Europe: The end of the privacy of digital correspondence
patrick-breyer.de
patrick-breyer.de
New EU Law Removes Digital Privacy - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28139889 - Aug 2021 (167 comments)
Messaging and chat control - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28115343 - Aug 2021 (317 comments)
European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27753727 - July 2021 (415 comments)
Indiscriminate messaging and chatcontrol: Last chance to protest - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27736435 - July 2021 (104 comments)
This is in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
When a story is a major ongoing topic (as this one may be), we treat it as a fresh story each time significant new information (SNI) comes up. See https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... for past explanations. If someone can point to SNI in this case, I'd be happy to take a look.
Here's recent discussion on the UK push: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=https%3A%2F%2Fnoplacetohide.org.uk
SMSs have never been secret, but are still private
.
Secrecy doesn't imply privacy, you can do things secretly, like for example bring weed with you in a secret pocket, that doesn't mean police can't stop you and do a search on you if a dog smells it.
They can't ask you to reveal who you're casually talking on the phone though without a warrant, even if the conversation is not secret.
You can use encryption to enforce secrecy, that's true, but not privacy.
If you are constantly messaging with a known drug dealer or someone wiretapped, even if the conversation is secret, your right to privacy goes out the window.
Privacy means you close the door when you go to the bathroom, secrecy means you don't tell anybody where are you going and why.
It’s a little moot if she doesn’t.
Which is a lot more dry and clear than what has been posted. We could all seek to be more emotionally disengaged if we want to have actual debates.
One of the things stated, for example is that the bill will not stand up in a court of law; and MEPs were displeased at the “moral blackmail” of the bill: basically “you don’t want to protect children? You must hate children!”
EDIT: what’s with all the low effort euro-skepticism in this thread? Surely we can do better.
You can either describe the new site article as "more neutral" instead (which is usually useful in most political debates no matter of your personal opinion), or link to report from EU Parliament for an official report as actual primary source here.
A neutral source would be one that is removed from having an opinion, but since this is the institution itself it is not possible for it to be neutral; like a Facebook blog post talking about Facebook content policies, it cannot be unbiased.
This is one MEPs opinion and he likely doesn’t speak for the institution that has pushed the bill, but the source I supplied is representing the institution.
They are the worst kind of neutral sources.
Talking from experience.
EDIT: I've worked as a tech consultant on this matter and commented on previous submissions .
MEPs are constantly lobbying for their own side, which is completely normal, but their job is the exact opposite of being neutral
My position as a regular citizen, not as consultant, is that secrecy is not a given, privacy is.
If I send a letter to someone, the letter is not secret. Anyone who can read can open it and read the content
Privacy on the other hand means that the aforementioned letter cannot be opened by anyone who's not been authorized. It's against the law.
The subject is important but given the way the blog author handles it I doubt he's presenting it in an honest manner.
Edit: this doesn't even look like a blog post, but more of a generic page with info (and undated) - so not something that brings new information
I know that, and if he wrote the blog post (which looks like it), then yes, he's the blog author (the blog footer pretty much says so)
My criticism remains. Emotional rallies are a poor way of discussing the subject.
Aiding a criminal is itself a crime in Germany -- I would go for "Täterschaft durch Unterlassen"; without their enablement, no further abuse could have happened.
But the prosecutors seem to be to involved with the church shrug
Instead of going for the known abusers the general population gets the STASI 3.x treatment.
Some days I wish the EU dissolves into irrelevancy. Barely more than a fishbowl full off awkward, self righteous bureaucrats. Then again, the scavengers and populists are already waiting and are the guaranteed ticket to hell during lifetime.
The internet is a distraction. Meet with people face-to-face, until the switch is flipped that tracks and monitors that, too.
He was fired as a cop for shoplifting (according to wikipedia) so why wasn't his DNA collected then?
The parts where our rules notably differ from (as far as I understand them) those of other EU nations are:
1. Transmitting any pornographic material is a crime. Possession is not criminalised (unless of persons under the age of 18, or appearing to be such).
2. Every clause includes the words "of a person", implying that drawings are not subject to them. I don't know enough law to say for sure.
3. The rules against child sexual abuse material specify "person under the age of 18, or appearing to be such ". The latter part seems to not be part of other nations' laws.
[1] https://lex.bg/bg/laws/ldoc/1589654529 чл. 159