4 ms·

I'm not sure it's what I'd want to happen, but it's not really that strange. There are plenty of things we allow the state to do that we wouldn't allow companie

I'm not sure it's what I'd want to happen, but it's not really that strange. There are plenty of things we allow the state to do that we wouldn't allow companies to also do.

libertine 5y ago
>There are plenty of things we allow the state to do that we wouldn't allow companies to also do. That's why it's a bit hypocritical on their part. GDPR was about EU citizens rights and privacy. In fact they uphold public institutions to these standards, and have issued fines.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  > That's why it's a bit hypocritical on their part. How is that hypocritical. We allow the state to have organized groups with automatic weapons and tanks, and don't allow private individuals or corporations to.
  - libertine 5y ago
    Really? Is that the path you're choosing to go: that everything is justifiable because governments can have nuclear reactors and you can't? But I'll go the extra mile: it's hypocritical because it's a citizen right within EU, it's a double standard, and it's being enforced on public/private organizations. You can't have rights and not have rights at the same time, you either have them or you don't. In EU there are no rights for owning automatic weapons, nuclear reactors, organized armed groups, etc etc.
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      My point was that we allow governments to have powers we don't allow private entities to have. The ability to use force, to detain you, to take your land even if you don't want them to, etc. My point is that hypocrisy is a strange argument, because we already have a huge amount of things that the government can do, even if they would otherwise violate property rights/freedom of movement/etc, that private entities cannot.
      - libertine 5y ago
        >Definition of hypocrisy >1: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel After years of propaganda, debates and discussion for data protection and privacy rights for EU citizens, and approving such rights by law, you don't think it's hypocrisy that they approve a law that strips citizens from such rights. They believe people have the right to have their data protected and to know what data is being collected, and demand collectors and processors to not hoard data and take only what is necessary. This is literally bulk collecting of chat logs and process them, without people consent. I still don't get your point, there are no rights for citizens to use force, detain others or take land. At least in the EU countries I know. So what rights are being stripped from citizens? It's the same if the USA government said they will abide by the people's rights to own weapons, but decided to ban the sales of all weapons so people can't buy them.
        HWR_14 5y ago
        I don't see how it's hypocritical. The government says "X is bad, private entities cannot do X, but sometimes the government needs to do X". How is that not hypocritical when X is "shoot you in the head" but is hypocritical when it's "collect data". Which isn't to say it's the right move. I'm just saying your argument here is weak.
raxxorrax 5y ago
Pretty sure most constitutions forbid the state to put people under surveillance. The EU doesn't have that so it is valid to ask what the EU actually still provide to its citizens. There is in fact a battle right now over who has primacy here. Allegedly it is everyone against Poland, but the details are more nuanced.

I'm not sure it's what I'd want to happen, but it's not really that strange. There are plenty of things we allow the state to do that we wouldn't allow companies to also do.

libertine 5y ago

>There are plenty of things we allow the state to do that we wouldn't allow companies to also do. That's why it's a bit hypocritical on their part. GDPR was about EU citizens rights and privacy. In fact they uphold public institutions to these standards, and have issued fines.

HWR_14 5y ago
> That's why it's a bit hypocritical on their part. How is that hypocritical. We allow the state to have organized groups with automatic weapons and tanks, and don't allow private individuals or corporations to.
- libertine 5y ago
  Really? Is that the path you're choosing to go: that everything is justifiable because governments can have nuclear reactors and you can't? But I'll go the extra mile: it's hypocritical because it's a citizen right within EU, it's a double standard, and it's being enforced on public/private organizations. You can't have rights and not have rights at the same time, you either have them or you don't. In EU there are no rights for owning automatic weapons, nuclear reactors, organized armed groups, etc etc.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    My point was that we allow governments to have powers we don't allow private entities to have. The ability to use force, to detain you, to take your land even if you don't want them to, etc. My point is that hypocrisy is a strange argument, because we already have a huge amount of things that the government can do, even if they would otherwise violate property rights/freedom of movement/etc, that private entities cannot.
    - libertine 5y ago
      >Definition of hypocrisy >1: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel After years of propaganda, debates and discussion for data protection and privacy rights for EU citizens, and approving such rights by law, you don't think it's hypocrisy that they approve a law that strips citizens from such rights. They believe people have the right to have their data protected and to know what data is being collected, and demand collectors and processors to not hoard data and take only what is necessary. This is literally bulk collecting of chat logs and process them, without people consent. I still don't get your point, there are no rights for citizens to use force, detain others or take land. At least in the EU countries I know. So what rights are being stripped from citizens? It's the same if the USA government said they will abide by the people's rights to own weapons, but decided to ban the sales of all weapons so people can't buy them.
      - HWR_14 5y ago
        I don't see how it's hypocritical. The government says "X is bad, private entities cannot do X, but sometimes the government needs to do X". How is that not hypocritical when X is "shoot you in the head" but is hypocritical when it's "collect data". Which isn't to say it's the right move. I'm just saying your argument here is weak.

raxxorrax 5y ago

Pretty sure most constitutions forbid the state to put people under surveillance. The EU doesn't have that so it is valid to ask what the EU actually still provide to its citizens. There is in fact a battle right now over who has primacy here. Allegedly it is everyone against Poland, but the details are more nuanced.