The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies(mullvad.net)
mullvad.net
The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies
https://mullvad.net/en/chatcontrol
399 comments
I have thought for some years now that any country wanting to implement some kind of restrictions or surveillance should start with politicians and authorities first. With some select authorities being exempt from this due to national security.
For example, if a country wants to implement the installation of state-owned anti-harassment "spyware" on their citizens phones, then this would first apply to politicians and those who work for the government, like anyone employed in a city hall or the traffic authority (normal citizens working there) or the like. This would run for 5 years, while citizens have the right to attempt to hack these systems without repercussions, in order to ensure that the security is up to the highest standards.
If after those 5 years the politicians and government employees are ok with it, if no major security concerns exist and the benefit has shown to be an obvious one, then it could be up for debate to implement this new technology.
For example, if a country wants to implement the installation of state-owned anti-harassment "spyware" on their citizens phones, then this would first apply to politicians and those who work for the government, like anyone employed in a city hall or the traffic authority (normal citizens working there) or the like. This would run for 5 years, while citizens have the right to attempt to hack these systems without repercussions, in order to ensure that the security is up to the highest standards.
If after those 5 years the politicians and government employees are ok with it, if no major security concerns exist and the benefit has shown to be an obvious one, then it could be up for debate to implement this new technology.
> With some select authorities being exempt from this due to national security.
I fear your carveout would quickly become an "Inner Party" situation, with those with real power declaring themselves exempt due to "national security" reasons. Imagine then that anyone in any position of authority but not real power would be subject to the surveillance as an "Outer Party" member.
I get that the intent is to show the people in charge the negative consequences of such policies, but I don't think that's the worst that could come of this.
I fear your carveout would quickly become an "Inner Party" situation, with those with real power declaring themselves exempt due to "national security" reasons. Imagine then that anyone in any position of authority but not real power would be subject to the surveillance as an "Outer Party" member.
I get that the intent is to show the people in charge the negative consequences of such policies, but I don't think that's the worst that could come of this.
You understand that there is already an inner party, not in a conspiracy sense, but in a privacy sense. Yo have to actually argue why partial transparency is way worse than full obscurity.
That’s exactly the kind of fallacy these politicians would use to argue against this kind of thing ;)
The idea that the powerful would find a way to circumvent or corrupt such a rule is a significant problem; it isn’t a fallacy.
Fallacy =/= thing I don’t like.
Fallacy =/= thing I don’t like.
If thought of something similar but comprehensive and far reaching, as follows:
Any law voted yes by a politician would have:
A 6mo cool off period, and in that interim periodthe following would apply: the law in question would be Tripled (3x) and both ways (I.e. retroactive and future) to the elected officials, his immediate parents, sons, and siblings, as soon as the law is passed.
So if they pass a tax increase, the entire tax applies immediately to their family before it applies to the public.
Same would be surveillance. Same for healthcare changes. OR draft etc. They would eat their kill.
Its about time no?
Any regulatory body unelected chief + deputy should be subject to the same rules with a tidy bonus: agency rules would also impact the portfolio (materiality can be set at say FV in excess of 300% poverty line), or business relationships past + present for the "czars" and family members.
So If you want to run FDIC and want to make rules for banks, thats swell, but those rules will apply to bank X where your brother works, AND to bank Y where you were CEO. The new rule would apply to those banks first, the changes would be tripled, AND that would be applied retroactively.
Have fun with that revolving door!
Any law voted yes by a politician would have:
A 6mo cool off period, and in that interim periodthe following would apply: the law in question would be Tripled (3x) and both ways (I.e. retroactive and future) to the elected officials, his immediate parents, sons, and siblings, as soon as the law is passed.
So if they pass a tax increase, the entire tax applies immediately to their family before it applies to the public.
Same would be surveillance. Same for healthcare changes. OR draft etc. They would eat their kill.
Its about time no?
Any regulatory body unelected chief + deputy should be subject to the same rules with a tidy bonus: agency rules would also impact the portfolio (materiality can be set at say FV in excess of 300% poverty line), or business relationships past + present for the "czars" and family members.
So If you want to run FDIC and want to make rules for banks, thats swell, but those rules will apply to bank X where your brother works, AND to bank Y where you were CEO. The new rule would apply to those banks first, the changes would be tripled, AND that would be applied retroactively.
Have fun with that revolving door!
This feels just like punishing governments and their families for doing their jobs. We already have elections and law enforcement, thats all we need to "punish" corrupt officials. What we lack to make elections effective is more information available to the public about what they do and why they do it. More accountability and transparency, not punishment for their children if they want to tax big corps. The threat of punishment is never the best incentive to get stuff done.
We should also start to judge them based on outcomes rather than pointless metrics like GDP. How much did poverty decrease during your governments? How about crime? Life expectancy? And so on.
We should also start to judge them based on outcomes rather than pointless metrics like GDP. How much did poverty decrease during your governments? How about crime? Life expectancy? And so on.
That's what they want you to believe.
Government is NOT a job. Government is Public Service. Emphasis on 'service'
If you are not ready to do your service or duty, you are not fit to work in government.
The honor and duty of being a king came with the downside of the risks (beheading) to you and to your royal family, if you did a particularly bad job.
Current government officials have all the upside (revolving door) with almost zero downside. Some plebs break into congress and they get their pants in a jiffy.
We need to make them accountable. Them, and their families.
Government is NOT a job. Government is Public Service. Emphasis on 'service'
If you are not ready to do your service or duty, you are not fit to work in government.
The honor and duty of being a king came with the downside of the risks (beheading) to you and to your royal family, if you did a particularly bad job.
Current government officials have all the upside (revolving door) with almost zero downside. Some plebs break into congress and they get their pants in a jiffy.
We need to make them accountable. Them, and their families.
> We need to make them accountable
Yes that's exactly what I said. How about we forbid them from ever trading in stocks or participate in any investment where they might even have a remote conflict of interest?
I feel that would be the best way to keep crooks like Pelosi out of politics.
> Them, and their families.
This is nonsense but you must hate politicians apparently. I don't, I hate corruption.
Yes that's exactly what I said. How about we forbid them from ever trading in stocks or participate in any investment where they might even have a remote conflict of interest?
I feel that would be the best way to keep crooks like Pelosi out of politics.
> Them, and their families.
This is nonsense but you must hate politicians apparently. I don't, I hate corruption.
I dont hate politicians.
I hate the kind of people it attracts.
We dont need politicians. We do need statemen.
I think you live fantayland if you think restricting their investment options will result in less politicians. Whats simply going to happen is that they will shift their activities to other income avenues. Less stock trading. More board jobs and speaking fees. The river of corruption keeps flowing even if in a different direction.
Instead, id like less incentives to corruption. That means eat what you kill. Id like more lincolns that take tremendous personal risk to themselves and their families, and declare wars against global superpowers, to then "close shop" and go back to their farm to retire.
Instead we have pelosis, mccains advancing the war lobby, or obamas making bank on "speaking fees"
Stock prohibition wont do a thing. You need to cut the incentive to sell favors. You need to re-introduce risk.
I hate the kind of people it attracts.
We dont need politicians. We do need statemen.
I think you live fantayland if you think restricting their investment options will result in less politicians. Whats simply going to happen is that they will shift their activities to other income avenues. Less stock trading. More board jobs and speaking fees. The river of corruption keeps flowing even if in a different direction.
Instead, id like less incentives to corruption. That means eat what you kill. Id like more lincolns that take tremendous personal risk to themselves and their families, and declare wars against global superpowers, to then "close shop" and go back to their farm to retire.
Instead we have pelosis, mccains advancing the war lobby, or obamas making bank on "speaking fees"
Stock prohibition wont do a thing. You need to cut the incentive to sell favors. You need to re-introduce risk.
We never did find out who leaked the security camera footage from inside a "secure area" of Matt Hancock, UK health secretary, kissing his aide: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/matt-hancock-...
A horrifyingly large amount of UK political decision-making that should be minuted is instead carried out secretly on whatsapp.
A horrifyingly large amount of UK political decision-making that should be minuted is instead carried out secretly on whatsapp.
Your two statements seem to be a contradiction - decision meetings should be public, but the meeting where you are getting a blowie from your assistant on the sofa in your office should be private?
There's a third outcome between "fully public" and "fully private" that's actually worse, which is "known to blackmailers".
That is, who's collecting kompromat on UK ministers, and for what purpose, and in exchange for what? (It's the press, isn't it)
That is, who's collecting kompromat on UK ministers, and for what purpose, and in exchange for what? (It's the press, isn't it)
> (It's the press, isn't it)
Yes. Once one meets a journalist or two, you become aware that every scandal that comes to light was known by everyone for a long time.
There is someone else, however, the Whip. While the end recipient would ultimatley be the press, the power they hold is by collecting up little secrets like which Prime Minister was having an affair with their Chancellor ...
https://www.politicalite.com/exclusive/dirty-dossier-full-li...
Yes. Once one meets a journalist or two, you become aware that every scandal that comes to light was known by everyone for a long time.
There is someone else, however, the Whip. While the end recipient would ultimatley be the press, the power they hold is by collecting up little secrets like which Prime Minister was having an affair with their Chancellor ...
https://www.politicalite.com/exclusive/dirty-dossier-full-li...
What does the second act have to do with corruption or information that is useful for the public?
When a government official doesn't abide by his own lockdown rules, that's corruption.
why?
If a politician votes for a law that reduces the speed limit to 50mph then is caught speeding is that corruption?
I think corruption is when someone abuses their position of power. This isn't abuse they just violated their own rules.
If a politician votes for a law that reduces the speed limit to 50mph then is caught speeding is that corruption?
I think corruption is when someone abuses their position of power. This isn't abuse they just violated their own rules.
It's corruption because they know they won't be punished.
If more laws were objective (like speeding) and politicians were as surveilled as everyone else it wouldn't be an issue.
If more laws were objective (like speeding) and politicians were as surveilled as everyone else it wouldn't be an issue.
You're misusing the word objective and corruption is an abuse of power not hypocrisy.
Also speeding is a bad example since the cops let people off all the time
Also speeding is a bad example since the cops let people off all the time
It is an abuse of power when they support laws they know they won't be charged with even if caught. The hypocrisy is also annoying, but not the main problem.
> Also speeding is a bad example since the cops let people off all the time
That's why I said "and surveilled".
> Also speeding is a bad example since the cops let people off all the time
That's why I said "and surveilled".
If a lawmaker creates a law to make something illegal, sends police to prosecute the population doing said thing, affirms that arresting people for having a cup of coffee is absolutely the intention of writing the law - that is perfectly reasonable.
If at the same time they are breaking the law they created - that is corruption. For the people prosecuted for said crime with trials pending, it is information that is useful for them to know that the lawmaker conducted themselves in this manner.
If at the same time they are breaking the law they created - that is corruption. For the people prosecuted for said crime with trials pending, it is information that is useful for them to know that the lawmaker conducted themselves in this manner.
how is that corruption?
I'm totally fine with raising their paychecks by a factor of 10 for their loss of privacy if we implement this... the amount of money we'd save elswhere dur to less corruption would be a few orders of magnitude higher.
We've already had some experiments about "what if we select politicians based on their love for being on TV and their lack of concern about concealing their corruption" and the results aren't good...
Public figures kinda need to be narcissistic just to be able to face seeing themselves so much each day. And that includes the good ones.
I'm more worried about the fact that humans are, collectively at least, so hypocritical.
For the following examples, bare in mind that neither I nor the general public understand the actual laws, so any nits you pick need to be the kind that even a non-lawyer will accept:
I'm old enough to remember Clinton being impeached for lying about his affairs, and yet Republicans (collectively) are defending Trump for lying about affairs.
Or vice versa, Trump's classified documents at home vs. Biden's.
Probably the same elsewhere, but I don't trust that I'm not part of the problem with regard to UK politics (where I'm from), and my German isn't good enough to pay attention to what's happening where I now live.
I'm more worried about the fact that humans are, collectively at least, so hypocritical.
For the following examples, bare in mind that neither I nor the general public understand the actual laws, so any nits you pick need to be the kind that even a non-lawyer will accept:
I'm old enough to remember Clinton being impeached for lying about his affairs, and yet Republicans (collectively) are defending Trump for lying about affairs.
Or vice versa, Trump's classified documents at home vs. Biden's.
Probably the same elsewhere, but I don't trust that I'm not part of the problem with regard to UK politics (where I'm from), and my German isn't good enough to pay attention to what's happening where I now live.
>I'm more worried about the fact that humans are, collectively at least, so hypocritical.
Humans are violent too. If we tried as hard to train it out of people we'd make good progress.
Humans are violent too. If we tried as hard to train it out of people we'd make good progress.
Violence serves a purpose - although it doesn't serve this purppose well, it stands in place as a last resort. Removing that resort, what do you propose replaces it for the purposes which must be served?
I meant that we could train out hypocrisy the same way we train out most of the violence.
Much earlier than Trump, politicians discovered that they could further advance their own interests by virtue signaling during Congressional sessions instead of actually make progress on legislation. Now, all meaningful negotiation happens behinds closed doors. If that also gets broadcast, then I'd be surprised if they get anything done at all.
> now, all meaningful negotiation happens behinds closed doors
This is fundamental to loss aversion and compromise. There was never a "before." Open "negotiations" reward posturing, not compromise.
This is fundamental to loss aversion and compromise. There was never a "before." Open "negotiations" reward posturing, not compromise.
If you mean Trump, a lot of people think the results were great.
You mean Zelensky?
I don't think we should impose loss of personal privacy.. even in this scenario a politician acting impeccably could fall to one one signalling for part of the public's irrational approval, like two gladiators in the colosseum. The decisions of the politician's themselves need to somehow be opened up for scrutiny as they are, artifacts independent of their origin. Like code being submitted for review, and being subjected to human + automated checks. I know people will decry this as naive / impractical to implement but I still think it has got a better shot then 'create dystopian state where politicians are monitored 24 / 7, and trust the ever rational cooler heads of the public mob to (a) properly reward the good and punish the bad, (b) advocate for the best policies'. Not to mention that if such a system were invented then politicians were just get corrupted in advance of their career, in secret.
The Singapore System - their ministers are the highest paid in the world and it (apparently) makes a difference.
Singapore remains an authoritarian state, not a democracy. It allowed for massive progress in a difficult political climate but it does so at the cost of a good amount of political freedoms. That might be fine, but not in all cultures.
I also challenge the notion that higher pay leads to less corruption. If so, then why are Denmark, Finland, New Zealand and Norway ranked higher in the corruption perception index[1], when they are paid much, much less annually (especially Finland)[2]?
[1] https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2022 (https://archive.ph/fabjP)
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_salaries_of_heads_of_s... (https://archive.ph/XGbpO)
I also challenge the notion that higher pay leads to less corruption. If so, then why are Denmark, Finland, New Zealand and Norway ranked higher in the corruption perception index[1], when they are paid much, much less annually (especially Finland)[2]?
[1] https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2022 (https://archive.ph/fabjP)
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_salaries_of_heads_of_s... (https://archive.ph/XGbpO)
Crazy that you've been downvoted for this. The single ruling party of Singapore for the past 70 years, the People's Action Party, is overtly fascist. But I guess people are eager to overlook that because they like the results? Seems like a barely warmed over reformulation of 'they make the trains run on time.'
But that is a perceptions index. People are going to answer based on what they heard about the previous year's index.
Of course it's hard to find the "actual corruption" figures, but that doesn't mean the perceptions index is of any value.
Of course it's hard to find the "actual corruption" figures, but that doesn't mean the perceptions index is of any value.
This is the best authoritative source that I could find. The few assertions I've seen that Singapore is less corrupt than most european and north american countries quote Transparency International as a source, so I assume it might be an acceptable one.
They also supplement their findings with a "GCB" survey[1] (which is less recent), and given enough time I guess there are other sources one could find.
These are surveys, so there's a limit to how reliable their results can be. However, I find surveys are a pretty good start when you need to get a general idea on how something does and you can't just measure it. How you value that is up to you, that's why I quote it in my comment.
[1] https://www.transparency.org/en/gcb
These are surveys, so there's a limit to how reliable their results can be. However, I find surveys are a pretty good start when you need to get a general idea on how something does and you can't just measure it. How you value that is up to you, that's why I quote it in my comment.
[1] https://www.transparency.org/en/gcb
Yeah it's not entirely crazy when you are talking about something to quote whatever you can find.
But on this particular index, I strongly suspect it is simply continuing existing biases. It's the thing people quote and by quoting it you get reinforce next year's rankings. Plus it's the kind of thing nobody can ever verify due to its nature.
But on this particular index, I strongly suspect it is simply continuing existing biases. It's the thing people quote and by quoting it you get reinforce next year's rankings. Plus it's the kind of thing nobody can ever verify due to its nature.
Assuming what you say here is true (which in my opinion is a pretty high leap), one could then ask why those biases exist in the first place. I expect authoritarian states to enable corruption but it's the contrary in the case of Singapore. Why? Because I doubt it boils down to the salary of the ministers.
On a side note, it might be interesting to see the evolution of this index over the years for any given country; that might lead to interesting conclusions on the bias confirmation you're talking about!
On a side note, it might be interesting to see the evolution of this index over the years for any given country; that might lead to interesting conclusions on the bias confirmation you're talking about!
