5 ms·

God fucking damn it not again This is, what, the fifth time in ten years they try to pass shit like this?

ath3nd 1y ago
They generally don't and won't stop until there are real repercussions for that, like losing your political career/being canceled in society over voting for it.
- mantas 1y ago
  The problem is people behind the curtains will just pick another figure head. And we can’t even get the names who want to get rid of privacy. Since names of people pushing it were redacted for their privacy :D
  - morkalork 1y ago
    When the people orchestrating something like this can hide behind a veil of anonymity as well as bestow exemptions from monitoring upon the political class, it looks deeply wrong and conspiracy worthy. :D indeed.
    - Geezus_42 1y ago
      The exemptions for politicians is straight out of 1984.
      - thfuran 1y ago
        They weren’t exempt in 1984.
        ElectroBuffoon 1y ago
        Upper class could completly turn off their telescreens, meaning they have partial exemptions at least. For middle class they were always on. Proles had no telescreen because they were considered to lack brains. Even the Party had levels, Inner and Outer, with different rules. 1984 would be incomplete without the hypocrisy of "rules for thee not for me".
  - croes 1y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_(organization) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_(organization)
  - nickslaughter02 1y ago
    Context: https://digitalcourage.social/@echo_pbreyer/111499769526754966 https://digitalcourage.social/@echo_pbreyer/1114997695267549...
- ncr100 1y ago
  Yup. Having empathy for your neighbor, and working with those whom you disagree, are precursors. This gives power. Then using power to enact consequences for businesses and governments (the people therein), fixes the problem.
- miroljub 1y ago
  > They generally don't and won't stop until there are real repercussions for that, like losing your political career/being canceled in society over voting for it. I wouldn't call login political career or being cancelled and voted out "real repercussions". They can pretty much retire and enjoy the rest of their lives with all the lobby money and EU rents. Real repercussion would mean prison time and losing their property, but we all know that won't happen anytime soon.
9dev 1y ago
They only need to succeed one time. People are generally preoccupied with a lot of other things right now, so maybe this is their lucky shot…
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- zubspace 1y ago
  It's a shitty system, if one side just needs to succeed one time while the other side needs to succeed over and over again. What really should be done is to disallow proposals, which are kinda the same. Once a mass surveillance proposal like this is defeated, it shouldn't be allowed to be constantly rebranded and reintroduced. We need a firewall in our legislative process that automatically rejects any future attempts at scanning private communications.
  - pessimizer 1y ago
    > What really should be done is to disallow proposals, which are kinda the same. This very much exists in a lot of parliamentary rules authorities, but it's usually limited to once per "session." They just need to make rules that span sessions that raise the bar for introducing substantially similar legislation. It can easily be argued that passing something that failed to pass before, multiple times, should require supermajorities. Or at least to create a type of vote where you can move that something "should not" be passed without a supermajority in the future. It is difficult in most systems to make negative motions. At the least it would have to be tailored as an explicit prohibition on passing anything substantially similar to the motion in future sessions (without suspending the rules with a supermajority.) I don't know as much about the French Parlement's procedure as I would like to, though.
    - Telemakhos 1y ago
      Is there no way to codify a negative right, like “The right of the European people to privacy in their communications and security in their records through encryption shall not be infringed?” Negative rights reserved to the people should be more important than positive laws granting power to the government.
mantas 1y ago
As Juncker, ex president of European Commision said, you keep trying till it passes at some point. Good luck revoking it later…
- uncircle 1y ago
  Ah, the marvels of modern democracy. No serious way to enact change, politicians still do whatever the hell they want, and we still believe that voting for someone else will change things. It’ll soon be like the UK, that if you campaign against this kinda stuff, the party in power publicly calls you a paedophile. Because only people with something to hide want privacy. Privacy is a losing proposition. Governments have the perfect trojan horse (child safety) so it’s only a matter of time before massive surveillance is the norm.
  - croes 1y ago
    People don’t want change. If really someone gets the power who wants to change things they fight them too. People want that everything stays the same. Problem is climate change and other problems make change inevitable.
    - mantas 1y ago
      People don’t want change, yet politicians are pushing sleazy changes left and right. Change like straws ban and attached caps? Such change, wow.
      - croes 1y ago
        That are alibi changes because the real necessary changes are too unpopular
        mantas 1y ago
        Then don’t do any changes. Such BS changes are counter-productive and just a waste of resources.
idiotsecant 1y ago
The fascist, autocratic impulse is a big in the human firmware and will never go away. We exist constantly balanced on the razor edge precipice because we are capable of little else. Self-governing humans are not a stable system.
- swayvil 1y ago
  Serfs and lords is pretty stable. But ya I get yr point.
  - idiotsecant 1y ago
    Is it? Every human society has been an incredibly brief enterprise, on the scale of, for example, geologic time.
swayvil 1y ago
The arrival of AI has made mass surveillance pass a certain threshold. Now we're just a step away from aristocrat heaven.
- ncr100 1y ago
  Yup super easy to moderate, monitor, and manipulate. Watchlist? Easy. Mislead? Easy. We need to isolate this bad behavior ASAP.
brikym 1y ago
What do they gain? The only reason I can think of it's that it's deep state control. If there was a conspiracy like that would they be acting much differently?
- palata 1y ago
  > The only reason I can think of it's that it's deep state control. Then you lack imagination :-). Let me give one example: "I am a fundamentally good guy, and I want to protect the people. If I was given access to all the communications of everybody, it would be easier for me to do my job and to improve the security for everybody". Of course, (as you know) this is flawed, be it just because you can't guarantee that a surveillance system will only ever be used by fundamentally good guys in the eyes of their people. Or said differently, if you create a backdoor for the good guys, you also create a backdoor for the bad guys. But it's easy to be well-intentioned and not understand that it's impossible to build cryptography only for the good guys. No need to invent a deep state when the simplest explanation is "the people who believe it are uninformed".

