camps in the past. The same can not be said about state actors. Thus, private companies, especially those in some other country, are inherently more trustworthy than a local government body could ever be.
This is an argument beyond dystopian. Yes, governments did a lot of bad things in the past (and some are still doing this), but a future, where e.g. the government is only a bunch of companies that would probably really dystopian.
You see already a difference between the USA and e.g. Germany. We have decent healthcare, decent public education, a lot of consumer protection, (Hello DSGVO!). If it would even go further, you would have a country where are no unions& employee rights, no consumer protection laws, absolutely nothing, total surveillance.
Saying that a government is less trustworthy than e.g. FAANG is really a hyperbole
At least you can vote governments out
This is an argument beyond dystopian. Yes, governments did a lot of bad things in the past (and some are still doing this), but a future, where e.g. the government is only a bunch of companies that would probably really dystopian.
You see already a difference between the USA and e.g. Germany. We have decent healthcare, decent public education, a lot of consumer protection, (Hello DSGVO!). If it would even go further, you would have a country where are no unions& employee rights, no consumer protection laws, absolutely nothing, total surveillance.
Saying that a government is less trustworthy than e.g. FAANG is really a hyperbole
At least you can vote governments out
Yeah. IMO a good strategy is to rely on companies in a non-friendly country. For example, if you are in a Western country, use a Russian company for stuff that you have to outsource to a 3rd party. If you are in Russia or China, use Google and Facebook all you want.
> making mass surveillance more common, lessening the impact of mass surveillance
The fuck?
The fuck?
[deleted]
Is protonmail robust against this?
This seems to be contrary to GDPR, and possibly might not fly for a country like -say- Germany.
GDPR mainly forbids abusing data for your own purposes. It probably allows abusing it for the government through law enforcement cooperation.
Fight this!
These tyrants have to be stopped.
A tyrannical government is far more dangerous to people, including children than your regular criminal. Ironically, by giving the state too much power and therefore increasing the symptoms of corruption, we allow the same sort of crimes to be practiced by corrupt state officials with little means for people enact accountability. China, the country with the most mass-surveillance in the world has huge problems with sex trafficking, rape and prostitution. And you guessed it, state officials are involved. All these cameras and this online surveillance didn’t make a dent to the social rot that China is suffering from. In fact, this moral (/s) state is running concentration camps, and is justifying it.
Mass-surveillance is a form of power-transfer from the majority of people to a select few. When you, as individuals, as families, as communities, as the people lack power, you’ll be less able to prevent your children from falling prey to government officials. Instead of facing a weak outcast, you’re facing an individual that’s linked to your government.
> This spying attack on our private messages and photos by error-prone algorithms is a giant step towards a Chinese-style surveillance state.
Well said. I’d like to add that even if the system was free from errors, it’s terrible.
A tyrannical government is far more dangerous to people, including children than your regular criminal. Ironically, by giving the state too much power and therefore increasing the symptoms of corruption, we allow the same sort of crimes to be practiced by corrupt state officials with little means for people enact accountability. China, the country with the most mass-surveillance in the world has huge problems with sex trafficking, rape and prostitution. And you guessed it, state officials are involved. All these cameras and this online surveillance didn’t make a dent to the social rot that China is suffering from. In fact, this moral (/s) state is running concentration camps, and is justifying it.
Mass-surveillance is a form of power-transfer from the majority of people to a select few. When you, as individuals, as families, as communities, as the people lack power, you’ll be less able to prevent your children from falling prey to government officials. Instead of facing a weak outcast, you’re facing an individual that’s linked to your government.
> This spying attack on our private messages and photos by error-prone algorithms is a giant step towards a Chinese-style surveillance state.
Well said. I’d like to add that even if the system was free from errors, it’s terrible.
from the first paragraph of the article:
> This will require them to monitor and scan the communications of citizens en masse – even if they are still securely encrypted end-to-end so far.
Seems the Belgian push to ban E2EE / Signal isn't an isolated case and part of a wider campaign: https://www.bitsoffreedom.nl/2022/05/10/belgium-wants-to-ban...
> This will require them to monitor and scan the communications of citizens en masse – even if they are still securely encrypted end-to-end so far.
Seems the Belgian push to ban E2EE / Signal isn't an isolated case and part of a wider campaign: https://www.bitsoffreedom.nl/2022/05/10/belgium-wants-to-ban...
I wish this article had more punch. I'm Belgian myself. Name and shame the parties that are pushing this initiative.
Usually these parties have a European level, some political "brotherhood" that also exist in the Netherlands.
As is, it just is meaningless fist waving in the direction of Belgium. It's a shame because I think we have so many like minded people in both the Netherlands and Belgium, that making this a national issue, "look at those Belgians" loses us (those who care for freedom of speech) on both sides.
Usually these parties have a European level, some political "brotherhood" that also exist in the Netherlands.
As is, it just is meaningless fist waving in the direction of Belgium. It's a shame because I think we have so many like minded people in both the Netherlands and Belgium, that making this a national issue, "look at those Belgians" loses us (those who care for freedom of speech) on both sides.
Very interesting: that proposal from some belgian part effectively destroys the ability for people (selectively speaking) to use communication technologies. If people could not use "Signal and similar", still supposed to radically avoid any profiling product, they would have to abandon IP-based telephony and messaging altogether.
It's not really a small matter.
It's not really a small matter.
Well said. If there's no true freedom of speech, we've lost everything.
The last two years offered already a glimpse... Now look at China. It's mind blowing. Poor people.
