6 ms·

Between FISC, the Patriot Act/USA Freedom Act, and such it doesn't seem like the US constitution is doing a good job at protecting anyone. There is a long wikip

by tokai 1y ago

Between FISC, the Patriot Act/USA Freedom Act, and such it doesn't seem like the US constitution is doing a good job at protecting anyone. There is a long wikipedia article named Mass surveillance in the United States, but not yet one for the EU.

dmix 1y ago
FISA and patriot act are very controversial, the EU doing the same thing but far worse isn’t a good argument to stand on merely because the US gets talked about more on Wikipedia and therefore the press (which is one of the primary acceptable sources for a wiki article). Not to mention places like Germany and France did much of what NSA was doing back in the 2000s, often with even more leeway. If anything censorship and extensive government oversight of peoples lives in EU and UK is far less controversial so there isn’t much of a push back. As you can see every time this comes up on HN where people in the EU defend it.
- janalsncm 1y ago
  > FISA and patriot act are very controversial They are controversial with the public. They are not controversial within the government.
  - hdgvhicv 1y ago
    I suspect they aren’t controversial with the public either. With certain subsets of the public sure. Similar response to the “give your passport to shady company” act in the U.K - the majority of the public support it.
SilverElfin 1y ago
I don’t disagree. But there is still far more protection for free speech in the US than in the EU, where wrongthink is not acceptable to the powers that be. It is a huge regression and for some reason, culturally Europe seems to be modeling itself more after China than the US, with whom it shares more history and values.
- em-bee 1y ago
  i have lived in all three places (15 years in china) and i have to respond with an empathic no. what we are seeing is that thanks to social media, more discourse is public. which leads to more prosecutions. that is not a regression. that stuff has always been prosecuted. and they go against hate speech, not wrong think.
  - moi2388 1y ago
    Hate speech is wrong think. Threats are something different
    - em-bee 1y ago
      hate speech is no clearly defined, so maybe we need to talk about that. wikipedia translates the german term "Volksverhetzung" to "incitement to hatred", but that's not actually a good translation, because it rather means "incitement to hatred against a whole people". besides that here is strong language directed against individuals that is designed to hurt them. in germany that is defined as insult to your honor or dignity and incitement to violence. the devil is in the details of course, and there are many expressions that are borderline and depend on context. but i think we can agree that such speech is generally not wanted. whether it should be punished is another question, but in my opinion "wrong think" goes way beyond what i described here. one topic that does go beyond hate speech that may be problematic is expressions that threatens the democracy. i couldn't find any good examples for that yet other than democracy being threatened by radicalization, polarization and political violence. so presumably anything that leads to that, most of which is already covered by hate speech.
      - moi2388 1y ago
        I don’t agree with that. Inciting violence is wrong. Lying is wrong. But pointing out crime figures of for example the imported migrant Muslims is true, yet also hate speech? I think we’re far beyond hate speech being thought crime. It also means you can’t be honest about your reasons or viewpoint, thereby poisoning the public debate.
aspenmayer 1y ago
> There is a long wikipedia article named Mass surveillance in the United States, but not yet one for the EU. I agree with your other points. There is this though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance#European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance#European_Uni...
owenversteeg 1y ago
I have long campaigned against Fourth Amendment violations in the US, but to compare the US and the EU is laughable. The difference is night and day in every aspect, from constitutional rights to privacy (virtually worthless in most EU constitutions vs quite broad in the US) to practical surveillance (far deeper and broader in the EU) to court requirements for access for typical requests (commonplace in the US, rare in the EU.) As an example of one of those points, the US right to privacy was long considered so broad that it served as the _foundation of the right to abortion_ in the US for decades! By contrast, to pick an EU example, the Dutch right to privacy is so weak that it is quite literally written into the Dutch constitution as “except as limited by law”; in other words, nearly worthless. To compare them by presence of a Wikipedia page is beyond ridiculous.
- guitarbill 1y ago
  In the US, mugshots of people are published before they have been found guilty. Comparing privacy laws by example is beyond ridiculous. And there are big cultural differences what "privacy" entails.
- forgotoldacc 1y ago
  But what exactly does privacy entail in the US? Your address and phone number are publicly available with a Google search. I've been stalked and had someone show up at my house after moving (and I have zero social media presence) because, for some reason, my personal info was all online and easily found by googling my name. People can take a video of you, shame you for some random thing, and have your face and name known to millions by the end of the day. The NSA can access all your online data and share it with whoever they want. Companies do it on their behalf as well. Cops can dig through your car just by saying it smells funny. A right to privacy somehow was construed as the right to an abortion. But the right to privacy never meant you have the right to keep anything private. In some other countries, you can easily have your data taken down from public view online and sue (and win against) people who violate that right. That's an uphill battle in the US.
  - hdgvhicv 1y ago

