7 ms·
> Nothing substantial has happened to the three texts since last week, it's just that "chat control is back" drives traffic and "Council preparatory body formal
by a022311 11mo ago
> Nothing substantial has happened to the three texts since last week, it's just that "chat control is back" drives traffic and "Council preparatory body formally approves draft position that got consensus previously but didn't formally get passed because people were fighting over Ukraine stuff for too long" doesn't.
While I agree with your point, it's still crucial to raise awareness of Europe's actions. It may be a small step, but it is not insignificant.
- squigz 11mo agoAwareness of the reality, yes, but there's no reason to play people's emotions to get them "aware" of it - or in other words, get them angry about it.
- YeahThisIsMe 11mo agoYes, there is. This shouldn't move forward at all, regardless of how many steps are involved and how small they are.
- TeMPOraL 11mo agoAnyone can and does say this about their pet favorite bit of legislation. And so journalists are more than happy to pull this shit with every other topic, too.
- YeahThisIsMe 11mo agoThat's okay. I can just choose not to read the stuff I'm not interested in.
- squigz 11mo agoAn angry, divided population is a lot easier to push to the extremes, enabling such legislation because people are so angry and divided and can't come to a reasonable compromise or solution. These things shouldn't move forward, indeed. But being angry about it for years at a time when things aren't even remotely set in stone doesn't seem healthy for an individual or society at large.
- Xelbair 11mo agoThis type of legislation should never ever be proposed in a democratic system, so had disagree. This is an extremely totalitarian-style move from EU - governing bodies are exempt from the law, meanwhile peasants have to be watched 24/7 for wrongthink, all under guise of protecting the children.
- ben_w 11mo agoWhile I agree with the sentiment, you need to think like a state to stop this kind of thing. Even without any argument about personal rights and what's totalitarian, I can't even square the circle of the unstoppable force of "the economy is dependent on encryption that can't be hacked" with the immovable object of "hostile governments and organised criminals undermine ${insert any nation here} and communicate with local agents via encryption that can't be hacked".
- DangitBobby 11mo agoOrganized criminals (especially state actors) will find ways to communicate in the dark regardless, including just continuing to use illegal encryption.
- ben_w 11mo ago> including just continuing to use illegal encryption. First, this can be made a crime by itself, and detected automatically because the mandatory back-doors fail. Second, what gets talked about in public (the only thing any of us knows for sure, but also definitely not the whole picture) includes foreign governments recruiting locals via normal messenger apps. More of a problem is that the back-doors can be exploited by both criminals and hostile powers.
- DangitBobby 11mo ago> First, this can be made a crime by itself, and detected automatically because the mandatory back-doors fail. You're assuming they continue to use monitored channels to carry it out.
- LexiMax 11mo agoWhile I disagree with your position for the reasons already given by others, it's quite ironic that in this thread about government censorship that your opinion is in the process of being censored by other HN users.
- squigz 11mo agoBeing downvoted is not remotely "censorship"
- LexiMax 11mo agoIt makes the opinion hidden from the vast majority of visitors, except those who go out of their way to both have an account and showdead. It is in every appreciable way censorship via unaccountable mob. It's censorship in a way that Reddit's downvote isn't, because Reddit allows anonymous users to read downvoted posts - or at least did the last time I checked.
- hrimfaxi 11mo agoDoes your definition of censorship require everything to be viewable by anonymous users?
- bluebarbet 11mo agoDoes your definition of disagreement require that it be made harder for others to hear voices you disagree with?
- hrimfaxi 11mo agoThat was an illuminating question. Thank you. I see my parent's point now because no, I don't think that disagreement requires what amounts to censure if it makes it harder for something to be seen.
- 11mo ago
- popalchemist 11mo agoMass surveillance of private messaging is something anyone with a brain should be angry about. Your position is insane.
- squigz 11mo agoMass surveillance of private messaging has been happening since day 1 at Facebook and them.
- popalchemist 11mo agoThat's a bad faith argument, in effect an outright lie, because you're conflating individual instances of bad actors with what would now be a universal policy meant to neuter encryption and 100% of net privacy.
- EasyMark 11mo agoNah the first reaction of anyone who cherishes democracy which by necessity should be skeptical of entrenched and liberty abusing policies in the name of "safety" should be "what? are you crazy? what a stupid idea" for any of these encryption banning scams.