3 ms·

Unbelievably stupid. Horrible overreach of government power. In the USA our founding fathers wrote the constitution to limit government, not citizens. For sure

Unbelievably stupid. Horrible overreach of government power. In the USA our founding fathers wrote the constitution to limit government, not citizens. For sure, we have strayed away from this ideal, but things here are not as bad as apparently they are in the EU.

designerarvid 1y ago
One of the main politicians behind this is Swedish Social Democrat Ylva Johansson[1]; coming from a party with a long history of political surveillance[2]. Unlike East Germany, Sweden has never “dealt” with this past. She thinks this is how it should be. 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ylva_Johansson?wprov=sfti1#Surveillance_of_private_chat_communication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ylva_Johansson?wprov=sfti1#Sur... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IB_affair?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IB_affair?wprov=sfti1
Jon_Lowtek 1y ago
Read the USAs "Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act" of 1994, it may change your mind. An FBI document from 2021 foiad by the property of the people org shows the FBI abilities to get information from encrypted messengers, which, simplified, shows that end2end encrypted services run by american corporations have backdoors for the american government. Which surprises no one, except patriots who never heard of the patriot act of 2001.
- dexterdog 1y ago
  So is Meta committing fraud when claiming in it's policies that it has no access to user e2e data?
  - mcbrit 1y ago
    I can drive several large trucks through that sentence while answering no, so: no. There are so many ways to create a no there is an important point. Related: you are in an audit. The auditor asks you if you know what the time is. Correct answer: yes.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
AlecSchueler 1y ago
You're sending out masked gangs to grab people into vans to be trafficked overseas without due process or oversight. But sure, it's the EU with the overreach issues.
- southernplaces7 1y ago
  The whataboutism is completely, stupidly useless for dealing with this being a shitty, control-grabbing bit of cotton-gloved authoritarianism from the grey apparatchiks of the Union government. Because the current administration of the U.S is creating its own legal monstrosities, people should just clam up about a complete grab on communications privacy from another major government?
  - AlecSchueler 1y ago
    What whataboutism? I was responding to the assertion that while things are bad in the US at least it's not as bad as Europe. In no way did I suggest that European citizens should become complacent. I just wanted to question if the government commissioning a report which suggests they take a further look at some actions which could possibly infringe on privacy and which explicitly talks about doing it with respect to national privacy laws is really do much worse than people being disappeared by a government who is openly hostile to the rulings of the courts as well as to the media who dare to question it. If there was any whatabout then it was in the GP comment, so maybe direct your ire towards them.
immibis 1y ago
The last 50 times this was proposed it was rejected and I don't know why you think this time will be different. If it was proposed in the USA, it'd already be law by now (in fact it is already law in the USA), and to be struck down 6 months later by a sane supreme court (so not this one).

designerarvid 1y ago

One of the main politicians behind this is Swedish Social Democrat Ylva Johansson[1]; coming from a party with a long history of political surveillance[2]. Unlike East Germany, Sweden has never “dealt” with this past. She thinks this is how it should be. 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ylva_Johansson?wprov=sfti1#Surveillance_of_private_chat_communication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ylva_Johansson?wprov=sfti1#Sur... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IB_affair?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IB_affair?wprov=sfti1

Jon_Lowtek 1y ago

Read the USAs "Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act" of 1994, it may change your mind. An FBI document from 2021 foiad by the property of the people org shows the FBI abilities to get information from encrypted messengers, which, simplified, shows that end2end encrypted services run by american corporations have backdoors for the american government. Which surprises no one, except patriots who never heard of the patriot act of 2001.

dexterdog 1y ago
So is Meta committing fraud when claiming in it's policies that it has no access to user e2e data?
- mcbrit 1y ago
  I can drive several large trucks through that sentence while answering no, so: no. There are so many ways to create a no there is an important point. Related: you are in an audit. The auditor asks you if you know what the time is. Correct answer: yes.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]

AlecSchueler 1y ago

You're sending out masked gangs to grab people into vans to be trafficked overseas without due process or oversight. But sure, it's the EU with the overreach issues.

southernplaces7 1y ago
The whataboutism is completely, stupidly useless for dealing with this being a shitty, control-grabbing bit of cotton-gloved authoritarianism from the grey apparatchiks of the Union government. Because the current administration of the U.S is creating its own legal monstrosities, people should just clam up about a complete grab on communications privacy from another major government?
- AlecSchueler 1y ago
  What whataboutism? I was responding to the assertion that while things are bad in the US at least it's not as bad as Europe. In no way did I suggest that European citizens should become complacent. I just wanted to question if the government commissioning a report which suggests they take a further look at some actions which could possibly infringe on privacy and which explicitly talks about doing it with respect to national privacy laws is really do much worse than people being disappeared by a government who is openly hostile to the rulings of the courts as well as to the media who dare to question it. If there was any whatabout then it was in the GP comment, so maybe direct your ire towards them.

immibis 1y ago

The last 50 times this was proposed it was rejected and I don't know why you think this time will be different. If it was proposed in the USA, it'd already be law by now (in fact it is already law in the USA), and to be struck down 6 months later by a sane supreme court (so not this one).