3 ms·

Devil's advocate, but why not? I don't like Chat Control and I believe privacy should be guaranteed, but Europol seems quite relevant in this matter.

by jraph 1y ago

AlecSchueler 1y ago
Because laws represent the will of the people, not the will of the police. The individuals in Europol are already offered the same representation as the rest of us and the various branches of the EU legislative bodies can always call on them for consultation on specific matters.
- jraph 1y ago
  That doesn't work very well. If you have a concern you need to voice, you can't rely on waiting for being consulted. I'm really not interested in a system where you are not allowed to speak up. Police is supposedly for protecting people's interests, ideally. Naively, as a citizen I want to be protected from crime and I'm interested in Europol, experts on crime investigation across Europe, getting what they need to do their work and expressing their needs. Of course I'm also not interested in privacy being thrown away. Those two things apparently clash, and a healthy debate can help find an acceptable solution.
  - AlecSchueler 1y ago
    I actually largely agree with you but > Police is supposedly for protecting people's interests, ideally. Police is supposedly for enforcing the law regardless of whose interests that serve. Making that enforcement easier isn't always a net positive for society, even when the laws themselves are just.
    - jraph 1y ago
      The law supposedly protects the people's interest. Ideally. Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world and I agree with you that in practice, law enforcement isn't always a net positive.
      - Saline9515 1y ago
        Police has its own subset of incentives and goals, and is not a transparent institution protecting citizens. It is made of humans that are prone to corruption, power abuse, ideological bias, and so on.
        jraph 1y ago
        Police [...] is not a transparent institution protecting citizens It's its role, theoretically (I don't know about transparent, but protecting citizens for sure). Of course, the reality is not ideal.
        Saline9515 1y ago
        Problem is that theory very commonly doesn't match reality when dealing with humans. Police may prefer to suppress freedom to achieve its goal, which is crime reduction. Or it may stop caring about difficult or dangerous problems (say, drug dealing cartels), and reorient into harassing the civilian population for petty things, such as policing distasteful memes on the internet.
  - Tostino 1y ago
    Must be nice to have any trust in your police forces.
    - jraph 1y ago
      That's not what I'm saying! :-) Unfortunately, I don't have much of this. I wish I could! Happy you wrote this so I could clarify this point.
  - Saline9515 1y ago
    A country where police decides the laws is called a police state. Do you feel that citizen's rights are well respected in such places?
    - jraph 1y ago
      Already addressed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45101127#45102093 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45101127#45102093: We are not talking about power or decision making, we are talking about expression. I'm really confused as to how some people here misunderstand this discussion as being about giving law-making power to the police. I'm of course against a police state. edit: I'm not even defending Europol or what they actually do, there are things they do I most certainly don't like.
      - Saline9515 1y ago
        If police feels confident enough to "express" the need to overthrow basic constitutional rights, you should be worried about how it is managed and what's coming for you. After all, they are the guys with the big sticks who make everyone obey.
        AAAAaccountAAAA 1y ago
        Police forces in Europe have been lobbying for this kind of measures so eagerly that it can even turn out to be a national security issue, I fear. What if the police will end up siding with Russian and/or Chinese invaders, or with a some kind of domestic extremist movement, attempting to set up an authoritarian regime.
  - raxxorraxor 1y ago
    Well, you don't have much say in the EU as a citizen. Its judiciary isn't accessible to you.
    - jraph 1y ago
      We are taking about expression, not decision power, in this thread.
Hendrikto 1y ago
Because of the separation of powers. The police are the executive. They ENFORCE the laws, and only enforce them. They should not be involved in the legislative that makes those laws, or the judiciary that interprets/applies the laws. This is rule of law 101, and has been figured out hundreds of years ago. Without separation of powers, you cannot have rule of law.
- jraph 1y ago
  We are not talking about power or decision making, we are talking about expression. I think any organism should be able to express their needs and voice their concern. That's of course not the same thing as deciding.