You don't even need to raise it that much. One can implement onlyfans.com business model when their electorate pays to them for access to their cam feeds.
The richer would be the ones that do things on their livefeed that attract people. Do you want politicians orgies? Because that's how you get politicians orgies. The poorer politicians would be the perfectly honest and completely boring ones, not a great way to encourage honesty.
Do you want politicians orgies?
Now wait, let not be too hasty here. We should whiteboard this out. There are a lot of moving parts, and shutting down an idea too soon, would be wrong.
So to start, uh, just wondering, which politicians? Also, what would they be wearing?
Again, only asking for an accurate framing here.
Now wait, let not be too hasty here. We should whiteboard this out. There are a lot of moving parts, and shutting down an idea too soon, would be wrong.
So to start, uh, just wondering, which politicians? Also, what would they be wearing?
Again, only asking for an accurate framing here.
Lauren Boebert is secretly a total hottie. But I really wanna see Mitch McConnell shake what he got.
I know that HN isn't supposed to be for jokes, but legit, I assume that a naked Mitch McConnell looks like the nudist alien scammers from futurama.
https://futurama.fandom.com/wiki/Sprunjer?file=Srunger.png
https://futurama.fandom.com/wiki/Sprunjer?file=Srunger.png
Or Dana Carvey trying to get into the Turtle Club.
This would be delightful. Being a politician should be a curse that the dedicated bear for the good of humanity, not cushy job and badge of pride.
> being a politician should be a curse that the dedicated bear for the good of humanity, not cushy job and badge of pride
Nobody I know would run for state office. They pay poorly. You have to work in the state capitol, which in most state's is awful. You lose your privacy. And for what, a marginal legislative role?
The historic benefit was pride. But with nihilism in vogue and trust in government low, that reward is non-existent. Our intelligent and ambitious don't aim for public office. (It even feels trite to call it public service.) That's a problem.
Nobody I know would run for state office. They pay poorly. You have to work in the state capitol, which in most state's is awful. You lose your privacy. And for what, a marginal legislative role?
The historic benefit was pride. But with nihilism in vogue and trust in government low, that reward is non-existent. Our intelligent and ambitious don't aim for public office. (It even feels trite to call it public service.) That's a problem.
my boss knows one of the former US press secretaries. At a dinner a while back my boss went on and on (for like 30min) how she couldn't believe her acquaintance was picked and how she should have been press secretary and would have been oh so much better. I asked her why in the world would you ever want that job, the pay sucks and you're just getting yelled at all day by reporters. She couldn't believe someone would turn down a chance to work in a presidential admin. We both had a little bit too much to drink and argued for like an hour. I had a tshirt made for her with a headshot of her, apparent, nemesis haha
It is incredibly lucrative to take one of these jobs. The last three white house press secretaries went on to become commentators and/or high ranking politicians. It's really not that hard to understand why people want the job.
>Our intelligent and ambitious don't aim for public office. (It even feels trite to call it public service.)
No, they become lobbyists instead. They have more power as they are the ones controlling the elected officials.
>That's a problem.
No, they become lobbyists instead. They have more power as they are the ones controlling the elected officials.
>That's a problem.
Then perhaps the job shouldn’t be done by individuals, but by groups developing systems.
I don't know you but I'd say no one you know is a committed public steward. However plenty of those exist outside of your bubble.
> no one you know is a committed public steward
I have friends who ran for and won local and federal offices. I specifically called out state because it min-maxes the power-honor trade-off.
That said, I’ll stand by my broader point. Normalised derision has made public service more taxing than it ever was. This is true globally, and has been called out by high-profile resignations in e.g. New Zealand and Scotland.
I have friends who ran for and won local and federal offices. I specifically called out state because it min-maxes the power-honor trade-off.
That said, I’ll stand by my broader point. Normalised derision has made public service more taxing than it ever was. This is true globally, and has been called out by high-profile resignations in e.g. New Zealand and Scotland.
Local and federal offices are also, if not more, lucratively profitable. Maybe it's not about some Platonic notion of power-seeking behavior but rather small people pursuing their own small monopolies.
Be careful what you ask for. There's no good reason that public service should be a "curse".
Humans are not angels, and we should not build systems that hold out some unrealistic expectation that they are.
Too often politicians are viewed as "saviors of the people" only shortly before they become "corrupt villains".
If we want to attract competent public minded people, we need to do a lot of deep thinking and system design to get there.
<personal pain point>
One good place to start is to get rid of this idea that every citizen's input is equally informed, sane, reasonable, actionable, legal, or thoughtful.
In a democracy, every person hopefully is afforded certain rights, such as due process and free speech, but this does not mean what you say is "free from consequences". The corollary is that not all ideas have to be given equal consideration. Some people say batshit crazy things sometimes, and frankly, these kinds of comments make life hell for many public servants. School boards come to mind.
Speaking, personally, I would like to be a public servant, in some regard (again), but I don't think we have realistic processes in place to really gather thoughtful feedback from the public. Until we do, public servants have to deal with a lot of informed nonsense.
I think software developers and UX people might not realize how skilled and motivated we are at building systems that actually work. I'm not saying that we build the right thing all the time. But so many government processes are fundamentally broken in terms of information processing. I'm not saying that they are broken by e.g. the tropes like "lazy people in government". I'm saying that the systems are (anti) designed (or evolved) in such a way that they're so painful that driven people get driven out.
If you think of a government as a way of processing citizen input in a way that is consistent with budget constraints and laws, it seems that many government agencies are not built using the principles that so many of us take for granted: system design, failure analysis, testing. This isn't just government problem, of course ... it is characteristic of large organizations of all kinds.
Democracy does not function well when too many people are simultaneously uninformed and yelling. This crowds out informed people trying to have a discussion.
</personal pain point>
Humans are not angels, and we should not build systems that hold out some unrealistic expectation that they are.
Too often politicians are viewed as "saviors of the people" only shortly before they become "corrupt villains".
If we want to attract competent public minded people, we need to do a lot of deep thinking and system design to get there.
<personal pain point>
One good place to start is to get rid of this idea that every citizen's input is equally informed, sane, reasonable, actionable, legal, or thoughtful.
In a democracy, every person hopefully is afforded certain rights, such as due process and free speech, but this does not mean what you say is "free from consequences". The corollary is that not all ideas have to be given equal consideration. Some people say batshit crazy things sometimes, and frankly, these kinds of comments make life hell for many public servants. School boards come to mind.
Speaking, personally, I would like to be a public servant, in some regard (again), but I don't think we have realistic processes in place to really gather thoughtful feedback from the public. Until we do, public servants have to deal with a lot of informed nonsense.
I think software developers and UX people might not realize how skilled and motivated we are at building systems that actually work. I'm not saying that we build the right thing all the time. But so many government processes are fundamentally broken in terms of information processing. I'm not saying that they are broken by e.g. the tropes like "lazy people in government". I'm saying that the systems are (anti) designed (or evolved) in such a way that they're so painful that driven people get driven out.
If you think of a government as a way of processing citizen input in a way that is consistent with budget constraints and laws, it seems that many government agencies are not built using the principles that so many of us take for granted: system design, failure analysis, testing. This isn't just government problem, of course ... it is characteristic of large organizations of all kinds.
Democracy does not function well when too many people are simultaneously uninformed and yelling. This crowds out informed people trying to have a discussion.
</personal pain point>
The more unpleasant you make public service, the more you filter and select for people who want to use that power for evil ends and self-dealing. This is the same backwards thinking that causes people to want to cut legislative salaries, not understanding that this just makes it so the only people who can run for office are millionaires who can live off their accumulated wealth.
As it was in pre-agricultural tribal chiefdoms, where the most esteemed and high-ranking individuals were those who contributed the most hard work to the tribe. Although chieftains enjoyed certain privileges, it pales in comparison to the opulence in modern politics. And at least their status was genuinely earned.
You say this in jest, but it's a good idea.
The more power you have, the less privacy you should have.
This would be an appealing catch-up mechanic in society.
I would vote yes.
I would vote yes.
If reality TV and US politics are any indication, then today it's the reverse: the less privacy you have, the more power you have.
Beware the peculiar human creature who craves attention from strangers.
Beware the peculiar human creature who craves attention from strangers.
Media exposure is not the same as loss of privacy.
Fox "News" hosts have a ton of exposure.
But they also have a ton of privacy.
We know this because it was noticable when they lost their privacy in the Dominion lawsuit discovery.
Their (previously private) texts to each other admitting openly lying to their viewers, that they themselves saw through Trump's obvious and destructive lies.
And it was, is, a fantastic look behind the curtain, even if their primary victims won't/can't ever see it.
(Just like none of them watched the 1/6 hearings.)
But it's still a very good thing that we need more of.
I understand the difference.
If we required politicians to stream their lives 24/7, then the unintended consequence would be a government run exclusively by Instagram influencers who already stream their lives 24/7. I get your point about sunlight on secrets. But limiting our governance to the pool of people I see on TikTok seems like a high price to pay.
(This is just a 2023 rephrasing of the age-old concern of electing someone willing to be a politician.)
If we required politicians to stream their lives 24/7, then the unintended consequence would be a government run exclusively by Instagram influencers who already stream their lives 24/7. I get your point about sunlight on secrets. But limiting our governance to the pool of people I see on TikTok seems like a high price to pay.
(This is just a 2023 rephrasing of the age-old concern of electing someone willing to be a politician.)
While you're at it there should be a 1 year look back. So if you want to run for election you have to start recording a year earlier so we can compare your actions to that of the other Big Brother^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d candidates.
I do suspect that having a hot spouse and active sex life would become a significant advantage when running.
I do suspect that having a hot spouse and active sex life would become a significant advantage when running.
A lot more of this kind of tongue kissing going on I suspect
https://i.imgur.com/w85Pwzb.gifv
[deleted]
I know he was American and not European, but "When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself public property." ~Thomas Jefferson
That's a start. Governments need to be 100% transparent in all things. Government officials should have nothing to hide. All meetings are open, all documents are accessible to all, all communications are recorded and open. Convert the NSA into an agency which watches government 24x7.
Any government official that is found to hide/obscure information from the public gets three strike after which they are out. For life.
Workers who actually deal with confidential/personal information on citizens are the ones with the privilege to work without such monitoring.
Workers who actually deal with confidential/personal information on citizens are the ones with the privilege to work without such monitoring.
All of this would be fixed, and more, if we brought back Athenian style ostracism by public vote!
It would also make banishing political enemies far more effective.
If all meeting by public officials on duty were recorded (as police officer bodycams now are) then we would avoid tons of wars and geopolitical conflicts. We’d realize these guys are bozos who didn’t actually even understand each other and should be replaced by diligent teams who have to develop better frameworks. THESE POLITICIANS OWE US THE PEOPLE to do this IN ALL COUNTRIES. Instead of shaming us into supporting their “unprovoked and unjustified” wars.
Saying that if we start scanning all chats for illegal activity then we should also require all communications of politicians to be part of public record is not exactly the strongest argument.
I mean those systems are already in place, at a minimum you'd have to argue they're ineffective or not as intrusive. And your hyperbole is not doing you any favours on that front.
I mean those systems are already in place, at a minimum you'd have to argue they're ineffective or not as intrusive. And your hyperbole is not doing you any favours on that front.
> Suggested alternative: The "End Political Corruption Proposal"
I'm probably in the minority on HN, but I think this is a good thing. It should be a matter of course, in a democratic society. Free speech doesn't live solely in digital communication (universally owned by some company) any more than it does in the classified ads in a newspaper.
I'm probably in the minority on HN, but I think this is a good thing. It should be a matter of course, in a democratic society. Free speech doesn't live solely in digital communication (universally owned by some company) any more than it does in the classified ads in a newspaper.
It would be world changing, the complete abolition of all privacy.
Little drones that followed everybody around, everywhere, broadcasting and storing every thing everybody does, or says, everywhere they go, and what they do.
No. I do not recommend it. But the thought experiment is interesting.
Little drones that followed everybody around, everywhere, broadcasting and storing every thing everybody does, or says, everywhere they go, and what they do.
No. I do not recommend it. But the thought experiment is interesting.
It's an opt-in scenario. People aren't forced to be politicians.
Politics already suffers heavily from not getting the best-of-the-best. Making it even less attractive to become a politician is unlikely to improve upon that.
In the totality of all politicians out there that you have an opinion about, which fraction of them do you like, in terms of thinking they are the right person for the job? Do you think this fraction would improve with that opt-in scenario implemented?
In the totality of all politicians out there that you have an opinion about, which fraction of them do you like, in terms of thinking they are the right person for the job? Do you think this fraction would improve with that opt-in scenario implemented?
"Politics already suffers heavily from not getting the best-of-the-best"
It is repeated often, but is this really true?
Number 1 trait of a politician should be honesty and integrity in my opinion - and I don't think that you can increase that factor, just with throwing more money on them. Then you maybe just get more smart people, who are in it for the money and use their smarts and cunning to extract even more money. I think politicians should want that job, because they primarily feel the call to achieve something bigger.
So a adequate payrise is alright in my opinion, but I don't want the top managers who run a big compony for profit to also run states. As states are (or should not be) profit orientated, but to serve the greater good of its people.
It is repeated often, but is this really true?
Number 1 trait of a politician should be honesty and integrity in my opinion - and I don't think that you can increase that factor, just with throwing more money on them. Then you maybe just get more smart people, who are in it for the money and use their smarts and cunning to extract even more money. I think politicians should want that job, because they primarily feel the call to achieve something bigger.
So a adequate payrise is alright in my opinion, but I don't want the top managers who run a big compony for profit to also run states. As states are (or should not be) profit orientated, but to serve the greater good of its people.
> It is repeated often, but is this really true?
If I look around at (a) politicians and (b) people I respect for traits needed in politicians, then those sets are not fully but largely disjoint.
> Number 1 trait of a politician should be honesty and integrity in my opinion
There are other necessary traits though. Empathy. Diplomacy. The ability to compromise. Keeping an eye on the big picture. Current processes don't always select for those traits and there are tons of BS-ers and populists out there while I see people with the desirable traits outside politics and not having any desire to get involved. Putting a camera over their head 24/7 is not going to improve that.
If I look around at (a) politicians and (b) people I respect for traits needed in politicians, then those sets are not fully but largely disjoint.
> Number 1 trait of a politician should be honesty and integrity in my opinion
There are other necessary traits though. Empathy. Diplomacy. The ability to compromise. Keeping an eye on the big picture. Current processes don't always select for those traits and there are tons of BS-ers and populists out there while I see people with the desirable traits outside politics and not having any desire to get involved. Putting a camera over their head 24/7 is not going to improve that.
If H. Clinton vs D. Trump or D. Trump vs J. Biden are the only choice for the most powerful politic job in the world .. I think they are really not the-best-of-the-best
This is a better argument for the American public making in general poor choices and political parties giving them the kind of people they are apt to vote for rather than paying insufficient salaries.
"Tail wagging the dog" argument.
There is no reason to believe that the factor dragging political quality into the gutter is insufficient salaries. The fact that the Republican party turned down higher caliber more capable candidates in favor of trump suggests that candidate quality is limited by voter choice not insufficient compensation.
These folks really are in fact deplorable and you need to appeal to at least a substantial minority of awful idiots to be elected president or if on team red most of them.
This is why every Republican president in half a century has been an embarrassment and every democratic relatively conservative because nothing else flies here and upping the ante won't help.
These folks really are in fact deplorable and you need to appeal to at least a substantial minority of awful idiots to be elected president or if on team red most of them.
This is why every Republican president in half a century has been an embarrassment and every democratic relatively conservative because nothing else flies here and upping the ante won't help.
If we're not getting the best of the best, then this 'opt-in politicians must submit to the record so their paymasters can vet them' idea would protect us from the one's who take the job for the 'side perks'.
we are FAR AWAY from that being a problem. An average Joe that isn't corrupted by money/lobbyists/... will make dramatically better decisions than any smartass that also tries to hide the corruption under the rug of meritocracy ("you don't understand, I am the expert!!11").
Decisions that are made in good faith from average people would be so much better than anything we experience today, its almost comically absurd. The decision-making process including all talks being recorded and publically available would also be a massive factor to restore trust in politics.
Decisions that are made in good faith from average people would be so much better than anything we experience today, its almost comically absurd. The decision-making process including all talks being recorded and publically available would also be a massive factor to restore trust in politics.
> we are FAR AWAY from that being a problem. An average Joe that isn't corrupted by money/lobbyists/... will make dramatically better decisions than any smartass that also tries to hide the corruption under the rug of meritocracy
Citation needed. Actually, a lot of citations needed.
When's the last time you spoke to an "average Joe" ? The average joe can't even make the right decisions regarding their own life and health, and is probably struggling to keep their family together and make ends meet.
What in the world makes you think they are qualified to make decisions on behalf of millions of constituents? I would drop dead before I let someone like that be my voice in politics.
> Decisions that are made in good faith from average people would be so much better than anything we experience today, its almost comically absurd.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far, none is provided.
Citation needed. Actually, a lot of citations needed.
When's the last time you spoke to an "average Joe" ? The average joe can't even make the right decisions regarding their own life and health, and is probably struggling to keep their family together and make ends meet.
What in the world makes you think they are qualified to make decisions on behalf of millions of constituents? I would drop dead before I let someone like that be my voice in politics.