They generally don't and won't stop until there are real repercussions for that, like losing your political career/being canceled in society over voting for it.

mantas 1y ago
The problem is people behind the curtains will just pick another figure head. And we can’t even get the names who want to get rid of privacy. Since names of people pushing it were redacted for their privacy :D
- morkalork 1y ago
  When the people orchestrating something like this can hide behind a veil of anonymity as well as bestow exemptions from monitoring upon the political class, it looks deeply wrong and conspiracy worthy. :D indeed.
  - Geezus_42 1y ago
    The exemptions for politicians is straight out of 1984.
    - thfuran 1y ago
      They weren’t exempt in 1984.
      - ElectroBuffoon 1y ago
        Upper class could completly turn off their telescreens, meaning they have partial exemptions at least. For middle class they were always on. Proles had no telescreen because they were considered to lack brains. Even the Party had levels, Inner and Outer, with different rules. 1984 would be incomplete without the hypocrisy of "rules for thee not for me".
- croes 1y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_(organization) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_(organization)
- nickslaughter02 1y ago
  Context: https://digitalcourage.social/@echo_pbreyer/111499769526754966 https://digitalcourage.social/@echo_pbreyer/1114997695267549...
ncr100 1y ago
Yup. Having empathy for your neighbor, and working with those whom you disagree, are precursors. This gives power. Then using power to enact consequences for businesses and governments (the people therein), fixes the problem.
miroljub 1y ago
> They generally don't and won't stop until there are real repercussions for that, like losing your political career/being canceled in society over voting for it. I wouldn't call login political career or being cancelled and voted out "real repercussions". They can pretty much retire and enjoy the rest of their lives with all the lobby money and EU rents. Real repercussion would mean prison time and losing their property, but we all know that won't happen anytime soon.

