5 ms·

Can this be true? I'm having a hard time understanding how they can stand for internet privacy and legal mass surveillance simultaneously.

em3rgent0rdr 5y ago
Because politicians want to look tough on child abuse.
- candiodari 5y ago
  Really? Child abuse stats are dropping like a stone. It's getting so bad that truly ridiculous things are being treated as child abuse, like for example a not-quite-divorce. Not "a bad divorce". Not "parents fighting". Not divorced. Separated (meaning living apart for whatever reason, without getting legally divorced). I'd say for what time period, but there is literally no time period given. When kids are asked any time period is taken. Siblings ... insulting each other ... is now child abuse. Seriously. Serious medical problems of any caretaker figure ... is child abuse. WITHOUT any further qualification. And of course, government facilities, whether homeless, or at this point even any hospital, all constitute child abuse. This is apparently not a problem, only parents are problematic ... https://acestoohigh.com/got-your-ace-score/ https://acestoohigh.com/got-your-ace-score/ Meanwhile, of course, the reputation of services attempting to address child abuse is atrocious. Violence is a constant everywhere in youth services in pretty much all countries. Both violence by youth services personnel, violence among kids within youth services, violence outside of youth services itself, but directly related (e.g. the police forcibly moving foster kids, or the reverse, drug couriers or prostitution rings "recruiting" in youth services, often with help from officials and/or caretakers) And we all know their reputations when it comes to raising succesful kids: https://www.kansascity.com/news/special-reports/article238206754.html#:~:text=%E2%80%9CWe%20are%20sending%20more%20foster,Generations%20of%20young%20people https://www.kansascity.com/news/special-reports/article23820.... Child abuse, itself, is dying. Less and less convictions, every year again. But there is ever more interference in the life of children by the government, with demonstrated atrocious results. And they want to be tough on child abuse? This will destroy far more kids' lives than it will save ...
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    As with terrorism, if the bad thing is happening more, the government says "We need more power to stop this!", and if the bad thing is happening less, the government says "Look at what we've achieved with these powers! Obviously they are working, so give us more!".
agilob 5y ago
A decade ago I watched a documentary about MEP explaining how it happens that crappy law is made in EU. MEPs are too busy to read and understand what they are voting for or against. Law they are discussing often has 100s of pages, a few of such per day. One of the "ACTA" branded regulation was 800+ pages and the document changed daily. MEP have armies of secretaries and interns who as supposed to filter the important content and feed it MEPs directly. In meantime MEPs have meeting with lobbying groups and have their regular duties. They usually vote for what their group is voting for, or, lobbyists.
- rapnie 5y ago
  I've seen a similar documentary a while ago, where it became apparent that some MEP's are so busy that lobbyist groups completely wrote their proposal documents and deposited them at their office to have them 'go with the flow' without any scrutiny whatsoever. Though officially all is legal, it strongly reeked of corruption, especially with some MEP's doing that very frequently.
anfogoat 5y ago
There's no contradiction if you take the privacy part as what it is: marketing BS. It's not something the EU would ever actually defend or protect on principle. Any appearance to the contrary is coincidental, like the GDPR.
Aerroon 5y ago
As a reminder of what the EU has done previously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive >According to the Data Retention Directive, EU member states had to store citizens' telecommunications data for a minimum of six months and at most twenty-four months. And they knew that this was illegal. They did it anyway. Same political body that now talks about protecting privacy.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  > In September 2005, during the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Council, a plenary session was held concerning the retention of telecommunications data, chaired by the UK's Home Secretary. Maybe the values of British society really are different from those of the rest of Europe... Anyway, there should be less of a push within the EU for introducing these illegal directives now.
  - Aerroon 5y ago
    You're not wrong about that. The UK has tried this again just for Britain, but the EHCR denied them.
throwawayboise 5y ago
It's the "it's OK when we do it" rationale
jdasdf 5y ago
They are for privacy against everyone else, not against themselves.

em3rgent0rdr 5y ago

Because politicians want to look tough on child abuse.

candiodari 5y ago
Really? Child abuse stats are dropping like a stone. It's getting so bad that truly ridiculous things are being treated as child abuse, like for example a not-quite-divorce. Not "a bad divorce". Not "parents fighting". Not divorced. Separated (meaning living apart for whatever reason, without getting legally divorced). I'd say for what time period, but there is literally no time period given. When kids are asked any time period is taken. Siblings ... insulting each other ... is now child abuse. Seriously. Serious medical problems of any caretaker figure ... is child abuse. WITHOUT any further qualification. And of course, government facilities, whether homeless, or at this point even any hospital, all constitute child abuse. This is apparently not a problem, only parents are problematic ... https://acestoohigh.com/got-your-ace-score/ https://acestoohigh.com/got-your-ace-score/ Meanwhile, of course, the reputation of services attempting to address child abuse is atrocious. Violence is a constant everywhere in youth services in pretty much all countries. Both violence by youth services personnel, violence among kids within youth services, violence outside of youth services itself, but directly related (e.g. the police forcibly moving foster kids, or the reverse, drug couriers or prostitution rings "recruiting" in youth services, often with help from officials and/or caretakers) And we all know their reputations when it comes to raising succesful kids: https://www.kansascity.com/news/special-reports/article238206754.html#:~:text=%E2%80%9CWe%20are%20sending%20more%20foster,Generations%20of%20young%20people https://www.kansascity.com/news/special-reports/article23820.... Child abuse, itself, is dying. Less and less convictions, every year again. But there is ever more interference in the life of children by the government, with demonstrated atrocious results. And they want to be tough on child abuse? This will destroy far more kids' lives than it will save ...
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  As with terrorism, if the bad thing is happening more, the government says "We need more power to stop this!", and if the bad thing is happening less, the government says "Look at what we've achieved with these powers! Obviously they are working, so give us more!".

agilob 5y ago

A decade ago I watched a documentary about MEP explaining how it happens that crappy law is made in EU. MEPs are too busy to read and understand what they are voting for or against. Law they are discussing often has 100s of pages, a few of such per day. One of the "ACTA" branded regulation was 800+ pages and the document changed daily. MEP have armies of secretaries and interns who as supposed to filter the important content and feed it MEPs directly. In meantime MEPs have meeting with lobbying groups and have their regular duties. They usually vote for what their group is voting for, or, lobbyists.

rapnie 5y ago
I've seen a similar documentary a while ago, where it became apparent that some MEP's are so busy that lobbyist groups completely wrote their proposal documents and deposited them at their office to have them 'go with the flow' without any scrutiny whatsoever. Though officially all is legal, it strongly reeked of corruption, especially with some MEP's doing that very frequently.

anfogoat 5y ago

There's no contradiction if you take the privacy part as what it is: marketing BS. It's not something the EU would ever actually defend or protect on principle. Any appearance to the contrary is coincidental, like the GDPR.

Aerroon 5y ago

As a reminder of what the EU has done previously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive >According to the Data Retention Directive, EU member states had to store citizens' telecommunications data for a minimum of six months and at most twenty-four months. And they knew that this was illegal. They did it anyway. Same political body that now talks about protecting privacy.

dane-pgp 5y ago
> In September 2005, during the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Council, a plenary session was held concerning the retention of telecommunications data, chaired by the UK's Home Secretary. Maybe the values of British society really are different from those of the rest of Europe... Anyway, there should be less of a push within the EU for introducing these illegal directives now.
- Aerroon 5y ago
  You're not wrong about that. The UK has tried this again just for Britain, but the EHCR denied them.

throwawayboise 5y ago

It's the "it's OK when we do it" rationale

jdasdf 5y ago

They are for privacy against everyone else, not against themselves.