> Decisions that are made in good faith from average people would be so much better than anything we experience today, its almost comically absurd.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far, none is provided.
Politicians aren't isolated: the people they interact with would be impacted, too.
The thought experiment has been done at novel length by Stephen Baxter: The Light of Other Days, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Light_of_Other_Days
In the novel it is extremely disruptive, but perhaps that is what is needed.
In the novel it is extremely disruptive, but perhaps that is what is needed.
> It would be world changing, the complete abolition of all privacy.
> Little drones that followed everybody around, everywhere, broadcasting and storing every thing everybody does, or says, everywhere they go, and what they do.
That's an interesting 0-100% (eclipse all possible free speech possibilities!) imaginary scenario. I don't subscribe to it.
> Little drones that followed everybody around, everywhere, broadcasting and storing every thing everybody does, or says, everywhere they go, and what they do.
That's an interesting 0-100% (eclipse all possible free speech possibilities!) imaginary scenario. I don't subscribe to it.
That is the premise of TV Show Omniscient, I found it interesting. They dont broadcast everything, but data is shared with appropriate authorities
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt11542920/
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt11542920/
I'm not sure privacy as a concept should be off limits. It wasn't always a thing, in fact it's fairly recent. However there's a fairly big leap from "you can't always expect privacy" to "drones recording your whole life".
I'm with you. For the duration of you holding public office there should be no expectation of privacy.
This could be labeled "sousveillance", watchful vigilance from underneath:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance
It would be a start to do away with diplomatic immunity.
This is a complicated one, because it runs the risk of both harassment of diplomats under fake crimes and also the elevation of real petty crimes to diplomatic incidents. The Okinawa business is difficult enough _without_ real diplomatic immunity. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-42048473?ocid=socialfl...
[deleted]
You have my vote.
This is whataboutism and derails the conversation. These two things are unrelated.
1. Why do you think 'whataboutism' is a bad thing? It is comparison. Comparison is a fine tool for reasoning about policy. Not the end of the conversation, but something to consider.
2. The corruption of EU politicians is a major concern. If they think so little of privacy that they are willing to vote for laws like this, then they should certainly have to defend why they get any privacy at all. Corruption in government is one of the most damaging things happening in our society, and total surveillance would make it easier to detect & prove when they are lying.
2. The corruption of EU politicians is a major concern. If they think so little of privacy that they are willing to vote for laws like this, then they should certainly have to defend why they get any privacy at all. Corruption in government is one of the most damaging things happening in our society, and total surveillance would make it easier to detect & prove when they are lying.
> The corruption of EU politicians is a major concern
Yes. I never said otherwise.
> then they should certainly have to defend why they get any privacy at all
That's the funny bit: they won't. They - and their family - will have the same if they use the same platforms. Which is why I firmly believe this isn't about corruption, this is about false beliefs and zealots who genuinely believe the internet and open communication is bad.
Yes. I never said otherwise.
> then they should certainly have to defend why they get any privacy at all
That's the funny bit: they won't. They - and their family - will have the same if they use the same platforms. Which is why I firmly believe this isn't about corruption, this is about false beliefs and zealots who genuinely believe the internet and open communication is bad.
Except that these platforms often have 'government' specific offerings that are not the same as everyone else.
In the US whataboutism is used to justify current crimes because in the past someone else did not get charged. It is a way to dismiss current crimes made by 'my side' because 'whatabout' that time 'your side' got off. It ends up reducing
what can be criticized to the lowest common denominator, because you can't criticize anybody if anybody had every done it before.
Accusations of whataboutism are basically used to stop conversations because the accuser does not like where the conversation is going.
That's false. Whataboutism, in its traditional and non-negative sense, is the long-standing assurance of equal-enough application of the law as a defense against Bananaism.
See, I can make up truly stupid neologisms as well. But at least mine isn't an effort to subvert foundational democratic norms.
Because unequal application of the law isn't law.
Whataboutism's necessity increases as the parties and potential charges under scrutiny are ever more alike.
In Whataboutism's novel sense, it is a brain-dead effort to try to get away using the law as a politicized cudgel.
You can tell by the need to invent a new word in order to describe an old concept.
Insofar as their is not any legal jeopardy involved, my explanation still applies however adjusted.
See, I can make up truly stupid neologisms as well. But at least mine isn't an effort to subvert foundational democratic norms.
Because unequal application of the law isn't law.
Whataboutism's necessity increases as the parties and potential charges under scrutiny are ever more alike.
In Whataboutism's novel sense, it is a brain-dead effort to try to get away using the law as a politicized cudgel.
You can tell by the need to invent a new word in order to describe an old concept.
Insofar as their is not any legal jeopardy involved, my explanation still applies however adjusted.
"Precedent" is actually pretty fundamental to tons of legal systems. Because yes, it is important to call out hypocrisy. The people most concerned about whataboutisms nowadays are usually just using it as a way to completely avoid self retrospection and shield themself from what they are accusing others of. Yes, sometimes it is a non sensical argument (when you bring up something completely unrelated), but it is a very very overused online buzzword now.
Public position = gate to corruption, license and regulation = gate to corruption. Do not expect the ones who make the laws to make them against themselves. That is idealist thinking.
If history teqches something is that the more of those, the more corruption and handing of favors and "legal corruption" pops up.
It is not by chance. It is just bc of how incentives are aligned. Those incentives, IMHO, can only be destroyed by strong deregulation and privatization. I dnt know how much of it but certainly a country should not be 45-50% or more GDP going public. Besides that centralized planning (we r going towards that) is usually super inefficient. So it is also a technical problem.
More when the peoople to arrange budgets do not pay a penalty even for their corruption in many cases, let alone for their management mistakes. Lagarde is still there and she gets 400.000 eur per year and took the decisios that made us go to these levels of inflation...on top of that she was involved in a corruption case that prescribed (not sure is the appropriate term in english, translated from spanish) I am no economist but I knew what would happen very likely... do they really pull our leg? I think so honestly.
If history teqches something is that the more of those, the more corruption and handing of favors and "legal corruption" pops up.
It is not by chance. It is just bc of how incentives are aligned. Those incentives, IMHO, can only be destroyed by strong deregulation and privatization. I dnt know how much of it but certainly a country should not be 45-50% or more GDP going public. Besides that centralized planning (we r going towards that) is usually super inefficient. So it is also a technical problem.
More when the peoople to arrange budgets do not pay a penalty even for their corruption in many cases, let alone for their management mistakes. Lagarde is still there and she gets 400.000 eur per year and took the decisios that made us go to these levels of inflation...on top of that she was involved in a corruption case that prescribed (not sure is the appropriate term in english, translated from spanish) I am no economist but I knew what would happen very likely... do they really pull our leg? I think so honestly.
problem is deregulation and privatisation doesn't work either, because then instead of corrupt politicians who make decisions based on greed despite being told not to, you get CEOs and big corporations who make decisions based on profit (essentially greed) because that is their entire purpose
If you look a bit deeper though; you'll find that greed can lead to good and bad outcomes. People make decisions because in some sense they feel like they will profit personally. That is basically the same as saying they do things for reasons. We know that most people aren't especially principled because they are regularly tested and don't make principle-based decisions. Nevertheless there is a great deal of good in the world.
Corporations are greedy, but they operate in a world where it is hard for them to enrich themselves without enriching others too.
Corporations are greedy, but they operate in a world where it is hard for them to enrich themselves without enriching others too.
how is this different/better for corporations than for politicians? Also how do corporations, that focus their efforts on using the cheapest possible production methods regardless of effects on the environments or peoples' health, paying their workers the absolute minimum for them to continue living, and paying their shareholders the absolute maximum amount 'enrich others' by accident?
Not that I am defending corrupt politicians, I just really don't know what to do about this, and looking at all the bad things corporations do i can't comprehend how they would suddenly become good when even less regulated than they already are
Not that I am defending corrupt politicians, I just really don't know what to do about this, and looking at all the bad things corporations do i can't comprehend how they would suddenly become good when even less regulated than they already are
Corporations in a free market offer products and services. Politicians coercion.
They do not improve your life objetively, usually they do not pay for the price of them when there is a mistake but get benefits from trafficking favors.
They do not improve your life objetively, usually they do not pay for the price of them when there is a mistake but get benefits from trafficking favors.
Profit is not greed when you serve people with products and services. Or if it is greed, regulation and corruption is not another kind of greed even worse? No service, no product, no benefit for anyone.
If there is benefit in a regulation, the person imposing it is not the person paying the negative outcomes of it. Never. So no, CEOs competing cannot get more than what they generate unless they distort the market in some way.
If there is benefit in a regulation, the person imposing it is not the person paying the negative outcomes of it. Never. So no, CEOs competing cannot get more than what they generate unless they distort the market in some way.
> you get CEOs and big corporations who make decisions based on profit (essentially greed) because that is their entire purpose
That would be fine if you had hundreds of CEOs competing in a market. Unfortunately they tend to merge and create monopolies. And some people salute this because of the growth at all costs mindset.
What else in nature grows at all costs? Oh right, cancer.
That would be fine if you had hundreds of CEOs competing in a market. Unfortunately they tend to merge and create monopolies. And some people salute this because of the growth at all costs mindset.
What else in nature grows at all costs? Oh right, cancer.
Splitting power. That's the key.
This is so awful that it strikes me as likely being a door-in-the-face[1] proposal designed to make a more 'reasonable' proposal that is still vile on its own merits seem palatable.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique
Don't you think it'd be better to ratify the most vile proposal while the ideals of freedom still have majority reign? To create a fiasco so enduring it won't soon be forgotten? And before tools of mass manipulation become any more technologically sophisticated?
If I'm reading [1] correctly, we're just picking up momentum down a decades-long slippery slope.
1. https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/FIW_202...
If I'm reading [1] correctly, we're just picking up momentum down a decades-long slippery slope.
1. https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/FIW_202...
I expect initially only those who are unpopular and unlikely to be defended by the public will be prosecuted. Then over time more political enemies (probably starting with "trans women aren't women" activists) will be prosecuted and the slow slide begins...
dover(4)
The law of large numbers means that the vast majority won’t be prosecuted so nobody will really care. See: patriot act.
The proposal does outline Options A-E, and of course decides that Option E, the most aggressive one, is the way to go. Maybe they plan to fall back on D or C, if E gets rejected.
Interesting that it has a name, to make "Door in the face" akin to the opposite "Foot in the door".
It is discussed by Charlie Munger as part of what he calls the "reciprocation tendency", after the studies from Robert Cialdini in the practice of "«ask for a lot and back off»".
It is discussed by Charlie Munger as part of what he calls the "reciprocation tendency", after the studies from Robert Cialdini in the practice of "«ask for a lot and back off»".
See also: Overton Window and Anchoring
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(cognitive_bias)
...but yes, this is why in the US republicans are constantly floating all sorts of batshit regressive policies on social welfare programs, LGBTQ people, voting rights, immigration - it shifts the ultimate compromise closer to their desired outcome, and even if it doesn't, it still is virtue signaling to their base, something to shout about at campaign rallies.
"See what I tried to do for you? But those evil liberals shot me down! I need your support!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(cognitive_bias)
...but yes, this is why in the US republicans are constantly floating all sorts of batshit regressive policies on social welfare programs, LGBTQ people, voting rights, immigration - it shifts the ultimate compromise closer to their desired outcome, and even if it doesn't, it still is virtue signaling to their base, something to shout about at campaign rallies.
"See what I tried to do for you? But those evil liberals shot me down! I need your support!"
Dems too. They're both as nutty as each other. You hear that? Someone in the distance is shouting "I just want public healthcare". Russia is about to find out why USA doesnt have public healthcare.
[deleted]
Why every 12 months the European Commission comes up with a total dumb and authoritarian proposal and we have to actively fight it?
It’s just tiring
It’s just tiring
We have to win every time, but they have to win only once.
This is only true if you give up once it passes. Then you only have to win once to get it repealed.
That's not really true in this case, though. The European Commission is the only institution with the power to propose new EU laws, including repeals or modifications of existing ones. They don't need to be watching their back and making sure that no repeal sneaks through because one couldn't even get started unless they did it. Also, they're not really a democratic institution - their members are decided entirely by behind-closed-doors political horse trading by well-connected European political insiders - so replacing them with more trustworthy representatives isn't an option because they don't represent the public anyway even in theory.
The commission is tasked by the council to translate policy into proposals. If the council directs the commission to repeal a law, they will draft a proposal to do so. The council also appoints the head of the commission, who has final say in the members. The council in turn is composed of the heads of state of the EU members, so it is mostly directly elected.
Maybe people just need to take more care which leaders they elect, if they don't like the policies that result from it.
Maybe people just need to take more care which leaders they elect, if they don't like the policies that result from it.
I don't see the EU repealing much. How can there be an expectation of a fruitful campaign to accomplish that? Would it require a sea change in the outlook of the ruling blocs of MPs? Asking sincerely.
The MEPs don't have the right to change EU law. So it doesn't matter even if they were all voted out and replaced. The commission does what it wants, it's not really a democratic system.
The commission needs a passing vote of approval from the parliament and its president is elected by the parliament. It is a democratic system.
It's not a democratic system and would be easily recognized as such if it were implemented anywhere other than Europe.
Parliament approving what the Commission does is of no use for repealing laws.
The President is not elected by the Parliament. They experimented with that in the Juncker era, now it's back to being controlled (in theory) by the Council. The Parliament was given a "vote" that consisted of a list of options with one name on it. They could literally vote for von der Leyen or not vote at all. Even then she only barely scraped past quorum.
The Council meanwhile isn't democratic. Everything it does is secret. How did von der Leyen get the top job despite being manifestly unsuitable? Nobody knows. It's secret and never leaked.
Parliament approving what the Commission does is of no use for repealing laws.
The President is not elected by the Parliament. They experimented with that in the Juncker era, now it's back to being controlled (in theory) by the Council. The Parliament was given a "vote" that consisted of a list of options with one name on it. They could literally vote for von der Leyen or not vote at all. Even then she only barely scraped past quorum.
The Council meanwhile isn't democratic. Everything it does is secret. How did von der Leyen get the top job despite being manifestly unsuitable? Nobody knows. It's secret and never leaked.
> They could literally vote for von der Leyen or not vote at all.
that's how confidence votes work on most parliamentary republics.
that's how confidence votes work on most parliamentary republics.
I think a key difference is that in parliamentary republics, we usually now how the candidate (that the parliement votes on) has been chosen: it's usually by winning the elections as the head of the party with the most parliement seats. In this case, the process is completely opaque. I would say that it would be pretty weird if people say, here in Canada, voted for their MPs (good!) but then said MPs could only choose between an arbitrary list of candidates to be Prime Minister, chosen in a private meeting with 0 explanations.
In systems where you don't get single party majorities, do you _really_ how and what the coalition members traded to reach a deal?
It wasn't a confidence vote, was it?
Additionally the Parliament can request the Commission to submit a legislative proposal, and the Parliament can dismiss the Commission at will with a vote of no-confidence. So de-facto it does have some legislative initiative ability, and it is not much different from other legislative systems where the vast majority of the laws are proposed by the Government.
With time the EU Parliament has seen its powers increasing, and there is reason to expect it will continue to do so.
With time the EU Parliament has seen its powers increasing, and there is reason to expect it will continue to do so.
The fact that there's a vote at some point of the system doesn't make it democratic. Most authoritarian regimes require some people to vote, but they're not democratic.
Moreover, even at the universal suffrage, “democracy” doesn't mean electing a dictator with no popular oversight every x years.
In the case of the European commission:
- No EU citizen gave them the explicit mandate to enforce chat control
- If the initiative is repelled, and they continue to force freedom-reducing initiatives, they'll face 0 consequences.
- At most, the parliament can do is strike down a law. There is of course a very unbalanced distribution of power – the elected people have no initiative.
- The EC is corrupt: many commissioners cash fat checks from the private sector after their term, with 0 consequences.[0],[1]
- Lobbyism is everywhere. Corporations with unlimited money bribe officials, harass them, and push their agenda. Anyone close to the EU will tell you that it's much worse than you think.
“Democracy” is not the power of the corporations, and citizens, maybe, if we have time for it and if it doesn't eat into our profits.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/15/european-commi...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/former-eu-digit...
Moreover, even at the universal suffrage, “democracy” doesn't mean electing a dictator with no popular oversight every x years.
In the case of the European commission:
- No EU citizen gave them the explicit mandate to enforce chat control
- If the initiative is repelled, and they continue to force freedom-reducing initiatives, they'll face 0 consequences.
- At most, the parliament can do is strike down a law. There is of course a very unbalanced distribution of power – the elected people have no initiative.
- The EC is corrupt: many commissioners cash fat checks from the private sector after their term, with 0 consequences.[0],[1]
- Lobbyism is everywhere. Corporations with unlimited money bribe officials, harass them, and push their agenda. Anyone close to the EU will tell you that it's much worse than you think.
“Democracy” is not the power of the corporations, and citizens, maybe, if we have time for it and if it doesn't eat into our profits.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/15/european-commi...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/former-eu-digit...
They do repeal stuff (though it's usually "changed" not repealed per se), but if this gets approved the next step would be the CJEU or possibly the ECHR
Explain that to anyone living under a dictatorship their grandparents originally supported.