by tokai 1y ago

dmix 1y ago

FISA and patriot act are very controversial, the EU doing the same thing but far worse isn’t a good argument to stand on merely because the US gets talked about more on Wikipedia and therefore the press (which is one of the primary acceptable sources for a wiki article). Not to mention places like Germany and France did much of what NSA was doing back in the 2000s, often with even more leeway. If anything censorship and extensive government oversight of peoples lives in EU and UK is far less controversial so there isn’t much of a push back. As you can see every time this comes up on HN where people in the EU defend it.

janalsncm 1y ago
> FISA and patriot act are very controversial They are controversial with the public. They are not controversial within the government.
- hdgvhicv 1y ago
  I suspect they aren’t controversial with the public either. With certain subsets of the public sure. Similar response to the “give your passport to shady company” act in the U.K - the majority of the public support it.

SilverElfin 1y ago

I don’t disagree. But there is still far more protection for free speech in the US than in the EU, where wrongthink is not acceptable to the powers that be. It is a huge regression and for some reason, culturally Europe seems to be modeling itself more after China than the US, with whom it shares more history and values.

em-bee 1y ago
i have lived in all three places (15 years in china) and i have to respond with an empathic no. what we are seeing is that thanks to social media, more discourse is public. which leads to more prosecutions. that is not a regression. that stuff has always been prosecuted. and they go against hate speech, not wrong think.
- moi2388 1y ago
  Hate speech is wrong think. Threats are something different
  - em-bee 1y ago
    hate speech is no clearly defined, so maybe we need to talk about that. wikipedia translates the german term "Volksverhetzung" to "incitement to hatred", but that's not actually a good translation, because it rather means "incitement to hatred against a whole people". besides that here is strong language directed against individuals that is designed to hurt them. in germany that is defined as insult to your honor or dignity and incitement to violence. the devil is in the details of course, and there are many expressions that are borderline and depend on context. but i think we can agree that such speech is generally not wanted. whether it should be punished is another question, but in my opinion "wrong think" goes way beyond what i described here. one topic that does go beyond hate speech that may be problematic is expressions that threatens the democracy. i couldn't find any good examples for that yet other than democracy being threatened by radicalization, polarization and political violence. so presumably anything that leads to that, most of which is already covered by hate speech.
    - moi2388 1y ago
      I don’t agree with that. Inciting violence is wrong. Lying is wrong. But pointing out crime figures of for example the imported migrant Muslims is true, yet also hate speech? I think we’re far beyond hate speech being thought crime. It also means you can’t be honest about your reasons or viewpoint, thereby poisoning the public debate.

aspenmayer 1y ago

> There is a long wikipedia article named Mass surveillance in the United States, but not yet one for the EU. I agree with your other points. There is this though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance#European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance#European_Uni...

owenversteeg 1y ago

I have long campaigned against Fourth Amendment violations in the US, but to compare the US and the EU is laughable. The difference is night and day in every aspect, from constitutional rights to privacy (virtually worthless in most EU constitutions vs quite broad in the US) to practical surveillance (far deeper and broader in the EU) to court requirements for access for typical requests (commonplace in the US, rare in the EU.) As an example of one of those points, the US right to privacy was long considered so broad that it served as the _foundation of the right to abortion_ in the US for decades! By contrast, to pick an EU example, the Dutch right to privacy is so weak that it is quite literally written into the Dutch constitution as “except as limited by law”; in other words, nearly worthless. To compare them by presence of a Wikipedia page is beyond ridiculous.

guitarbill 1y ago
In the US, mugshots of people are published before they have been found guilty. Comparing privacy laws by example is beyond ridiculous. And there are big cultural differences what "privacy" entails.
forgotoldacc 1y ago
But what exactly does privacy entail in the US? Your address and phone number are publicly available with a Google search. I've been stalked and had someone show up at my house after moving (and I have zero social media presence) because, for some reason, my personal info was all online and easily found by googling my name. People can take a video of you, shame you for some random thing, and have your face and name known to millions by the end of the day. The NSA can access all your online data and share it with whoever they want. Companies do it on their behalf as well. Cops can dig through your car just by saying it smells funny. A right to privacy somehow was construed as the right to an abortion. But the right to privacy never meant you have the right to keep anything private. In some other countries, you can easily have your data taken down from public view online and sue (and win against) people who violate that right. That's an uphill battle in the US.
- hdgvhicv 1y ago