Hacker News Reader

Comment by Tainnor | Hacker News Reader

The only "good" thing is that the current German government is very skeptical about this and two of the current governing parties (the Greens and the liberal party) have also long been opposed to more surveillance.

This was different with the previous government where the "law & order" mentality was much more entrenched, and which did nothing to prevent e.g. upload filters (despite promising to do so).

So I try to maintain some hope that at least Germany as a member state could tank this awful bill.

edit:

Here's the list of 61 questions that the German government sent to the EU concerning the bill (at the end of the article, in English): https://netzpolitik.org/2022/chatkontrolle-bundesregierung-l...

From a cursory reading, it reads to me like the diplomatic equivalent of "what you're proposing doesn't make any sense".

View on HN

The questions are indeed gold:

> 4. Does the COM share the view that recital 26 indicating that the use of end-to-end-encryption technology is an important tool to guarantee the security and confidentiality of the communications of users means that technologies used to detect child abuse shall not undermine end-to-end-encryption?

> 5. Could the COM please describe in detail on technology that does not break end-to-end-encryption, protect the terminal equipment and can still detect CSAM? Are there any technical or legal boundaries (existing or future) for using technologies to detect online child sexual abuse?

Mathematically speaking, they could have stopped at that point, but they went on.

Are you sure they're ideologically against it, or where they against it because they were in the opposition and it was convenient for them to be?

The Greens in Germany are basically a more serious/realistic Pirate party when the topic is related to the internet.

Honestly I vote Greens because of that alone. The fact that the rest of their program is sane is a cherry on top.

Oh my god, not at all. The Greens, are more ideologically driven than any other party and not in a good way(and that ideology does not line up with their campaign promises at all). They have been the single most destructive force in German politics and they have not kept a single campaign promise. This is the supposed "Green" party that campaigned on anti-war and not sending weapons to war zones and closing coal that has been actively lobbying on reopening coal plants and has been the most vocal in its request to send weapons to Ukraine.

If Greens were in favour of anything they campaigned on it would be the perfect political party, but it's not.

It's actually the FDP and AfD that has been most actively against these things. The AfD has been labelled far right and racist conveniently ignoring all the massively racist statement and actions by past CDU/CSU and SPD leadership.

> This is the supposed "Green" party that campaigned on anti-war and not sending weapons to war zones and closing coal that has been actively lobbying on reopening coal plants and has been the most vocal in its request to send weapons to Ukraine.

Which is not a new thing; They did the same the last time they had government participation under Red/Green, ended up sending the Bundeswehr to "defend freedom" in Afghanistan.

Thus the running joke about Greens in Germany is how their "green" does not stand for the environment, but rather for the olive green of military uniforms.

That's a dangerous way of thinking. Just because you have a common enemey (AfD hating all things Europe and therefor hating this stupid law), does not make you a friend or even a good ally.

Also whataboutism of the highest order! Of course there have been people found to be Nazis in other parties throughout Germany's history. Still no reason whatsoever to even remotely accept them today.

How can you complain about them being "ideologically driven", and simultaneously criticize them for not insisting on anti-war/environmental ideas in the face of war in Ukraine? I say they're doing realpolitik, even if it might lose them some of their more ideologically entrenched voters.

Hah I completely agree.

Realpolitik trumps ideology. And I'm happy the Greens go that way

>How can you complain about them being "ideologically driven", and simultaneously criticize them for not insisting on anti-war/environmental ideas in the face of war in Ukraine?

Simple, the Greens have refocused on US-style identity politics and abandonded environmental concerns as their main focus.

So, in other words... they react to changing circumstances (the exact opposite of ideological)?

Coal used to be worse than gas, so they wanted less coal and more gas, but now the gas is worse, so they want less gas and more coal?

They were opposed to arming Germany out of fear Germany could be tempted to attack other nations, but now that it wasn't Germany who started the attack, they want Germany to help defend?

This is the exact opposite of ideologically driven and it is exactly how every party and politician should be.

If your position is to be against war, even when a tyrannical dictator sends his army to murder your people, that is a stupid position. If you position is to be against war unless it's against the army a tyrannical dictator sent to murder your people, that is a very sensible position.

Hahaha, good one.

Sane policies like shuttering nuclear (in favour of more coal and reliance on Russia)? Yikes

Are you sure they’re not part of the group who wrote the law, only to pretend lobbying against it with, you can admit that, surface arguments which won’t rollback the idea of total control on private communications?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com