The dictator has to beat down the rebellions every time, but the rebels only has to win once. Is that what you meant?
As long as there are people there will be struggles like this. Being on the winners side makes things easier, so losing once makes it harder to go back, but it isn't impossible since we have gotten here from much worse situations.
As long as there are people there will be struggles like this. Being on the winners side makes things easier, so losing once makes it harder to go back, but it isn't impossible since we have gotten here from much worse situations.
GP means that the dictator only needs to win without violence once, but the rebels -while it's true that they only need to win once- may have to resort to violence because the dictator certainly will resort to violence to crush its opposition.
In the case of EU the member states would just leave if the union starts becoming too corrupt. Until they create a no-leave rule there isn't much to worry about. When they create a no-leave rule then we should start worry, since then EU is heading towards becoming USA.
Ah yes because we saw how easy it is to leave the EU for the UK even though it still has its own currency.
Realistically current EU countries are locked in. They aren't allowed to reintroduce their own currency, but doing so is step one towards leaving.
Realistically current EU countries are locked in. They aren't allowed to reintroduce their own currency, but doing so is step one towards leaving.
They could reintroduce their own currency after leaving. Montenegro is using the Euro despite not being part of the EU or Eurozone. They can switch to other currency if they want to.
As part of leaving you'd be cut off from the ECB and that connection is required for the banking system to operate.
But Montenegro's banking system works. They aren't part of the ECB.
They never formally joined the Eurozone to begin with, they just allow the Euro to circulate and accept it for payment. It's not even legal tender there, in theory. The integration issues are more to do with how the banking systems of formally Eurozone integrated countries are wired up to the ECB and how countries come to rely on it for "liquidity" (money printing to pay for expensive large government).
Also note that the EU don't like Montenegro using the Euro and tolerate it only because it's tiny/doesn't matter.
Also note that the EU don't like Montenegro using the Euro and tolerate it only because it's tiny/doesn't matter.
Of course it is not easy, but if it feasible for questionable reasons as in the UK case, certainly it will be more feasible in case of existential threats.
That's not how it works, at all. History should make this clear!
By the time a regime reaches "existential threat" level it's too late. You're already far gone, any and all political opposition has been driven underground and the regime has loyalists in place in all institutions and positions of power. There is no way to organize any resistance because attempts to do so are crushed immediately, the press is controlled and you're in the minority anyway because the majority are propagandized and kept in fear of instability or supposed external threats to their way of life.
The EU is frankly far too close to that dystopian end already. It constantly justifies its own power via reference to external enemies of various kinds e.g. capitalist America, the European press barely challenges it and the institutions are controlled by EU loyalists who are willing to rip up the rules rather than let the EU lose control. Even in the UK that was always more distant than other nations, they went through multiple severe constitutional crises triggered by Remainers fighting to overturn the referendum. It wasn't at all clear that the UK could actually leave despite the referendum result not being in doubt.
IMO the very fact that you think the UK left for "questionable reasons" is already part of the propaganda doing its job. The people who get out early are the only ones who actually can get out. By the time the case is unambiguous (to you), you're the one being labelled as questionable.
By the time a regime reaches "existential threat" level it's too late. You're already far gone, any and all political opposition has been driven underground and the regime has loyalists in place in all institutions and positions of power. There is no way to organize any resistance because attempts to do so are crushed immediately, the press is controlled and you're in the minority anyway because the majority are propagandized and kept in fear of instability or supposed external threats to their way of life.
The EU is frankly far too close to that dystopian end already. It constantly justifies its own power via reference to external enemies of various kinds e.g. capitalist America, the European press barely challenges it and the institutions are controlled by EU loyalists who are willing to rip up the rules rather than let the EU lose control. Even in the UK that was always more distant than other nations, they went through multiple severe constitutional crises triggered by Remainers fighting to overturn the referendum. It wasn't at all clear that the UK could actually leave despite the referendum result not being in doubt.
IMO the very fact that you think the UK left for "questionable reasons" is already part of the propaganda doing its job. The people who get out early are the only ones who actually can get out. By the time the case is unambiguous (to you), you're the one being labelled as questionable.
Mate, if you think the propaganda is only on one side, I don't know what to tell you.
True. But don't expect much from a throwaway account posting half-truths
Where did I say there's only propaganda on one side?
EU has no army so it can't keep EU countries locked in if they don't want to stay.
They're working on raising an army actually:
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-leader-approve-defense-mi...
"EU leaders approve updated military plan. The strategy envisions the creation of an EU rapid deployment force of up to 5,000 soldiers."
However the EU doesn't need a physical army to stop a country leaving. It just needs sufficiently good control of local politics and law enforcement via loyalists in the countries establishment, which it has already. The EU has already proven it can replace governments in Italy and Greece against the will of the electorate, simply via "soft power" mechanisms like access to ECB liquidity, ECJ judgements and control over local institutions.
In other words an inability to leave the EU doesn't look like an army crushing a well organized political opposition. It looks like that opposition being blacklisted from the press, being spied on by the EU secret police, found guilty of vague laws like "misinformation" with judgements upheld by the European courts, votes being tampered with or outright ignored and more.
This is no theoretical problem. Anti-EU referendums in European countries are frequently ignored, even when in theory they are constitutionally binding. In the UK the Electoral Commission, the supposedly neutral body that runs the election and referendum process itself, was run by EU loyalists who professed in public that they wanted Leave to lose and spent significant amounts of time prosecuting Leave campaigners (fortunately their cases were ruled harassment and tossed out by the courts).
The EU Commission also had a long track record of classifying true reports about their activities in the British press as "myths". These days they'd call it misinformation and try to prosecute the journalists in question.
Ultimately it doesn't matter if a majority of the population want to leave, or reject a new EU proposal, if the people who rule them don't care about democracy and control the levers of power. That's how all dictatorships work.
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-leader-approve-defense-mi...
"EU leaders approve updated military plan. The strategy envisions the creation of an EU rapid deployment force of up to 5,000 soldiers."
However the EU doesn't need a physical army to stop a country leaving. It just needs sufficiently good control of local politics and law enforcement via loyalists in the countries establishment, which it has already. The EU has already proven it can replace governments in Italy and Greece against the will of the electorate, simply via "soft power" mechanisms like access to ECB liquidity, ECJ judgements and control over local institutions.
In other words an inability to leave the EU doesn't look like an army crushing a well organized political opposition. It looks like that opposition being blacklisted from the press, being spied on by the EU secret police, found guilty of vague laws like "misinformation" with judgements upheld by the European courts, votes being tampered with or outright ignored and more.
This is no theoretical problem. Anti-EU referendums in European countries are frequently ignored, even when in theory they are constitutionally binding. In the UK the Electoral Commission, the supposedly neutral body that runs the election and referendum process itself, was run by EU loyalists who professed in public that they wanted Leave to lose and spent significant amounts of time prosecuting Leave campaigners (fortunately their cases were ruled harassment and tossed out by the courts).
The EU Commission also had a long track record of classifying true reports about their activities in the British press as "myths". These days they'd call it misinformation and try to prosecute the journalists in question.
Ultimately it doesn't matter if a majority of the population want to leave, or reject a new EU proposal, if the people who rule them don't care about democracy and control the levers of power. That's how all dictatorships work.
> Anti-EU referendums in European countries are frequently ignored, even when in theory they are constitutionally binding
Yeah, that's why the UK didn't leave in the end right? lol. Does "Non-biding referendum" rings a bell?
> long track record of classifying true reports about their activities in the British press as "myths".
Ah yes the trustworthy British press saying German kids can't write to Santa because of GDPR. Yes
Yes, keep talking, I like to make a collection of anti-EU talking points (from Peter Thiel's think tank most likely).
For all the criticism the EU deserves, it's very telling when the narrative turns into manipulation
Yeah, that's why the UK didn't leave in the end right? lol. Does "Non-biding referendum" rings a bell?
> long track record of classifying true reports about their activities in the British press as "myths".
Ah yes the trustworthy British press saying German kids can't write to Santa because of GDPR. Yes
Yes, keep talking, I like to make a collection of anti-EU talking points (from Peter Thiel's think tank most likely).
For all the criticism the EU deserves, it's very telling when the narrative turns into manipulation
>> Yeah, that's why the UK didn't leave in the end right? lol.
UK was the first where it wasn't ignored. After the vote I remember being told several times by Europeans they didn't really believe it'd ever be implemented, exactly due to the track record of European countries in ignoring referendums that didn't go the EU's way.
Even then it was a very close run thing. The Remainers in Parliament were willing to create a constitutional crisis to try and get the referendum overturned a.k.a. the "People's Vote", and were holding the government hostage to get that. It was only a a lucky break (the Lib Dem leader going full delusional) that allowed Johnson to break the deadlock, go the country and allow the electorate to purge the Remainer MPs who had lied to their voters about their true position. But make no mistake, that was the worst constitutional crisis the UK experienced in living memory.
>> Ah yes the trustworthy British press saying German kids can't write to Santa because of GDPR
That story came from the German press and was correct:
https://www.welt.de/kmpkt/article183978370/Weihnachtsmarkt-i...
You see how easily you're manipulated by the EU? They've convinced you and others that if the press criticizes the EU the press must be lying. But it's almost never the case.
The EU has taken down their myths site now. It was trash. Not only totally focused on the British press, but I remember quite clearly flicking through them back when the site was live and noticing that all of them were admitted to be true, with the "debunking" (such as it was) being always along the lines of, "this is true but it's justified" or "we prefer an alternative interpretation", or "we don't phrase it like that".
UK was the first where it wasn't ignored. After the vote I remember being told several times by Europeans they didn't really believe it'd ever be implemented, exactly due to the track record of European countries in ignoring referendums that didn't go the EU's way.
Even then it was a very close run thing. The Remainers in Parliament were willing to create a constitutional crisis to try and get the referendum overturned a.k.a. the "People's Vote", and were holding the government hostage to get that. It was only a a lucky break (the Lib Dem leader going full delusional) that allowed Johnson to break the deadlock, go the country and allow the electorate to purge the Remainer MPs who had lied to their voters about their true position. But make no mistake, that was the worst constitutional crisis the UK experienced in living memory.
>> Ah yes the trustworthy British press saying German kids can't write to Santa because of GDPR
That story came from the German press and was correct:
https://www.welt.de/kmpkt/article183978370/Weihnachtsmarkt-i...
You see how easily you're manipulated by the EU? They've convinced you and others that if the press criticizes the EU the press must be lying. But it's almost never the case.
The EU has taken down their myths site now. It was trash. Not only totally focused on the British press, but I remember quite clearly flicking through them back when the site was live and noticing that all of them were admitted to be true, with the "debunking" (such as it was) being always along the lines of, "this is true but it's justified" or "we prefer an alternative interpretation", or "we don't phrase it like that".
Violence isn't the only punishment.
What other punishments does EU have at its disposal?
For example the UK was threatened at various points with having its electricity supply be cut off, having its planes be banned from overflying Europe, having Spain seize UK territory like Gibraltar, and the EU did impose major financial sanctions against its key industries. The EU also likes to rope in US Democrat Presidents to threaten or suspend cooperation with the UK in various ways, if it doesn't do what the EU wants.
No offense, but it's extremely myopic to think that any EU state would protest over privacy rights when so many more economically and geopolitically important considerations exist. And yet this is still how fascism and totalitarianism advances. No one will be left out now, because all EU states are too weak alone without Germany.
It's funny that the results of WWII were for America to enable a soft version of the fourth Reich and the Japanese east asian coprosperity sphere. BUT we built it under our auspices, with the rule being that free speech was somewhat necessary for a free market. (skip the part about torturing Muslims and communists). Here we are. Will Europe now become Hungary or Turkey??!
It's funny that the results of WWII were for America to enable a soft version of the fourth Reich and the Japanese east asian coprosperity sphere. BUT we built it under our auspices, with the rule being that free speech was somewhat necessary for a free market. (skip the part about torturing Muslims and communists). Here we are. Will Europe now become Hungary or Turkey??!
> The dictator has to beat down the rebellions every time, but the rebels only has to win once.
Yes... this was the original comment I was responding to, which seems to have totally disappeared. Thanks.
> we have gotten here from much worse situations.
A wise remark. But we'll only keep finding better situations if we keep calling out bullshit.
Yes... this was the original comment I was responding to, which seems to have totally disappeared. Thanks.
> we have gotten here from much worse situations.
A wise remark. But we'll only keep finding better situations if we keep calling out bullshit.
Every society has its petty bureaucrats and mean nannies, and in a democracy, they can't always get what they want.
So they migrate to non-democratic sections of the political sphere to assert themselves, and EC is one of those. The EU has a significant "democratic deficit" as a whole, too much indirection between people and the ruling Eurocrat class.
So they migrate to non-democratic sections of the political sphere to assert themselves, and EC is one of those. The EU has a significant "democratic deficit" as a whole, too much indirection between people and the ruling Eurocrat class.
The EU has always been the bureaucrats’ paradise. Now it’s slowly (but perhaps not surprisingly) turning into everybody else’s nightmare.
No turning required. A bureaucrats dream was always everybody else's nightmare.
Still, it is disturbing to watch all of Orwell's ideas getting implemented in real life
Still, it is disturbing to watch all of Orwell's ideas getting implemented in real life
It is a large machinery and what you are seeing there is the long tail on one end.
There are lots of good things coming out of the European Commission and some really great things. Obviously there is going to come some crap to, and a few really really bad things, like this one. I agree that it's tiring to fight those, but there is no sunshine without rain.
There are lots of good things coming out of the European Commission and some really great things. Obviously there is going to come some crap to, and a few really really bad things, like this one. I agree that it's tiring to fight those, but there is no sunshine without rain.
You’ve answered your question.
It’s tiring. They hope to wear people down.
It’s tiring. They hope to wear people down.
It's the prototype for the NWO. Only half joking.
Because of the person who's currently the president of the Commission, that's why. Ask any German about von der Leyen.
German here, that name triggers PTSD. Merkel removed this clowness from domestic politics by surprise-inserting her in the European Commission. Merkel simply removed a political opponent from German domestic relevance and the rest of Europe has to suffer for it.
I am sorry. There is mostly vile hate and vitriol for her in the entire country. Her entire career was a show of the Peter Principle.
I am sorry. There is mostly vile hate and vitriol for her in the entire country. Her entire career was a show of the Peter Principle.
Well for what it's worth it's usually the reverse. Local politicians get rid of good people by sending them to the EU, so the EU parliament on average consists of better people than local governments. Consequently it's also why so few proposals from the current commission ever pass I suppose.
Who elected those guys anyway? I sure never had the chance to vote for any of them.
I'd be more fine with that if they only regulated narrowly defined inter-state issues in the EU.
But stuff like this... There's no mandate. And there's no reason this couldn't be done locally in every member state where the population wants that.
I'd be more fine with that if they only regulated narrowly defined inter-state issues in the EU.
But stuff like this... There's no mandate. And there's no reason this couldn't be done locally in every member state where the population wants that.
I don't know where you are from but in my country I never voted for the President of Republic. I can't: the President is elected by the Parliament, which I vote for. I also never voted for the Prime Minister. I can't: it's appointed by the President. Despite currently being the leader of the largest party, her closest predecessors have not been the leaders of the largest party since 10 years ago. Actually the President can appoint anybody, there are not even rules about citizenship, place of residence or being elected. The previous three Prime Ministers were not elected by anyone. By the way, a government is still government even if it does not have a majority support in Parliament. It will have a hard life doing anything but technically that's not a problem.
In the EU we have the Parliament, which is elected by the people, the Council which is composed by Prime Ministers, Presidents, whoever rules each country and the Commission, which is proposed by the Council and elected by the Parliament. Not so different from what I see in my country.
In the EU we have the Parliament, which is elected by the people, the Council which is composed by Prime Ministers, Presidents, whoever rules each country and the Commission, which is proposed by the Council and elected by the Parliament. Not so different from what I see in my country.
> Who elected those guys anyway?
EP elections are well publicized and every EU citizen has the right to vote on it
"Every five years EU citizens choose who represents them in the European Parliament, the directly-elected institution that defends their interests in the EU decision-making process. The next European elections will take place in 2024."
EP elections are well publicized and every EU citizen has the right to vote on it
"Every five years EU citizens choose who represents them in the European Parliament, the directly-elected institution that defends their interests in the EU decision-making process. The next European elections will take place in 2024."
Of course.
I always vote in the EP election.
I just find it incredible that when the results are in the people at the top are some guys I've never heard or seen before. And I don't believe I'm uncommonly ill-infomed.
Moving power further away from the electorate should be a last resort for issues that can simply not be handled on the local level.
I always vote in the EP election.
I just find it incredible that when the results are in the people at the top are some guys I've never heard or seen before. And I don't believe I'm uncommonly ill-infomed.
Moving power further away from the electorate should be a last resort for issues that can simply not be handled on the local level.
> I just find it incredible that when the results are in the people at the top are some guys I've never heard or seen before. And I don't believe I'm uncommonly ill-infomed.
that may happen when many separate countries merge their candidate pools to form a single parliament, and its up to the parties to distribute their seats - I would think that an exact representation of members from all countries within the available seats for the party would be hard to achieve, though.
> Moving power further away from the electorate should be a last resort for issues that can simply not be handled on the local level.