9dev 1y ago

They only need to succeed one time. People are generally preoccupied with a lot of other things right now, so maybe this is their lucky shot…

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
zubspace 1y ago
It's a shitty system, if one side just needs to succeed one time while the other side needs to succeed over and over again. What really should be done is to disallow proposals, which are kinda the same. Once a mass surveillance proposal like this is defeated, it shouldn't be allowed to be constantly rebranded and reintroduced. We need a firewall in our legislative process that automatically rejects any future attempts at scanning private communications.
- pessimizer 1y ago
  > What really should be done is to disallow proposals, which are kinda the same. This very much exists in a lot of parliamentary rules authorities, but it's usually limited to once per "session." They just need to make rules that span sessions that raise the bar for introducing substantially similar legislation. It can easily be argued that passing something that failed to pass before, multiple times, should require supermajorities. Or at least to create a type of vote where you can move that something "should not" be passed without a supermajority in the future. It is difficult in most systems to make negative motions. At the least it would have to be tailored as an explicit prohibition on passing anything substantially similar to the motion in future sessions (without suspending the rules with a supermajority.) I don't know as much about the French Parlement's procedure as I would like to, though.
  - Telemakhos 1y ago
    Is there no way to codify a negative right, like “The right of the European people to privacy in their communications and security in their records through encryption shall not be infringed?” Negative rights reserved to the people should be more important than positive laws granting power to the government.

mantas 1y ago

As Juncker, ex president of European Commision said, you keep trying till it passes at some point. Good luck revoking it later…

uncircle 1y ago
Ah, the marvels of modern democracy. No serious way to enact change, politicians still do whatever the hell they want, and we still believe that voting for someone else will change things. It’ll soon be like the UK, that if you campaign against this kinda stuff, the party in power publicly calls you a paedophile. Because only people with something to hide want privacy. Privacy is a losing proposition. Governments have the perfect trojan horse (child safety) so it’s only a matter of time before massive surveillance is the norm.
- croes 1y ago
  People don’t want change. If really someone gets the power who wants to change things they fight them too. People want that everything stays the same. Problem is climate change and other problems make change inevitable.
  - mantas 1y ago
    People don’t want change, yet politicians are pushing sleazy changes left and right. Change like straws ban and attached caps? Such change, wow.
    - croes 1y ago
      That are alibi changes because the real necessary changes are too unpopular
      - mantas 1y ago
        Then don’t do any changes. Such BS changes are counter-productive and just a waste of resources.

idiotsecant 1y ago

The fascist, autocratic impulse is a big in the human firmware and will never go away. We exist constantly balanced on the razor edge precipice because we are capable of little else. Self-governing humans are not a stable system.

swayvil 1y ago
Serfs and lords is pretty stable. But ya I get yr point.
- idiotsecant 1y ago
  Is it? Every human society has been an incredibly brief enterprise, on the scale of, for example, geologic time.

swayvil 1y ago

The arrival of AI has made mass surveillance pass a certain threshold. Now we're just a step away from aristocrat heaven.

ncr100 1y ago
Yup super easy to moderate, monitor, and manipulate. Watchlist? Easy. Mislead? Easy. We need to isolate this bad behavior ASAP.

brikym 1y ago

What do they gain? The only reason I can think of it's that it's deep state control. If there was a conspiracy like that would they be acting much differently?

palata 1y ago
> The only reason I can think of it's that it's deep state control. Then you lack imagination :-). Let me give one example: "I am a fundamentally good guy, and I want to protect the people. If I was given access to all the communications of everybody, it would be easier for me to do my job and to improve the security for everybody". Of course, (as you know) this is flawed, be it just because you can't guarantee that a surveillance system will only ever be used by fundamentally good guys in the eyes of their people. Or said differently, if you create a backdoor for the good guys, you also create a backdoor for the bad guys. But it's easy to be well-intentioned and not understand that it's impossible to build cryptography only for the good guys. No need to invent a deep state when the simplest explanation is "the people who believe it are uninformed".