Devil's advocate, but why not? I don't like Chat Control and I believe privacy should be guaranteed, but Europol seems quite relevant in this matter.

by jraph 1y ago

Devil's advocate, but why not? I don't like Chat Control and I believe privacy should be guaranteed, but Europol seems quite relevant in this matter.

AlecSchueler 1y ago

Because laws represent the will of the people, not the will of the police. The individuals in Europol are already offered the same representation as the rest of us and the various branches of the EU legislative bodies can always call on them for consultation on specific matters.

jraph 1y ago
That doesn't work very well. If you have a concern you need to voice, you can't rely on waiting for being consulted. I'm really not interested in a system where you are not allowed to speak up. Police is supposedly for protecting people's interests, ideally. Naively, as a citizen I want to be protected from crime and I'm interested in Europol, experts on crime investigation across Europe, getting what they need to do their work and expressing their needs. Of course I'm also not interested in privacy being thrown away. Those two things apparently clash, and a healthy debate can help find an acceptable solution.
- AlecSchueler 1y ago
  I actually largely agree with you but > Police is supposedly for protecting people's interests, ideally. Police is supposedly for enforcing the law regardless of whose interests that serve. Making that enforcement easier isn't always a net positive for society, even when the laws themselves are just.
  - jraph 1y ago
    The law supposedly protects the people's interest. Ideally. Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world and I agree with you that in practice, law enforcement isn't always a net positive.
    - Saline9515 1y ago
      Police has its own subset of incentives and goals, and is not a transparent institution protecting citizens. It is made of humans that are prone to corruption, power abuse, ideological bias, and so on.
      - jraph 1y ago
        Police [...] is not a transparent institution protecting citizens It's its role, theoretically (I don't know about transparent, but protecting citizens for sure). Of course, the reality is not ideal.
        Saline9515 1y ago
        Problem is that theory very commonly doesn't match reality when dealing with humans. Police may prefer to suppress freedom to achieve its goal, which is crime reduction. Or it may stop caring about difficult or dangerous problems (say, drug dealing cartels), and reorient into harassing the civilian population for petty things, such as policing distasteful memes on the internet.
- Tostino 1y ago
  Must be nice to have any trust in your police forces.
  - jraph 1y ago
    That's not what I'm saying! :-) Unfortunately, I don't have much of this. I wish I could! Happy you wrote this so I could clarify this point.
- Saline9515 1y ago
  A country where police decides the laws is called a police state. Do you feel that citizen's rights are well respected in such places?
  - jraph 1y ago
    Already addressed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45101127#45102093 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45101127#45102093: We are not talking about power or decision making, we are talking about expression. I'm really confused as to how some people here misunderstand this discussion as being about giving law-making power to the police. I'm of course against a police state. edit: I'm not even defending Europol or what they actually do, there are things they do I most certainly don't like.
    - Saline9515 1y ago
      If police feels confident enough to "express" the need to overthrow basic constitutional rights, you should be worried about how it is managed and what's coming for you. After all, they are the guys with the big sticks who make everyone obey.
      - AAAAaccountAAAA 1y ago
        Police forces in Europe have been lobbying for this kind of measures so eagerly that it can even turn out to be a national security issue, I fear. What if the police will end up siding with Russian and/or Chinese invaders, or with a some kind of domestic extremist movement, attempting to set up an authoritarian regime.
- raxxorraxor 1y ago
  Well, you don't have much say in the EU as a citizen. Its judiciary isn't accessible to you.
  - jraph 1y ago
    We are taking about expression, not decision power, in this thread.

Hendrikto 1y ago

Because of the separation of powers. The police are the executive. They ENFORCE the laws, and only enforce them. They should not be involved in the legislative that makes those laws, or the judiciary that interprets/applies the laws. This is rule of law 101, and has been figured out hundreds of years ago. Without separation of powers, you cannot have rule of law.

jraph 1y ago
We are not talking about power or decision making, we are talking about expression. I think any organism should be able to express their needs and voice their concern. That's of course not the same thing as deciding.