This is true to some extend, however you have to somehow ensure that all individual pieces work in a collaborative mode and support each other, because once you get in competitive mode, its a race to the bottom for everyone.
that may happen when many separate countries merge their candidate pools to form a single parliament, and its up to the parties to distribute their seats - I would think that an exact representation of members from all countries within the available seats for the party would be hard to achieve, though.
> Moving power further away from the electorate should be a last resort for issues that can simply not be handled on the local level.
This is true to some extend, however you have to somehow ensure that all individual pieces work in a collaborative mode and support each other, because once you get in competitive mode, its a race to the bottom for everyone.
> because once you get in competitive mode, its a race to the bottom for everyone.
I don't understand / buy that argument. I find it quite neo-liberal in the sense that it assumes countries will deterministically mindlessly engage in a race to the bottom.
The "prisoners dilemma" is a problem of course. But people and countries can and do cooperate despite that.
For this reason, it's not clear to me that EU countries would automatically slash their environment regulations and corruption prevention efforts in a "race to the bottom" if the EU wasn't there stopping them.
I don't understand / buy that argument. I find it quite neo-liberal in the sense that it assumes countries will deterministically mindlessly engage in a race to the bottom.
The "prisoners dilemma" is a problem of course. But people and countries can and do cooperate despite that.
For this reason, it's not clear to me that EU countries would automatically slash their environment regulations and corruption prevention efforts in a "race to the bottom" if the EU wasn't there stopping them.
Well, we actually vote for the EU parliament every 5 (?) years here in Germany. Where are you from that you didn't have to option to vote?
I vote. I just think the distance between us voters and the people who end up in the EU "government" is too big.
Democracy gets diluted when the electorate becomes too large and too diverse. It's important that decisions stay as local as possible.
Democracy gets diluted when the electorate becomes too large and too diverse. It's important that decisions stay as local as possible.
sometimes, a decision _could_ be made local, but an _even better_ ooutcome could be achieven going a bit higher level.
Like, image some county that needs energy, has no natural gifts regarding that but has land to farm upon. Instead of exporting food and importing coal from somewhere to fire up a new plant, it could also exchange energy with a more gifted county that has plenty of green energy but doesn't need something from them.
To make this work, a higher level entity can force the exchange, and ensure that the whole area doesn't suffer from pollution despite that being the cheapest or even only possible way for the individual county. It COULD be solved there, but everyone is worse off by not cooperating.
Actually, the EU has a huge power potential if only the member states would finally cut back on individual national interests so that mutual agreements and shared legislation/taxes/military/... could be setup properly - which might worse some situations in the short term, but ensures greater wealth for everyone longterm. The "I I I" egoistic thinking of individual member states is the greatest weakness the EU has - unified we can achieve so much more!
Like, image some county that needs energy, has no natural gifts regarding that but has land to farm upon. Instead of exporting food and importing coal from somewhere to fire up a new plant, it could also exchange energy with a more gifted county that has plenty of green energy but doesn't need something from them.
To make this work, a higher level entity can force the exchange, and ensure that the whole area doesn't suffer from pollution despite that being the cheapest or even only possible way for the individual county. It COULD be solved there, but everyone is worse off by not cooperating.
Actually, the EU has a huge power potential if only the member states would finally cut back on individual national interests so that mutual agreements and shared legislation/taxes/military/... could be setup properly - which might worse some situations in the short term, but ensures greater wealth for everyone longterm. The "I I I" egoistic thinking of individual member states is the greatest weakness the EU has - unified we can achieve so much more!
Sure I'm all for standardization and cooperation. But this is not that. What parlament in Europe would pass this legislation if it was a motion in the national parlament? (Assume for a second it would be feasible even for smaller countries to pass legislation that international tech giants has to comply with.)
Because any government's primary objective is to secure the power of the government, and most governments including western "democratic" ones view their people as the biggest threat to that objective. Which they are right about, mind you.
Any institution's primary objective is to secure it's own power (the second is to expand those powers). It's as true for governments as it is for corporations, religions, and even the home gardening club.
Sounds like good argument for competition. I haven't heard of a case where a garden club expanded it's power enough to prevent members from leaving and establishing their own.
Garden clubs usually don't have police and armies. They have to bend to powers that do have them, usually the judiciary system, which can summon police. A garden club with police and an army doesn't have to bend to anyone and might force members not to leave.
Depends on the definition of "garden club". Indeed, you probably could call early agriculturists somewhere in Middle East a "garden club".
> most governments including western "democratic" ones view their people as the biggest threat to that objective
Which is particularly farcical when you realize that in the 20th century, governments murdered tens of millions of people. Governments are concentrations of power that wield monopolies on violence. If governments can be kept under control, kept within some reasonable guardrails, then they're very useful for various reasons. I am not an anarchist, even remotely. But when governments get out of control the result is often millions dead.
Governments which view those guardrails as a threat from the people are a threat to the people. Such perceptions prove the necessity of those guardrails.
Which is particularly farcical when you realize that in the 20th century, governments murdered tens of millions of people. Governments are concentrations of power that wield monopolies on violence. If governments can be kept under control, kept within some reasonable guardrails, then they're very useful for various reasons. I am not an anarchist, even remotely. But when governments get out of control the result is often millions dead.
Governments which view those guardrails as a threat from the people are a threat to the people. Such perceptions prove the necessity of those guardrails.
I agree. With this in mind, can government ever fully work?
It seems like it’s becoming a behemoth that will need to be killed and redesigned in the future, just like it happened in the past
It seems like it’s becoming a behemoth that will need to be killed and redesigned in the future, just like it happened in the past
Is this not exactly what was meant by "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants"? We treat government like a monument to be preserved for posterity, but it is not. Government is a living thing and it follows a cycle of growth and decay that eventually requires culling, just like any other form of life.
It will never fully work, as we have as many opinions on what good government looks like as there are people on this earth. What one considers good government, is someone else’s nightmare government.
This is a really dumb thing to say and it really undermines the power of every day people to have a say in how our world is run.
The Government is our voice and our strength, and we are going to need that voice heard and our will exercised in the coming years.
We need to stop undermining our governments, we need to get money out of politics, and we need to sort out our democracies.
The Government is our voice and our strength, and we are going to need that voice heard and our will exercised in the coming years.
We need to stop undermining our governments, we need to get money out of politics, and we need to sort out our democracies.
Calling things you disagree with "really dumb" is not an effective way to change minds.
Unless you are part of the 0.01% richest (or something like that), governments are not your voice or strength, and you have essentially no ability to influence their actions. Governments are composed of politicians and other people who will act in what they consider to be their own best interest. Those interests will generally be very different from the interests of most other people.
Getting money out of politics is impossible. Politicians are not going to vote to make themselves less well off, and lobbyists will rarely fund the campaigns of those who would make lobbying less effective.
Instead of looking to governments for solutions to problems they are neither capable of solving nor willing to solve, we should try to solve those problems by voluntary cooperation whenever possible.
Unless you are part of the 0.01% richest (or something like that), governments are not your voice or strength, and you have essentially no ability to influence their actions. Governments are composed of politicians and other people who will act in what they consider to be their own best interest. Those interests will generally be very different from the interests of most other people.
Getting money out of politics is impossible. Politicians are not going to vote to make themselves less well off, and lobbyists will rarely fund the campaigns of those who would make lobbying less effective.
Instead of looking to governments for solutions to problems they are neither capable of solving nor willing to solve, we should try to solve those problems by voluntary cooperation whenever possible.
How can you possibly be this naive?
In reality it's always Michel's Iron law of Oligarchy. It doesn't matter what political system you think you have. In the end what you have is always an oligarchy.
In reality it's always Michel's Iron law of Oligarchy. It doesn't matter what political system you think you have. In the end what you have is always an oligarchy.
How can you possibly be this cynical?
There are bad actors and corruption in every political system. But different systems and different implementations of them have different levels of these.
I would say most governments do an OK job (compared to say 1000 years ago, or compared to what any bloody revolution could do within 10 years), given how difficult the task is of governing a lot of people with vastly different interests and opinions. There is also still a lot of room for improvement. If you don't like the way your government works, try to improve it. Be part of it. Saying everything is corrupt no matter what is completely useless. I also doubt it makes you feel better overall, at least any longer than the moment you take to write such a comment.
There are bad actors and corruption in every political system. But different systems and different implementations of them have different levels of these.
I would say most governments do an OK job (compared to say 1000 years ago, or compared to what any bloody revolution could do within 10 years), given how difficult the task is of governing a lot of people with vastly different interests and opinions. There is also still a lot of room for improvement. If you don't like the way your government works, try to improve it. Be part of it. Saying everything is corrupt no matter what is completely useless. I also doubt it makes you feel better overall, at least any longer than the moment you take to write such a comment.
> How can you possibly be this cynical?
It sounds cynical - yes, but we have to deal with reality as it is. Not as we would wish it to be. Surely that is the lesson on the last 10-15 years of poltics.
Power simply doesn't work this way. Power always collects in the hands of an organized minority - be it a king and his inner circle, or in the power brokers, government institutions, political party internal governmental structures, media hacks, NGOs, and state institutions, and the money power of western democracies.
Understand this.
There is no vote you can cast to evict any of these people.
Furthermore, they control the information dissemination aparatus. Like kafabe in pro-wrestling, they have complete control over the narrative story arcs, and they define the oppinions that are acceptable in society.
Take the US government, for example. Just think about the vast - almost boundless state power they have amassed. They spy on every single communication anyone makes on the internet. They even assassinated a sitting US president, for goodness sake.
Do you think if you just meekly ask them, they'll simply hand over the whole structure into the hands of their sworn enemies? No - it won't ever happen. Your guy will be installed, and he will find his every action is thwarted. He will be effectively powerless. And if you complain, they'll laugh in your face.
More generally:
A mass of people is powerless. You must know this from real life: you can't expect a group of 1000 people to take responsibility for achieving some objective. The group will instinctively look to a leader to guide them, and they will wait for someone to take charge. That person will then need a group of lieutenants to administrate his leadership, and hey presto: there's your oligarchy.
There's nothing wrong with this. The Iron Law of Oligarchy is a reflection of human nature. There is nothing wrong with "kings", various "lords" and officials, if they have the people's best intests in mind.
The problem is democracy is that it allows responsibility to be diffused among the people. Who will ever be held responsible for the Afghanistan withdrawall debacle? Or for the Iraq war? Or for the Snowden files? Or for the trillions of US government debt? ..to name just a few.
No one will ever be held responsible, because democracy allows the oligarchs to point the finger back at the people, and blame us for our choices, when in reality we really have no control over the matter whatsoever.
At least our ancestors could pick up pitch forks and carry their heads out on pikes if things became untennable.
We cannot hold power to account in any way at all. They don't fear us in the slightest. In 2023, this should be pretty obvious to anyone who is paying attention.
It sounds cynical - yes, but we have to deal with reality as it is. Not as we would wish it to be. Surely that is the lesson on the last 10-15 years of poltics.
Power simply doesn't work this way. Power always collects in the hands of an organized minority - be it a king and his inner circle, or in the power brokers, government institutions, political party internal governmental structures, media hacks, NGOs, and state institutions, and the money power of western democracies.
Understand this.
There is no vote you can cast to evict any of these people.
Furthermore, they control the information dissemination aparatus. Like kafabe in pro-wrestling, they have complete control over the narrative story arcs, and they define the oppinions that are acceptable in society.
Take the US government, for example. Just think about the vast - almost boundless state power they have amassed. They spy on every single communication anyone makes on the internet. They even assassinated a sitting US president, for goodness sake.
Do you think if you just meekly ask them, they'll simply hand over the whole structure into the hands of their sworn enemies? No - it won't ever happen. Your guy will be installed, and he will find his every action is thwarted. He will be effectively powerless. And if you complain, they'll laugh in your face.
More generally:
A mass of people is powerless. You must know this from real life: you can't expect a group of 1000 people to take responsibility for achieving some objective. The group will instinctively look to a leader to guide them, and they will wait for someone to take charge. That person will then need a group of lieutenants to administrate his leadership, and hey presto: there's your oligarchy.
There's nothing wrong with this. The Iron Law of Oligarchy is a reflection of human nature. There is nothing wrong with "kings", various "lords" and officials, if they have the people's best intests in mind.
The problem is democracy is that it allows responsibility to be diffused among the people. Who will ever be held responsible for the Afghanistan withdrawall debacle? Or for the Iraq war? Or for the Snowden files? Or for the trillions of US government debt? ..to name just a few.
No one will ever be held responsible, because democracy allows the oligarchs to point the finger back at the people, and blame us for our choices, when in reality we really have no control over the matter whatsoever.
At least our ancestors could pick up pitch forks and carry their heads out on pikes if things became untennable.
We cannot hold power to account in any way at all. They don't fear us in the slightest. In 2023, this should be pretty obvious to anyone who is paying attention.
I prefer popular sovereignty. You can support a government.
How does popular sovereignty work without some collective entity imposing accountability on bad actors?
It's simple. Once there are enough sovereign citizens, they can band together and form an agreement to work together for mutual protection. They will probably need to lay out at a minimum what is unacceptable for their group and steer towards common ground. I'm not sure what they should call this group. Since they are steering and Latin is popular for naming things how about we call it something like gubernare? I guess that sounds a bit old fashioned. Maybe French would help? Gouvernement? No sounds too fancy. Government? PERFECT! Let's call it that.
Unless you can actually address what I wrote, explain why it is a "really dumb thing to say", I'll chalk that up to you being bewildered and terrified by the truth in what I say. That's okay, many people are completely subservient to authority, dependent on the government, want to be ruled and protected. I pass no moral judgement in my comment, merely explain why the EU is desperate to surveil their own citizens.
Hazarding a guess: the 'really dumb thing' is portraying democratic government as a distinct, foreign, hostile, and alien entity that any sane and morally upstanding person would minimize their interaction with, barely giving theirs 'unto Caesar' and getting away as quickly as possible. It teaches and reinforces apathy and learned helplessness when it comes to effecting change on matters of public policy. Ultimately, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
It's entirely healthy, and necessary, to treat government as an extremely dangerous necessity that requires constant attention to make sure it doesn't overstep.
> Hazarding a guess: the 'really dumb thing' is portraying democratic government as a distinct, foreign, hostile, and alien entity that any sane and morally upstanding person would minimize their interaction with, barely giving theirs 'unto Caesar' and getting away as quickly as possible.
That's not how I portrayed it. What I portrayed is the reality of how people and organizations operate within society. It's quite telling that some people are too fragile to hear even a tiny bit of criticism or slightly different perspective about their God, the government.
> It teaches and reinforces apathy and learned helplessness when it comes to effecting change on matters of public policy. Ultimately, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
No it doesn't, subservience and dependence on the government and viewing them as "the experts", the moral authority, to be implicitly trusted, and who aim primarily to serve others above themselves, is what reinforces apathy and helplessness and dependency.
Look at all the wars America and "the west" at large has got into, because all "the experts" said we had to go to war, and you were a traitor, an expert-denier, "against us", etc., if you disagreed. The same exact strategy and rhetoric is used everywhere once you see it. Enemies are created, division is sown, critics are denounced... A little bit less blind faith and trust in government and their alleged "experts", and a bit more rational thinking and questioning would have gone a long way on many occasions. That is the dangerous apathy and faith in government that has quite literally caused the loss of millions of lives and trillions of dollars since WWII.
It's funny, I get a lot of this kind of pushback from people, with my simple observations of reality. Most of it seems to come from the same people who will simultaneously go on endlessly about how corrupt the government is, how much it spends on war, how racist and bigoted it is, how subservient to corporations and lobbyists, how it doesn't provide good healthcare, its police forces are brutal and unjust, justice system provides favorable outcomes for the wealthy, it doesn't do enough to solve climate change, doesn't make billionaires and corporations pay enough tax, etc.
... And yet when I point out the obvious, gee maybe that's because the government care more about themselves than they care about you, these same people suddenly lose their minds.
And I'll bet dollars to donuts I know where you and OP and anybody who criticizes me for making that comment generally on most of those above issues.
The thing about the sad truth versus a happy lie is that the sad truth doesn't prevent you from taking any action, participating in the system, trying to improve it or make it work for you. It's actually the happy lie that does that. Sure there are those who will become paralyzed with terror at the idea that the authority they are subservient to and essentially worship is not completely good and moral, but those people weren't going to change anything anyway.
That's not how I portrayed it. What I portrayed is the reality of how people and organizations operate within society. It's quite telling that some people are too fragile to hear even a tiny bit of criticism or slightly different perspective about their God, the government.
> It teaches and reinforces apathy and learned helplessness when it comes to effecting change on matters of public policy. Ultimately, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
No it doesn't, subservience and dependence on the government and viewing them as "the experts", the moral authority, to be implicitly trusted, and who aim primarily to serve others above themselves, is what reinforces apathy and helplessness and dependency.
Look at all the wars America and "the west" at large has got into, because all "the experts" said we had to go to war, and you were a traitor, an expert-denier, "against us", etc., if you disagreed. The same exact strategy and rhetoric is used everywhere once you see it. Enemies are created, division is sown, critics are denounced... A little bit less blind faith and trust in government and their alleged "experts", and a bit more rational thinking and questioning would have gone a long way on many occasions. That is the dangerous apathy and faith in government that has quite literally caused the loss of millions of lives and trillions of dollars since WWII.