As time goes on, China will appear less authoritarian, and more desirable to people with a certain (warped one I won't name) ideology, as it continues towards its logical conclusion.
China's one child policy now seems "reasonable"
Their mass surveillance is almost desired now, with our new "Ministry of Truth"
Jail time for speaking out against the government -- something I saw plenty of people vouching for when dissenting views about the pandemic were offered up.
Re-education camps for speaking out against teaching certain ideologies and concepts to young children are almost implicitly implied.
There's more, but it's clear this is where we are headed. The slippery slope isn't a fallacy, and 1984 was a prediction.
China's one child policy now seems "reasonable"
Their mass surveillance is almost desired now, with our new "Ministry of Truth"
Jail time for speaking out against the government -- something I saw plenty of people vouching for when dissenting views about the pandemic were offered up.
Re-education camps for speaking out against teaching certain ideologies and concepts to young children are almost implicitly implied.
There's more, but it's clear this is where we are headed. The slippery slope isn't a fallacy, and 1984 was a prediction.
The most shocking thing for me is this is happening after the events of late Feburary; you know, when a dictatorship which started the biggest land war since WWII silenced all internal dissidents using their over-encroaching surveillance network. How does an organization shuffling untolds amount of resources into protecting a nascent democracy that they really didn't care too much about six months ago come to the conclusion that, yes, we do need to model our web around murderous dictatorships.
The country with most mass-surveillance in the world is the US, not China. It’s also the country with the highest percentage of incarcerated (with a very evident racial bias), one with much worse moral problems (from Christian fundamentalists restricting basic human rights like bodily freedom, to legalized state corruption which allows companies to essentially buy legal regulations), state-mandated slavery (private prisons), a vastly dysfunctional legal system, police routinely murdering people, healthcare statistics typical for some third world countries, regular school shootings, and privately owned concentration camps for politically incorrect youth.
Sure, China is far from perfect. But the post above is pure propaganda, aligned with general activity of this “mildmotive” account here: American right-wing political shilling.
Sure, China is far from perfect. But the post above is pure propaganda, aligned with general activity of this “mildmotive” account here: American right-wing political shilling.
Perhaps the tree of liberty needs watering again...?
It's interesting how EU regulators build good will through stunts like mandating USB-C or forcing open the App Store and GDPR protections and then turn around and do stuff like this.
It's almost like there are multiple people and groups in EU administration, with different goals and priorities.
Looks like they listen more to engineers, except when doing that can touch their power. Not that surprising: powerful corrupt politicians are of the same kind, no matter their nationality.
Any good cartoonist out there that would make the EU version of this masterpiece?
https://i.imgur.com/D93heEo.jpg
Any good cartoonist out there that would make the EU version of this masterpiece?
https://i.imgur.com/D93heEo.jpg
It all seems pretty consistent to me. The EU commission wants more power for itself and less autonomy for companies, particularly tech giants, having failed to create any of its own.
I think the people who support things like mandating USB-C, forcing open the App Store, and GDPR are misguided at best. These are significant transfers of power from the (mostly) organic and consensual realm of individuals and businesses to the coercive realm of state force. You can always buy an android phone (with USB-C) and use GrapheneOS, F-droid, Tutanota, Brave Search, Odysee, Mastodon, Matrix, etc. to get most of what you want without asking unaccountable bureaucracies to enforce your will on everyone else by the threat of violence.
I have a special hatred for GDPR for contributing to balkanization of the internet, and for the annoying cookie warnings that sometimes breaks sites when you disable cookies at the browser level. The only way GDPR actually improves my privacy is by forcing me to use a VPN to access some sites.
I have a special hatred for GDPR for contributing to balkanization of the internet, and for the annoying cookie warnings that sometimes breaks sites when you disable cookies at the browser level. The only way GDPR actually improves my privacy is by forcing me to use a VPN to access some sites.
>and for the annoying cookie warnings
These are from companies who are too lazy to properly comply with the GDPR, or worse, plainly illegal. It's not the fault of the GDPR that many companies choose not to be compliant. (The national regulators should absolutely clamp down harder on these non-compliant cookie popups)
These are from companies who are too lazy to properly comply with the GDPR, or worse, plainly illegal. It's not the fault of the GDPR that many companies choose not to be compliant. (The national regulators should absolutely clamp down harder on these non-compliant cookie popups)
When you make a law, you are responsible for the consequences of that law. It's like when the British colonial authorities inadvertently incentivized the breading of cobras, and how modern drug warriors push users to more dangerous substances. You are legislating reality, not a fantasy world where you have total control.
Actually you can use it to take down personal information, sort of like DMCA is used for copyrighted content.
Pretty much any website threatened with GDPR will remove your photos/phone number/email/whatever, they're not worth the fine. You could then still report them tbh (it has to be reported to whatever enforcement agency in the country it's hosted in, though, which only exist in the EU and are a pain to deal with).
Pretty much any website threatened with GDPR will remove your photos/phone number/email/whatever, they're not worth the fine. You could then still report them tbh (it has to be reported to whatever enforcement agency in the country it's hosted in, though, which only exist in the EU and are a pain to deal with).
[deleted]
throw93232(2)
> Protest now by contacting the responsible EU Commissioners! Experience shows that a phone call is more effective than e-mails or letters. Officially, the planned obligation for messaging and chat control is called “legislation to effectively tackle child sexual abuse online”.
> If an office tries to redirect you to the EU Commissioner for Home Affairs (Directorate-General for Home Affairs), point out that all EU Commissioners vote on draft legislation and can raise concerns at an early stage.
[from https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/messaging-and-chat-co...]