It's funny, I get a lot of this kind of pushback from people, with my simple observations of reality. Most of it seems to come from the same people who will simultaneously go on endlessly about how corrupt the government is, how much it spends on war, how racist and bigoted it is, how subservient to corporations and lobbyists, how it doesn't provide good healthcare, its police forces are brutal and unjust, justice system provides favorable outcomes for the wealthy, it doesn't do enough to solve climate change, doesn't make billionaires and corporations pay enough tax, etc.
... And yet when I point out the obvious, gee maybe that's because the government care more about themselves than they care about you, these same people suddenly lose their minds.
And I'll bet dollars to donuts I know where you and OP and anybody who criticizes me for making that comment generally on most of those above issues.
The thing about the sad truth versus a happy lie is that the sad truth doesn't prevent you from taking any action, participating in the system, trying to improve it or make it work for you. It's actually the happy lie that does that. Sure there are those who will become paralyzed with terror at the idea that the authority they are subservient to and essentially worship is not completely good and moral, but those people weren't going to change anything anyway.
Given the leverage inherent in government, self-dealing is always going to be a problem. Yes, given the cornucopia of moral hazards, it will always be attractive to charismatic sociopaths. And yes, even people of relatively sound moral intent easily fall prey to the opportunities for personal profit.
That does not require it to be 'the' government and for it to cease being 'our' government. Further, a sense of ownership and a desire to work constructively with the parts that improve our lives does not require me to abdicate moral judgement to its authority. Finally, believing that public office can and should be an honourable pursuit does not imply or require that I believe that my current representation comes anywhere close of meeting that standard.
You are correct to assume that I believe my current government enables or even engages in injustices against certain cohorts of the population. Yes, I even believe that I benefit from significant inter-generational privilege that others were actively denied. No, that neither means that my life is a cakewalk, nor does it compel me to plead forgiveness in the gutter. It does however instill a duty to raise those less fortunate up when I have the means to do so. It also compels me to advocate for collective action to do the same.
Ultimately, I don't see embodying alienation between a democratic government and its citizens to be a reasonable source of tribalistic pride. It's fucked, and fixing it should be almost as existentially compelling as eating or surviving the elements.
That does not require it to be 'the' government and for it to cease being 'our' government. Further, a sense of ownership and a desire to work constructively with the parts that improve our lives does not require me to abdicate moral judgement to its authority. Finally, believing that public office can and should be an honourable pursuit does not imply or require that I believe that my current representation comes anywhere close of meeting that standard.
You are correct to assume that I believe my current government enables or even engages in injustices against certain cohorts of the population. Yes, I even believe that I benefit from significant inter-generational privilege that others were actively denied. No, that neither means that my life is a cakewalk, nor does it compel me to plead forgiveness in the gutter. It does however instill a duty to raise those less fortunate up when I have the means to do so. It also compels me to advocate for collective action to do the same.
Ultimately, I don't see embodying alienation between a democratic government and its citizens to be a reasonable source of tribalistic pride. It's fucked, and fixing it should be almost as existentially compelling as eating or surviving the elements.
[deleted]
But it IS hostile and alien. It's an emergent superorganism that doesn't give a fuck about its component parts, just like the anthill doesn't give a fuck about its component ants or people don't give a fuck about their component choanoflagellates.
Remember the "Brexit was just about racism" folks?
To be fair it’s not like the UK lags behind in randomly proposing authoritarian stuff.
Yes it is true.
[deleted]
Yes. Then. For the next decade on HN we are reminded, during almost every thread "This is against European Commission title X". Well, too bad for them, all my products strictly adhere to Congolese law for data privacy and Ecquadorian law for data retention. Since we are randomly deciding which counties laws we should abide by - yet don't live in.
Because the European Commission is not a democratic institutionen! Those bureaucrats are mostly announced, not elected. And each European nation is only sending those politicians into the Commission, that are unwanted in national politics.
In other words: The European Commission is the autocratic reservoir for conservative politicians that were to extremistic for national audiences.
In other words: The European Commission is the autocratic reservoir for conservative politicians that were to extremistic for national audiences.
If you really think that those guys are extremists, then you haven't seen nothing yet.
Take a peek over to Italian politics and you get a glimpse of what could be coming.
Or Israel.
Take a peek over to Italian politics and you get a glimpse of what could be coming.
Or Israel.
Politicians are sent to Brussels as a reward, not as a form of exile. Those who are most compliant, lacking in initiative, devoid of original ideas, are sent there, after a career in national politics. They're not unwanted, and they're not conservative. They are just obedient non-entities.
It's the iron law of oligarchy. In democracies, politicians need to constantly justify their existence or people might question how their taxes are spent. If you're a sociopath after money and power (elected and appointed roles self-select these traits), you must reinforce a constant narrative of "solving" society's ills.
This pushing, forever persistent, accretes ever greater power to departments and their bureaucrats until the people have no say, and the highest elected offices have no say. Of course, the EU was initially designed this way, so you're fucked any way you frame it.
This pushing, forever persistent, accretes ever greater power to departments and their bureaucrats until the people have no say, and the highest elected offices have no say. Of course, the EU was initially designed this way, so you're fucked any way you frame it.
Because European people keep voting for their local parties that nominate these commissioners. Your complaint is ultimately with European voters for voting "wrong".
Because EU residents allowed them to continue to legislate themselves into irrelevancy. Nobody spoke against GDPR, which is an utterly toothless annoyance.
GDPR achieved nothing notable for data security and privacy, except by spamming cookie prompts and training users to accept anything.
The EU is an incompetent, lumbering, bureaucratic hellscape. It expanded FAR beyond its original remit of a customs union, and in turn created horrific legislation and usurped the power of national governments to centralize power in Brussels.
The EU used its newly seized power to crush all free speech, freedom of expression and dissent, along with explicitly campaigning for censorship. [1]
[1] https://www.npr.org/2022/04/23/1094485542/eu-law-big-tech-ha...
GDPR achieved nothing notable for data security and privacy, except by spamming cookie prompts and training users to accept anything.
The EU is an incompetent, lumbering, bureaucratic hellscape. It expanded FAR beyond its original remit of a customs union, and in turn created horrific legislation and usurped the power of national governments to centralize power in Brussels.
The EU used its newly seized power to crush all free speech, freedom of expression and dissent, along with explicitly campaigning for censorship. [1]
[1] https://www.npr.org/2022/04/23/1094485542/eu-law-big-tech-ha...
I got Google to reinstate my locked account thanks to the GDPR. Conversely, my brother in a non-european country was locked out of his Apple account and is SOL because his country doesn't have the same protections I do and Apple can simply ignore him. And the fact that companies have to tell me how they are tracking me has been eye-opening.
As far as I'm concerned, GDPR is great.
As far as I'm concerned, GDPR is great.
Only techbros in the mass surveillance industry get bent out of shape over GDPR. I have never once heard a single person outside this description complain about it. It's a pet peeve for peeping programmers.
The most important critique of GDPR is actually that its not enforced more often/strictly and that the maximum damages are _still_ too low to make many companies actually care.
This is especially important in the age of LLM's.
Large scale surveillance while abusive and harmful has historically been limited in scale by the ability of those in control to trawl through data.
Automated "moderation" of dragnet communications collection with modern AI holds the potential for a scale of abusive privacy invasion at unprecedented scales.
Large scale surveillance while abusive and harmful has historically been limited in scale by the ability of those in control to trawl through data.
Automated "moderation" of dragnet communications collection with modern AI holds the potential for a scale of abusive privacy invasion at unprecedented scales.
Interesting… I was thinking the opposite…
My personal ability to generate millions of real-looking messages has now exploded and I wonder how these proposed structures will function if everyone sends each other 1k suspicious messages every minute of every day ?
Maybe attach a zip-bomb to every message just for good measure?
My personal ability to generate millions of real-looking messages has now exploded and I wonder how these proposed structures will function if everyone sends each other 1k suspicious messages every minute of every day ?
Maybe attach a zip-bomb to every message just for good measure?
The problem isn't really that it works or doesn't work. The problem is that once we accept digital "evidence" then we're on course to push-button corruption.
Remember "Hacking Team" that got busted a few years back? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacking_Team One of the services they sold was the ability to plant incriminating data on a victim's computer.
Remember "Hacking Team" that got busted a few years back? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacking_Team One of the services they sold was the ability to plant incriminating data on a victim's computer.
The first people getting onboard the idea have to be brave and assume that others will follow suit to reach useful noise levels, otherwise those few will end up in a world of trouble.
You won't be able to do that. Spam filtering exists and mostly isn't based on message contents looking real or not.
You can't use current spam filters to fight against this, provided the system is implemented correctly.
Let's assume you send 1000 automated messages periodically, and they contain a mixed bag of normal looking (so that your genuine comms could hide in plain sight) and malicious messages (to make their detection systems sweat).
All the messages are sent from the same origin (e.g.: a messaging app capable of this), with a specific interval (the genuine msg is timed accordingly), etc..
Let's see a small sample of normal looking messages, with an added genuine manually written message:
- Let's meet up at the Riverside Park soccer field at 5 PM sharp.
- Hey, can you grab a gallon of milk from the corner store on your way back?
- Good morning! Wishing you a fantastic day ahead, especially during your 11 AM meeting!
- Just a reminder: our dinner reservation at Luigi's Italian Bistro is at 7 PM tonight.
- Could you pick up the kids from Maplewood Elementary at 3:30 PM today? Work is keeping me busy.
- Caught in traffic near Main Street, but I'll be at the coffee shop in about 10 minutes!
Which one is the genuine one?
Just like you cannot discern which msg is genuine (are any of them?), you can generate plausible maliciously looking messages as well.
Let's assume you send 1000 automated messages periodically, and they contain a mixed bag of normal looking (so that your genuine comms could hide in plain sight) and malicious messages (to make their detection systems sweat).
All the messages are sent from the same origin (e.g.: a messaging app capable of this), with a specific interval (the genuine msg is timed accordingly), etc..
Let's see a small sample of normal looking messages, with an added genuine manually written message:
- Let's meet up at the Riverside Park soccer field at 5 PM sharp.
- Hey, can you grab a gallon of milk from the corner store on your way back?
- Good morning! Wishing you a fantastic day ahead, especially during your 11 AM meeting!
- Just a reminder: our dinner reservation at Luigi's Italian Bistro is at 7 PM tonight.
- Could you pick up the kids from Maplewood Elementary at 3:30 PM today? Work is keeping me busy.
- Caught in traffic near Main Street, but I'll be at the coffee shop in about 10 minutes!
Which one is the genuine one?
Just like you cannot discern which msg is genuine (are any of them?), you can generate plausible maliciously looking messages as well.
Again, that's not how spam filters actually work in the real world. They hardly care about message contents. They care about how many spam reports users file and those are weighed against non-reported messages for any stable identity like phone number, sending domain name, etc.
Spam meanwhile is defined as messages users don't want. If users can't tell the difference between spam and non-spam then, by definition, the messages are not spam.
If you send lots of "legit" messages to people who don't want them you'll be reported as a spammer and get banned. Doesn't matter what the messages say.
Spam meanwhile is defined as messages users don't want. If users can't tell the difference between spam and non-spam then, by definition, the messages are not spam.
If you send lots of "legit" messages to people who don't want them you'll be reported as a spammer and get banned. Doesn't matter what the messages say.
Oh sorry, I missed a part, and you are misunderstanding me.
I understand you know how real world spam filters work, but this is a different use case.
I'm not trying to generate spam, I'm talking about an IM app, where you have your contacts, and you can talk with each other and only see the legit messages.
I can elaborate, but please continue in a non-adversarial way if possible.
I understand you know how real world spam filters work, but this is a different use case.
I'm not trying to generate spam, I'm talking about an IM app, where you have your contacts, and you can talk with each other and only see the legit messages.
I can elaborate, but please continue in a non-adversarial way if possible.
But the IM client will need a way to differentiate the noise messages from the ones intended for the human recipient. Whatever denotes a message as being intended for humans can also be used by the surveillance apparatus to ignore the noise messages.
But who actually does that? We need billions of people doing that every day to have an effect.
How did you arrive at this number "billions"?
The equation is more like # of ppl × # of msgs in a time period = noise
We can increase the # of msgs to bring down the other side from "billions" I think.
The equation is more like # of ppl × # of msgs in a time period = noise
We can increase the # of msgs to bring down the other side from "billions" I think.
From the perspective of EU leaders, LLMs are the final ingredient. They won't be able to sleep knowing the NSA is having all the fun without them.
[deleted]
Two people with the same LLM weights could generate some powerful stenography. A lot could be hidden in the supposedly random choices the LLM uses to choose it's words. It would all appear to be a normal conversation to any outsiders.
Just as ML vision and surveillance have been used in China to genocide Uyghurs, LLM and anti-privacy laws will be able to trivially replace the need for human collaborators in the perpetuation of any arbitrary atrocity.
You still need people to perform the actual atrocity once the victims are chosen. That is, unless you also assume military robots, which you didn't list.
While I appreciate their efforts 100% it's sad people need infographics and ads to know why this is a terrible idea.
Although I've seen enough HN comments in recent years willing to gamble on giving their kind an inch as if they won't take the whole field given the chance. History's only reliable lesson here is humans having a short memory of trusting these systems to do what they initially promised they would do, for longer than the well-intentioned's term in office.
Although I've seen enough HN comments in recent years willing to gamble on giving their kind an inch as if they won't take the whole field given the chance. History's only reliable lesson here is humans having a short memory of trusting these systems to do what they initially promised they would do, for longer than the well-intentioned's term in office.
I think people are generally happy when such systems get repurposed, because the new purpose is likely to be something they're happy with when it comes. For example, in New Zealand, a car number plate tracking system that was only supposed to be used for specific purposes like finding stolen cars, was improperly used during covid lockdowns to catch some people who had been given permission to travel to another region and were doing so legally but the government discovered the permission was a mistake and wanted to stop them. Everyone loved it because bogey-man covid was more important than whatever promises some politician seduced people with years ago.
If I lived in the EU I'd want to know who are proposing this kind of stuff and help with anything that gets them far from public and government -related jobs forever, but hey, that's me. Lots of people like to give up a bit of freedom and privacy in exchange for an increased sense of security.
It is EU commissioner Ylva Johansson. Unfortunately, there is not much you can do. She is not elected to this position, but appointed, and in this case by a former government who is no longer in power.
EU seems to have an abundance of unelected regulatory positions. Eurosceptics are right in that EU represents a form of non-democratic decision-making which has the power to supersede (more) democratically formulated laws from member states. Ideally, the autocratic tendencies of the EU and the member states should cancel out by disagreeing with each other, but in reality member states seem unwilling to oppose them most of the times.
> EU seems to have an abundance of unelected regulatory positions.
Like many other system in the World, elections are to chose people's representatives, not to chose the government nor the technical apparatus (like the EU commission).
The US president is one notable example of non elected position.
Anyway, the proposals must be approved by the parliament, which is elected directly by the EU people in number proportional to the population of the single countries and then ratified by the single EU parliaments, which are again elected by the people.
I wouldn't exactly call it "abundance of unelected regulatory positions".
Like many other system in the World, elections are to chose people's representatives, not to chose the government nor the technical apparatus (like the EU commission).
The US president is one notable example of non elected position.
Anyway, the proposals must be approved by the parliament, which is elected directly by the EU people in number proportional to the population of the single countries and then ratified by the single EU parliaments, which are again elected by the people.
I wouldn't exactly call it "abundance of unelected regulatory positions".
Partially yeah, as well as the complete lack of legislative initiative for the parliament, the only part that's directly elected by citizens.
On the other hand though: Europeans kinda suck as a blob. See Italy electing fascists again, Germany stagnating for decades under Conservative control, basically everything east of Germany etc. Etc. The parliament is dominated by Conservative authoritarian forces as well. In that sense EU legislature is just too good at representing it's people.
I gave a speech to my computer science course when the new copyright directive was about to go into its final trilogue round in 2018. Wide agreement in discussion afterwards, but not a single student cared enough to make their wishes known to their MEPs. If even they don't do it, i can only say we're getting what we asked for.
On the other hand though: Europeans kinda suck as a blob. See Italy electing fascists again, Germany stagnating for decades under Conservative control, basically everything east of Germany etc. Etc. The parliament is dominated by Conservative authoritarian forces as well. In that sense EU legislature is just too good at representing it's people.
I gave a speech to my computer science course when the new copyright directive was about to go into its final trilogue round in 2018. Wide agreement in discussion afterwards, but not a single student cared enough to make their wishes known to their MEPs. If even they don't do it, i can only say we're getting what we asked for.
> but in reality member states seem unwilling to oppose them most of the times
That’s because when some of them do they get threatened with sanctions while others can simply dictate policy. The eu is not an equal members club.
That’s because when some of them do they get threatened with sanctions while others can simply dictate policy. The eu is not an equal members club.
That sounds like she's pretty close to being a lame duck, and has little to lose, popularity wise. If that's correct, she's in an optimal place to become unhinged from a lack of accountability. I'm curious in this case if it's being a professional fall-guy or engaging in their own (u|dys)topian radicalism.
> She is not elected to this position, but appointed
She is appointed and vetted by the parliament, who is elected directly by the people.
So the commissioners do not come from Mars, they are emissaries of the elected parliament.
She is appointed and vetted by the parliament, who is elected directly by the people.
So the commissioners do not come from Mars, they are emissaries of the elected parliament.
To add to this, it's likely to 'originate' from (and is supported by) Thorn[0], which was discussed the previous post of mullvad's campaign.
[0]: https://www.thorn.org/about-our-fight-against-sexual-exploit...
[0]: https://www.thorn.org/about-our-fight-against-sexual-exploit...
This, it's Ashton Kutcher wanting to sell his tech snake oil
But remember, it's racists in the UK who wanted to leave this organization.
Let's just see what the Brexit party is up to…
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/21/meta-wont-allowe...
Oh.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/21/meta-wont-allowe...
Oh.
Its not like UK is doing better without EU.
A little early to judge, it's been 2 years.
It's not too early to judge, it's going badly right now, that's clear.
Oh, it's clear? Why did nobody tell me. I take it back then. I am glad to hear a complex evolving geopolitical situation can be easily reducted to a simple judgement like that. It's a relief.
It's clear it's going badly now yes. That's obvious. What you're confusing is the situation now with the situation in the future. I wish I could say it's an easy mistake to make, but it's not. Maybe you can plausibly argue that Brexit will be a success one day in the future, but you absolutely cannot argue that it's a success right now. That would not be serious.
> If I lived in the EU I'd want to know who are proposing this kind of stuff
We all know who these people are.
It's a public discussion.
> and help with anything that gets them far from public and government
It simply means winning the elections at the EU parliament, which, unfortunately for Mullvad, it's not something they will ever be able to do.
Mullvad posts might be popular here on HN, maybe, but they move no more than a few thousands votes in the EU (we are 450 million people).
We all know who these people are.
It's a public discussion.
> and help with anything that gets them far from public and government
It simply means winning the elections at the EU parliament, which, unfortunately for Mullvad, it's not something they will ever be able to do.
Mullvad posts might be popular here on HN, maybe, but they move no more than a few thousands votes in the EU (we are 450 million people).
You won't get very far. The EU is an anti-democratic organization.
if the EU is anti democratic, then there's no democracy on this planet.
Show me another place where 27 countries live peacefully together and jointly govern an entire sub continent, by collaborating together and discussing publicly about their political proposals.
Of course it has its problems, of course it takes a lot of effort to bring 27 countries together on a subject, of course there will be controversial opinions among its members, depending on the POV (a lot more people in EU agree with the chat control proposal than those who disagree), but that's the price of democracy.
Show me another place where 27 countries live peacefully together and jointly govern an entire sub continent, by collaborating together and discussing publicly about their political proposals.
Of course it has its problems, of course it takes a lot of effort to bring 27 countries together on a subject, of course there will be controversial opinions among its members, depending on the POV (a lot more people in EU agree with the chat control proposal than those who disagree), but that's the price of democracy.
The price of democracy in a region or organization is the minority of votes not getting the result they want and only that. Nothing to do with privacy.
Not having privacy is a consequence of authoritarianism, be it for a greater good (to find child abusers) or not (to find dissidents).
> The price of democracy in a region or organization is the minority of votes not getting the result they want and only that.
The price is having to make compromises every day.
It means putting together and listening to the people who say "immigration must be stopped" and "countries should have no borders" and everything in between, but no side tries to silent the others using violence.
What you're talking about is the tyranny of the majority, which is not democratic and is not categorized as democracy, in a democracy the effect of the majority taking it all is moderated by a carefully balanced separation of powers.
For example in a democracy the justice system is usually independent from the government.
> Not having privacy is a consequence of authoritarianism, be it for a greater good (to find child abusers) or not (to find dissidents).
But we have privacy in Europe, unlike most places in the World.
Blindly repeating that EU is authoritarian doesn't make it true.
The price is having to make compromises every day.
It means putting together and listening to the people who say "immigration must be stopped" and "countries should have no borders" and everything in between, but no side tries to silent the others using violence.
What you're talking about is the tyranny of the majority, which is not democratic and is not categorized as democracy, in a democracy the effect of the majority taking it all is moderated by a carefully balanced separation of powers.
For example in a democracy the justice system is usually independent from the government.
> Not having privacy is a consequence of authoritarianism, be it for a greater good (to find child abusers) or not (to find dissidents).
But we have privacy in Europe, unlike most places in the World.
Blindly repeating that EU is authoritarian doesn't make it true.
The point of mentioning flexing "democratic" status is, in general in these contexts (say, the EU), about unnatural distancing of government, i.e. having dramatic decisions over everybody taken by an entity "distant" from the sub-regions. As opposed to a federalism in which substantially the special rules over the special, and the broad rules only when appropriate.
> having dramatic decisions over everybody taken by an entity "distant" from the sub-regions
Yes, Europe is big, but those "dramatic decisions" need to be ratified by your "local" government, that it's probably more distant than the EU commission.
At least in the EU commission they do their job, which is to write proposals, local governments lately have only been preoccupied by their own chairs.
And it's basically the only place where "dramatic decisions" can be discussed right now in Europe.
I would love that my National government focused on "privacy" and "E2E encryption" and sparkled a discussion about those topics in the parliament, instead of doing this:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/italy-migrant-deaths-mini...
Yes, Europe is big, but those "dramatic decisions" need to be ratified by your "local" government, that it's probably more distant than the EU commission.
At least in the EU commission they do their job, which is to write proposals, local governments lately have only been preoccupied by their own chairs.
And it's basically the only place where "dramatic decisions" can be discussed right now in Europe.
I would love that my National government focused on "privacy" and "E2E encryption" and sparkled a discussion about those topics in the parliament, instead of doing this:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/italy-migrant-deaths-mini...
>if the EU is anti democratic, then there's no democracy on this planet.
Switzerland is very democratic. People get to vote on individual laws, instead of having 3 different layers of abstraction between who you vote for and what laws are passed.
Switzerland is very democratic. People get to vote on individual laws, instead of having 3 different layers of abstraction between who you vote for and what laws are passed.
The actual proposal, first paragraph:
> The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) 1 enshrine as rights the protection and care of children’s best interests and well-being. In 2021, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child underlined that these rights must be equally protected in the digital environment 2 . The protection of children, both offline and online, is a Union priority.
Literally, "it's for the children". I don't need to read any more. Get fucked, big brother.
> The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) 1 enshrine as rights the protection and care of children’s best interests and well-being. In 2021, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child underlined that these rights must be equally protected in the digital environment 2 . The protection of children, both offline and online, is a Union priority.
Literally, "it's for the children". I don't need to read any more. Get fucked, big brother.
"For the children", let us make them grow up in a world of lunacy, /S
Facebook does this already. Not only posts and comments but also messages between two people.
The system is used to hide content, change content, shadow ban and the like.
Even by its own standards it's typically used incorrectly, but most users have no workable way to appeal.
The content reviewed is often visible to low paid workers in various countries. Similar systems have been infiltrated by hostile governments. (Twitter is a case in point.)
(If you use FB you can sometimes probe the system and better establish the details.)
The system is also used to prevent one user informing another that they've been squelched.
My guess, this would give rise to even less competent implementations and actual elimination of political opponents and the like.
The system is used to hide content, change content, shadow ban and the like.
Even by its own standards it's typically used incorrectly, but most users have no workable way to appeal.
The content reviewed is often visible to low paid workers in various countries. Similar systems have been infiltrated by hostile governments. (Twitter is a case in point.)
(If you use FB you can sometimes probe the system and better establish the details.)
The system is also used to prevent one user informing another that they've been squelched.
My guess, this would give rise to even less competent implementations and actual elimination of political opponents and the like.
"does this" is maybe a little misleading here. Facebook has their own platform which they monitor. Like or not, that's something very different than mandating that every system should have a backdoor.
Nitpicking, but this has nothing to do with democracy. I know it works as a form of propaganda to use the "democracy should not do X" but democracy in no way disallows chat control programs. Democracy it's only the system used to chose governing officials. If a majority of the people's representatives approves chat control, it would be perfectly democratic. Anti-democratic would be to remove the freedom to contest the proposal, which no one did or is trying to do.
Also freedom of speech it's about the possibility to express your opinions, not that the opinions would receive no post-expression control nor that the people expressing them should bear no responsibility for what they say.
Monitoring and auditing have always been integral to democratic systems, they are called law enforcement and as such they have broader access to information that must be authorized, it is by design.
In the end it's all about different ideas supported by different parties here, that are discussing a proposal, which is the essence of democracy.
It will resolve in a compromise, as usual.
Those who are discussing it as "evil" VS "good" are missing the point of the democratic process IMO.
Mullvad is in fact urging politicians in the EU to vote no, they are not proposing to attack the EU institutions with guns and those supporting the chat control are not saying that Mullvad "supports online pedophilia".
Also freedom of speech it's about the possibility to express your opinions, not that the opinions would receive no post-expression control nor that the people expressing them should bear no responsibility for what they say.
Monitoring and auditing have always been integral to democratic systems, they are called law enforcement and as such they have broader access to information that must be authorized, it is by design.
In the end it's all about different ideas supported by different parties here, that are discussing a proposal, which is the essence of democracy.
It will resolve in a compromise, as usual.
Those who are discussing it as "evil" VS "good" are missing the point of the democratic process IMO.
Mullvad is in fact urging politicians in the EU to vote no, they are not proposing to attack the EU institutions with guns and those supporting the chat control are not saying that Mullvad "supports online pedophilia".
> If a majority of the people's representatives approves chat control, it would be perfectly democratic.
In liberal theory, the tyranny of the majority[1] was supposedly solved with rights (encoded in constitutions.) The problem here, according to the theory, is that we don't have a right to privacy.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
In liberal theory, the tyranny of the majority[1] was supposedly solved with rights (encoded in constitutions.) The problem here, according to the theory, is that we don't have a right to privacy.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
A minor-seeming terminology quibble that has far-reaching effects: the chat control proposal does not belong in human society. People in democratic societies don't have different rights than those under other political systems; everyone has a right to speak freely and expect privacy in their communications, absent very specific situations where there is evidence that what is being discussed is unallowably dangerous to others, i.e. criminal. To tie rights to democracy not only ignores the rights of people in other systems, it makes those rights sound like arbitrary gifts of the government rather than intrinsic features of humanity.
> People in democratic societies don't have different rights than those under other political systems; everyone has a right to speak freely and expect privacy in their communications, absent very specific situations where there is evidence that what is being discussed is unallowably dangerous to others, i.e. criminal. To tie rights to democracy not only ignores the rights of people in other systems, it makes those rights sound like arbitrary gifts of the government rather than intrinsic features of humanity.
That, sadly, is a uniquely American concept. I fully agree that these truths are self-evident and universal.
But what's interesting to see is people from Europe and Commonwealth nations voting with their feet and deciding that they too want these freedoms (which they are entitled to!). Here in the Bay it seems there's a constant interest from EU nationals to move to America (judging by the volume of applications we get). But I've never heard anyone interested to do the reverse.
Top destination for EU nationals in Academia was... right here in the US [0].
So it does seem these ideals are appealing to the young, educated and smart people in Europe. Interesting to speculate what impact the policies imposed by these non-elected EU bureaucrats will have on this demographic.
[0] http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/the-global-bra...
That, sadly, is a uniquely American concept. I fully agree that these truths are self-evident and universal.
But what's interesting to see is people from Europe and Commonwealth nations voting with their feet and deciding that they too want these freedoms (which they are entitled to!). Here in the Bay it seems there's a constant interest from EU nationals to move to America (judging by the volume of applications we get). But I've never heard anyone interested to do the reverse.
Top destination for EU nationals in Academia was... right here in the US [0].
So it does seem these ideals are appealing to the young, educated and smart people in Europe. Interesting to speculate what impact the policies imposed by these non-elected EU bureaucrats will have on this demographic.
[0] http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/the-global-bra...
Natural rights are a kind of theology. There's no scientific evidence for their existence, they're just asserted to exist. The fact that such rights are not recognized in most countries means that for practical intents and purposes, they do not exist in those countries.
A more useful way of thinking of "natural rights" is that "The set of rights that, if everyone were to have, would maximally smoothen interaction between individuals and groups."
I don't think there's a real argument that, somewhere in our DNA, exists a list of personal freedoms every human being ought to have. Feels like an ad absurdum more than a genuine engagement, tbh...
I don't think there's a real argument that, somewhere in our DNA, exists a list of personal freedoms every human being ought to have. Feels like an ad absurdum more than a genuine engagement, tbh...
I seriously doubt that genetic research will ever find natural rights. These were created by philosophers, revolutionaries, soldiers, and all manner of other freedom fighter. They were not given to us by our genes, they were created by us.
If what you're saying is true, then the argument that this is inappropriate to democratic societies is also undermined: what rights the people have are entirely determined by what their democratically-elected overlords grant them. The state has determined that this is appropriate; therefore, it is appropriate.
No, in democratic societies you have the rule of law. This usually blocks incumbents from changing the rules as they wish. Yes of course natural rights don't really exist, but legal rights enforcing some of them are about as real as money.
> No, in democratic societies you have the rule of law.
Democracy and legalism are orthogonal concepts, though both tend to be (rhetorically, if not always as much practically) ideals of liberal government.
Democracy and legalism are orthogonal concepts, though both tend to be (rhetorically, if not always as much practically) ideals of liberal government.
I don't follow. Are you saying that subscribing to the notion that democratic societies have certain rights protected by law is legalism?
I'm saying that “democracy” and “a society governed by laws and not just the present mood of whoever is in charge” are different (and, indeed, somewhat opposed—which is why early liberal theorists have a lot negative to say about “democracy”—things).
The particular blend where each limits the other that has come to define liberal democratic government is not the same as the broader concept of “democracy”.
The particular blend where each limits the other that has come to define liberal democratic government is not the same as the broader concept of “democracy”.
I see - in that case I fully agree.
If true then natural rights are an excellent example that things can exist without scientific evidence of them. Theology it may be it's a more powerful and useful concept than the one you're proposing.
> it's a more powerful and useful concept than the one you're proposing.
What is it that you think I proposed? I support the defense of that which you consider natural rights, because if they aren't defended they will cease to exist in any meaningful way.
These rights did not exist since the big bang in some sort of metaphysical space, nor does human society gravitate towards them. These rights were formulated by people, and insofar as they're recognized presently it's because people risked death to make it so.
What is it that you think I proposed? I support the defense of that which you consider natural rights, because if they aren't defended they will cease to exist in any meaningful way.
These rights did not exist since the big bang in some sort of metaphysical space, nor does human society gravitate towards them. These rights were formulated by people, and insofar as they're recognized presently it's because people risked death to make it so.
All rights are natural. Then restrictions are made to limit them.
> Natural rights are a kind of theology. There's no scientific evidence for their existence, they're just asserted to exist.
You can say that for most moral statements.
You can say that for most moral statements.
Sign The Petition And Tell EU Legislators: Don’t Scan Us: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/03/sign-petition-and-tell...
The problem with a number of current societies is the shift from the idea of "citizen as a Man" to "citizen as a subject - a humble entity".
This allows to propose conditions that "Men" would never accept. It is the very idea that is fading.
...In fact, for a number of today's common practices we suggest the proposer to think whether [prominent figure] would have ever accepted it.
This allows to propose conditions that "Men" would never accept. It is the very idea that is fading.
...In fact, for a number of today's common practices we suggest the proposer to think whether [prominent figure] would have ever accepted it.
Your argument comes across really wrong when you use "man" instead of "person".
Somebody flagged my former reply to the above, for reasons unknown: here is a copy. Yes, the content remains important, in terms of the above reply to the original.
====
Which language are you speaking? Before something "«comes across»" to you, do you have your duly interposed cold-minded understanding modules on?
-- A "Man" is that entity which has a mind superior to that of e.g. monkeys. (In the context, the nuance is that of Dignity.)
-- A "person" is that entity which expresses a particular side of the possible expressions of being.
...Your proposal would be translated as "People with their own special ideas and leaning would etc." - it is not only hardly relevant to what was communicated, but possibly even stating the opposite. The original post, like in general the rest we post, was not meant to be written in demotic.
====
And again to another reply, now hidden, if the above still needed:
'Man' has the same root of "mind", it means "having a mind", but so many things have it, so it must be a special one, must it not?
'Person' is a mask - that thing in which the voice "per-sonat". It means the mask, the specific one - crying, laughing, irate, whatever.
No, you cannot use 'person' if you do not mean "that with a personality" - because that is what it means.
====
Edit: Oh, and incidentally - "why not just sticking to invented groupspeak?"
Well, paradoxically, also because it is not inclusive, is it, if some demand the normalcy of speaking actual Language, or maybe just when dealing with individuals from other groups! A convention is limited to convention adherents; this public is varied!
====
Which language are you speaking? Before something "«comes across»" to you, do you have your duly interposed cold-minded understanding modules on?
-- A "Man" is that entity which has a mind superior to that of e.g. monkeys. (In the context, the nuance is that of Dignity.)
-- A "person" is that entity which expresses a particular side of the possible expressions of being.
...Your proposal would be translated as "People with their own special ideas and leaning would etc." - it is not only hardly relevant to what was communicated, but possibly even stating the opposite. The original post, like in general the rest we post, was not meant to be written in demotic.
====
And again to another reply, now hidden, if the above still needed:
'Man' has the same root of "mind", it means "having a mind", but so many things have it, so it must be a special one, must it not?
'Person' is a mask - that thing in which the voice "per-sonat". It means the mask, the specific one - crying, laughing, irate, whatever.
No, you cannot use 'person' if you do not mean "that with a personality" - because that is what it means.
====
Edit: Oh, and incidentally - "why not just sticking to invented groupspeak?"
Well, paradoxically, also because it is not inclusive, is it, if some demand the normalcy of speaking actual Language, or maybe just when dealing with individuals from other groups! A convention is limited to convention adherents; this public is varied!
mdp2021(1)
In a survey, only 18% of 10,265 citizens from 10 EU countries supported the plan:
https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/poll-72-of-citizens-oppose-...
* 10 countries being: Netherlands, Poland, Germany, Italy, France, Austria, the Czech Republic, Spain, Sweden and Ireland
https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/poll-72-of-citizens-oppose-...
* 10 countries being: Netherlands, Poland, Germany, Italy, France, Austria, the Czech Republic, Spain, Sweden and Ireland
I urge fellow HN members to take a stand against this proposal by informing others, participating in public debates, and reaching out to their representatives in the EU Parliament. Let's work together to protect our democratic values and the future of the internet as we know it.
The subheading of the proposal is, not surprisingly, "laying down rules to prevent and combat child sexual abuse". Nowadays it seems that every privacy-demolishing law that is proposed is a some form of "Think of the children" [0].
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
It was always so. A stalking horse for the ages. If SOPA and PIPA come back they'll be wrapped in a trans flag to ensure full compliance.
The fact that this being justified with the pretense of being "for the children" seems like such a transparent way to play on people's emotions.
From the start of the proposal itself:
"At least one in five children falls victim to sexual violence during childhood 3 . A 2021 global study found that more than one in three respondents had been asked to do something sexually explicit online during their childhood, and over half had experienced a form of child sexual abuse online"
I am (obviously) against child sexual abuse. I can also say, with very high certainty, that those numbers are being blown completely out-of-proportion, with the widest definition possible used.
To justify such a wide-reaching proposal behind this thin veneer of justification is absolutely nuts to me.
From the start of the proposal itself:
"At least one in five children falls victim to sexual violence during childhood 3 . A 2021 global study found that more than one in three respondents had been asked to do something sexually explicit online during their childhood, and over half had experienced a form of child sexual abuse online"
I am (obviously) against child sexual abuse. I can also say, with very high certainty, that those numbers are being blown completely out-of-proportion, with the widest definition possible used.
To justify such a wide-reaching proposal behind this thin veneer of justification is absolutely nuts to me.
Almost all child abuse is perpetuated by people the child knows in person. The fact that there's a fuckton of creeps online has very little to do with it.
I don't think monitoring chats is gonna prevent me being raped by my uncle.
I haven’t read the post.
Don’t tell me, it’s to “protect the children”, the excuse under which all draconian citizen monitoring laws are introduced.
Don’t tell me, it’s to “protect the children”, the excuse under which all draconian citizen monitoring laws are introduced.
Indeed. Subheading of the proposal is "laying down rules to prevent and combat child sexual abuse".
Yeah that’s how they brought in the draconian monitoring laws in Australia.
“To protect the children”….. no one can argue with it without sounding like a pedophile.
And it always comes with an assurance that the dramatic power overreach will never be used for anything else but hunting pedophiles.
But it’s never too long until they’re using it to hunt copyright breakers and all sorts or ordinary crime.
“To protect the children”….. no one can argue with it without sounding like a pedophile.
And it always comes with an assurance that the dramatic power overreach will never be used for anything else but hunting pedophiles.
But it’s never too long until they’re using it to hunt copyright breakers and all sorts or ordinary crime.
[deleted]
The internet has always been a too good to be true kind of thing, a black swan of human history where the lords and kings and priests didn't control every aspect of the slave's life, it took them 2 to 3 decades but eventually the kings and priests will control our lives.
Of course the reason is because god or X or Y or national security or Z but they'll do it and we'll believe their reasons.
Of course the reason is because god or X or Y or national security or Z but they'll do it and we'll believe their reasons.
Returning to the Clipper chip [1], PGP [2], Bernstein v. United States [3], Cyperrphunk mailing list[4] era.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/08/pgp_at_30/
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States
[4] https://cryptoanarchy.wiki/getting-started/what-is-the-cyphe...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/08/pgp_at_30/
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States
[4] https://cryptoanarchy.wiki/getting-started/what-is-the-cyphe...
This link has been discussed earlier in [0], Chat Control posts that have gained traction are for e.g. [1] and [2]. Patrick Breyer has a good summary and timeline of this proposal and its history [3]
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35094627
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31329368
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29066894
[3] https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35094627
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31329368
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29066894
[3] https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/
ChatControl Explained: https://peertube.european-pirates.eu/w/d64e6e10-0ad0-4b37-88...
How about they implement it for all politicians and executives first, then the rest of us if that works out.
Everyone has rights or no one has rights
Everyone has rights or no one has rights
I can‘t believe the citizens of a country have to stand up against mass surveillance every few years. This is nonsense. I guess we‘ll see more approaches like Signal and crypto where digital policy is being executed upon without the involvement of corrupt lawyers.
Everything this site claims seems like an exaggeration when you actually follow the references through to the original proposal. Before a service needs to do anything at all the proposal would require an order from a judge where the government would need to present evidence in advance that they're likely to find CSAM and service providers only need to report back the specific material requested in the order. I'm not sure it's workable in this form either but hardly sounds like scope for mass surveillance.
The english version of the proposal is 134 pages. There should be a proposal to outlaw long windedness and bureaucratic mumbo jumbo and write in plan language. The writing is PTSD inducing. It is like the first circle of hell.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:13e33abf-...
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:13e33abf-...
Does the proposal include chat services that are run by corporations only? If so, how will that prevent people from setting up their own chat infrastructure for child-abuse purposes?
Besides that, how about educating people on how to do exactly that: Set up their own chat service.
That would put control in the hands of those people who are not only responsible for protecting children but also have the most leverage to do that: The parents.
Besides that, how about educating people on how to do exactly that: Set up their own chat service.
That would put control in the hands of those people who are not only responsible for protecting children but also have the most leverage to do that: The parents.
[deleted]
> If so, how will that prevent people from setting up their own chat infrastructure for child-abuse purposes?
It won't.
It won't.
I’m very interested to see how this will affect https://chitchatter.im/, a serverless, self-hostable chat app I built. Would it be exempt from this EU proposal?
Hey at least you guys got to vote on it first.
I keep asking, who is going to stop me from encrypting a message and sending it to my wife? Who, and how?
I can only conclude that some utterly dystopian tech needs to be developed to uphold this law.
Why is everybody so focused on the "Oh this is so bad!"... What if this law passes? It's completely impossible right?
I can only conclude that some utterly dystopian tech needs to be developed to uphold this law.
Why is everybody so focused on the "Oh this is so bad!"... What if this law passes? It's completely impossible right?
how: by stopping you from installing the software needed, which is the part that worries me.
How are they going to stop me from installing software? Even if they force "app stores" into compliance, I've lived in a world without them. I can always git clone from-ipfs, make, make install. Or you know, install some Flatpack from some secret repo or matrix group. Or find/distribute some software using BitTorrent over TOR. Do Encryption tools/apps now have the same status as botnet control software packages: Only for criminals?
And if I do use encryption, am I a criminal now? Will they come after me, hit me with a $5 wrench [0] to force me to give up my keys? Only to find me telling my wife I love her with that special feeling of nobody else listening in? You know, like from my mouth to her ear. As we can do at home? Will they soon start to listen in on my home to prevent key exchange parties with my friends? I find the (imagined) consequences of enforcing this law insane. I just don't see it happening in this society. And if it does happen, society will be very different.
[0] https://xkcd.com/538/
And if I do use encryption, am I a criminal now? Will they come after me, hit me with a $5 wrench [0] to force me to give up my keys? Only to find me telling my wife I love her with that special feeling of nobody else listening in? You know, like from my mouth to her ear. As we can do at home? Will they soon start to listen in on my home to prevent key exchange parties with my friends? I find the (imagined) consequences of enforcing this law insane. I just don't see it happening in this society. And if it does happen, society will be very different.
[0] https://xkcd.com/538/
From the OP: "The EU is currently in the process of enacting the chat control law. It has been criticized for creating an EU-wide centralized mass surveillance and censorship system and enabling government eavesdropping on all private communication. But one little talked about consequence of the proposed law is that it makes practically all existing open source operating systems illegal, including all major Linux distributions. It would also effectively ban the F-Droid open source Android app archive."
emphasis mine.
emphasis mine.
That works for your average HN user, who knows what all those words mean. For someone else it means you either live with what the government lets you have, or you pay the cost of learning all those things. People will end up accepting a lower level of privacy.
But real criminals won't. And I'll be put into a group with them as far as law enforcement is concerned.
I'm with you, honestly, and yes, I also know how to circumvent a lot of things.
> And if it does happen, society will be very different.
Indeed, but I barely recognise our society from 20 years ago when having a palmtop made you a weirdo.
> And if it does happen, society will be very different.
Indeed, but I barely recognise our society from 20 years ago when having a palmtop made you a weirdo.
What if most of these adverse things are already in place, and these legislative steps are just theather.
An effective way of countering such proposals would be to suggest an alternative mechanism for children safety.
If anyone comes up with such a solution, he will achieve two goods:
If anyone comes up with such a solution, he will achieve two goods:
- protect children
- remove a motive for surveilence
Ideas out of top of my head.
1. Honeypots. Special agents sit online pretending to be children. The abusers found captured immediately, real time. This requires very quick legal aid channels between countries and organizations. To prevent the abusers from anonymizing (e.g. Tor), strong identification is needed in chats and communication systems - ID card or passport. That's a strong requirement, but better than surveillance, probably.
2. Strong identification of children. At least, children should be reliably identified by chat systems, and all communication with them should require the other party to be strongly identified. Or even full recording of communication, but only when communicating with children. By default chat system assumes user is a child, and to be off the record, user has to prove very reliably he is not a child (and the other side of the communication is a proven grown up as well).
3. AI-generated child abuse videos. Real children not harmed, perverts are satisfied. Although, people enjoying child abuse content deserve punishment anyway, probably. Also, encouraging production of such content increases the danger for normal people (including children) to be exposed to this content. However, the exposure possibility problem exists anyway.
1. Honeypots. Special agents sit online pretending to be children. The abusers found captured immediately, real time. This requires very quick legal aid channels between countries and organizations. To prevent the abusers from anonymizing (e.g. Tor), strong identification is needed in chats and communication systems - ID card or passport. That's a strong requirement, but better than surveillance, probably.
2. Strong identification of children. At least, children should be reliably identified by chat systems, and all communication with them should require the other party to be strongly identified. Or even full recording of communication, but only when communicating with children. By default chat system assumes user is a child, and to be off the record, user has to prove very reliably he is not a child (and the other side of the communication is a proven grown up as well).
3. AI-generated child abuse videos. Real children not harmed, perverts are satisfied. Although, people enjoying child abuse content deserve punishment anyway, probably. Also, encouraging production of such content increases the danger for normal people (including children) to be exposed to this content. However, the exposure possibility problem exists anyway.
This is when I get super hopeful that more draconian bullshit like this gets passed. The only way to get regular people to stop accepting their government's bullshit is to severely outrage them. Tiny outrages just get accepted as the new norm.
There are too many countries in the world with oppressive regimes where people seem willing to accept the status quo without much resistance to be as optimistic as you about people's desire for freedom. Even in countries where extreme suffering and censorship exist, like N.Korea or, less known, Turkmenistan (which, by the way, is the craziest country of the former USSR - the cult of personality in Turkmenistan has been taken to the extent of idiocy, censorship works like in the worst times of Stalin, and people suffer from hunger, poverty, and constant fear) protests and uprisings are rare. I personally know people who demand even more control in some of these countries, and after hearing about their extreme complacency (think mobilization in russia), I'm not as hopeful that people truly want to be free anymore. IMHO the only form of freedom that is attainable is personal "nomadic" freedom, as in Sovereign Citizen book. We need to vote with our feet and wallets, and choose to live in places where our individual freedoms are respected and protected.
I'm sorry if this all sounds a bit bleak, it's personal...
[deleted]
I have experienced very draconian bullshit getting passed. Would not recommend.
You assume that people want to learn from their mistakes instead of doubling, tripling down, ad infinitum.
The last 8 or so years has taught me otherwise.
The last 8 or so years has taught me otherwise.
I don't know, what if we miss the chance to be (once again) the world leader at regulating spying, and mock the americans for not having such regulation? We have a reputation to uphold
I think it's time for me to look for a new home, and just leave EU behind to rot. Kind of how people leave/left Putins Russia. Unlike Russia (where Putin eventually will have an "accident" or die of old age), I don't believe the politics of EU will ever change for the better.
And where would you go? The US? China? India? An unknown tropical island with no economy?
The government of Marcus Dutroux wants its citizens to believe that it is willing to take extraordinary measures to protect the children.
I think this will pass and thereafter, we all have a duty to disobey it. This isn't anything remotely resembling democracy.
I hope the people who think this is a bad idea are equally horrified by what factions of the US government and media did to silence speech not in alignment with their preferred ideology. Lying, obfuscating and preventing information from reaching everyone.
When you are for free speech, you have to actively protect that with which you disagree. That’s the only way it works.
If you don’t, someone will eventually come for what you think should be protected…and there will be nobody left to defend it.
When you are for free speech, you have to actively protect that with which you disagree. That’s the only way it works.
If you don’t, someone will eventually come for what you think should be protected…and there will be nobody left to defend it.
Shoold they start with stronder penalties for child abuse instead?
Are there democratic societies on this planet?
The symbolism articulated by the Greeks seems to indicate not.
Consider the logic that a government has an ever-greater interest in promoting its Nation as quintessentially democratic the more antidemocratic that it becomes.
In this case, superficial public participation and the government's elusive visible validity scale together.
Whereas in the archetype of a truly democratic society (I say archetype because it may not exist), the government arguably has a motivation to discourage the promotional image of and participation in democracy.
Because in this case, democratic participation is an actual threat to power.
This theory only holds for nations that have any democratic pretense. Which likely has more to do with foreign policy than anything else.
How many Western Nations fall over themselves to align themselves with democracy?
Consider the logic that a government has an ever-greater interest in promoting its Nation as quintessentially democratic the more antidemocratic that it becomes.
In this case, superficial public participation and the government's elusive visible validity scale together.
Whereas in the archetype of a truly democratic society (I say archetype because it may not exist), the government arguably has a motivation to discourage the promotional image of and participation in democracy.
Because in this case, democratic participation is an actual threat to power.
This theory only holds for nations that have any democratic pretense. Which likely has more to do with foreign policy than anything else.
How many Western Nations fall over themselves to align themselves with democracy?
No idea why people still consider European countries to be democratic.
People are elected sure, but they are all pretty much socialists, it’s not like you can really choose.
Candidates who have different worldview don’t have access to media.
Oh, and last time we got a say about whether we wanted to wanted to abide by the European constitution we said « no » at 55%
Apparently it did not make any difference whatsoever.
European countries should be treated like anything else.
A bunch of people who seized power and use democracy as a way decentralised power so it’s harder to overturn
People are elected sure, but they are all pretty much socialists, it’s not like you can really choose.
Candidates who have different worldview don’t have access to media.
Oh, and last time we got a say about whether we wanted to wanted to abide by the European constitution we said « no » at 55%
Apparently it did not make any difference whatsoever.
European countries should be treated like anything else.
A bunch of people who seized power and use democracy as a way decentralised power so it’s harder to overturn
Even North Korea calls itself a democracy.
The EU seems to be trying to catch up with China and Russia.
[deleted]
It doesn't matter, the EU has already crossed the point of no return. Europe is either collapsed or an authoritarian dystopia by the 2030s, no in-betweens. I've been saying this for years and it will be funny to see europeans to catch up to this fact in real time.
Is there anywhere in the world left that's neither on the way to becoming a dystopia nor already a hellhole unless you're a male local?
Depends on your definition of "dystopia".
Switzerland and Costa Rica might be candidates, but I don't know enough to be sure.
Switzerland and Costa Rica might be candidates, but I don't know enough to be sure.
Not sure, but Europe will go down FAST.
LatAm there are a good few places left where you have a paradisiac nature/weather and no psychopaths trying to control your every move.
LatAm there are a good few places left where you have a paradisiac nature/weather and no psychopaths trying to control your every move.
ngl, the EU is low key cringe rn
But what if people are saying things we don’t like?
"Given that political corruption is rife in European countries, with great detriments to the healthy function of government, all politicians in positions where they may be engaging in corrupt behavior must submit to 24-7 audio and video surveillance, which will be piped over public platforms for crowdsourcing of corruption detection. All personal communications of politicians and of government bureaucrats will become matters of public record for the same reason. Since we cannot trust a corrupt head of government to investigate their own corruption, or one of their underlings, this kind of public exposure of all politicians and bureaucrats is the only reasonable, rational solution to the problem of endemic government corruption in the EU."