- cross-posted to:
- europe@feddit.org
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- europe@feddit.org
- cross-posted to:
- europe@feddit.org
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- europe@feddit.org
You must log in or register to comment.
Data retention != mass surveilance. Data retention != built-in backdoors. Even the link summary spells out exactly what the purpose of the proposal is (criminal proceedings) and the intended objective (data retention standards).
I tried posting on reddit, but it’s blocked for some reason.
" built-in backdoors,"
Good luck getting that into a lot of the open source tech we now use.
Only the headline asserts “built-in backdoors”, the actual link… not so much.
A reasonable reading of the proposal, assuming it came into effect, is that ISPs, banks, telcos etc would be asked to retain certain records for a number of months or years in a harmonised way. Law enforcement agencies would be required to ask for it in the exact same way they ask for records right now and all the rules concerning GDPR etc would still apply.
Open source tech has zero to do with it, it’s a matter of policy.
The only wrinkle there is “voluntary compliance,” which might be construed as warrantless access.
Simple: the open source tech is now illegal unless they can afford a full time legal team.
It’s regulatory capture: the big firms get consulted by the EU and can design the laws to the detriment of competition. It’s why now, for example, european cars are so expensive and restricted to a handfull of producers.
Alphabet and friends welcome regulation like this.
This is something you’d expect in North Korea
(Europeans rather than Americans in this case, but you get the point.
They always say North Korea or China, not Japan, South Korea, or anything from Southeast Asia.
We don’t have an equivalent in Europe or in America yet, (Although America is doing the work to get there fast, and there are similar people trying to get Europe there.) but the equivalent we did have last century is still referenced in these kinds of threads. Perhaps even more so than the two examples you don’t want to be used.
It has nothing to do with Asia, but with a totalitarian regime. Such mass surveillance is what dictators do. I could also have said old east Germany, the USSR, Russia, the US, Turkmenistan, El salvador. It’s just that I chose north Korea as it is currently one of the worst and most known today.
Except it’s not what they’re doing. It’s what the EU is doing. Westerners just assume that they’re always “the good guys”, and whenever they do something bad the most they can muster up is “this is something 'the bad guys” would do!"
You’re looking at something being done by the EU and immediately pivot to attacking other countries
Because I don’t want the EU to change in a totalitarian regime. I want to be the good guys but I’m disgusted by our support of Israel, I’m disgusted by our predatory trade deals with developing countries, etc. So I know we’re not he good guys. But I want to be, and I want to keep/make the EU a nice place to live in. So I do compare certain extreme proposals to countries where you’d expect certain things to happen, so people will understand we don’t want to go in that direction. We should always strive to do better. But we also have a dictatorship inside the EU (Hungary) so it’s not all happy days het either. We should just steer away from this instead of incorporate it into the entire EU.
So I know we’re not he good guys
Do you? When you hear about some other country outside of the EU and the West doing something draconian do you find yourself saying “This is something you’d expect in the EU”? Or do you reserve that statement for the designated “bad guy countries”. I don’t think you see the EU as bad guys, I think you see them as "The Good Guys, who are not currently living up to the people they’re supposed to be. Because these labels aren’t based on what countries actually do, they’re based on a per-assigned ontology, where some countries are good and some are bad inherently, and if the former does bad that’s just them falling short of their true nature. So even when they do bad things, those bad things still remain somehow metaphysically of the bad guy country, like saying that a law in the EU is somehow “North Korean” in character.
So I do compare certain extreme proposals to countries where you’d expect certain things to happen
I ‘expect’ this kind of thing to happen in the EU, because it does, and it is. You’re once again acting like something being done by “good guy” countries is actually representative of other countries, and not of the EU.
We should always strive to do better.
Step one is to stop assuming you’re ontologically the good guys and that any bad things you do is actually just out of character and more like something they’d do in enemy countries.
But we also have a dictatorship inside the EU
Yeah, and most of the EU is actively supporting the most brutal regime on Earth in an active genocide. I reject the idea that the EU has a leg to stand on when it comes to accusing other countries of being totalitarian just because it reserves its totalitarian repression for people overseas.
Any country that treats fleeing the country as criminal deserves all the hate it can get. North Korea is evil.
It deserves all criticism and insult, both fair and precise teardowns, and mad sloppy jabs.
You just attack me based on your assumptions. You are doing exactly what you are accusing me of: You act like you are better than me by making me a bad guy.
If you think the EU isn’t a better place than the DPRK, you’re free to go there. I do not expect certain things to happen in a free democracy, when we want to keep it a free democracy instead of a totalitarian regime. I’m willing to fight for it and speak out. Giving up all our privacy for mass surveillance doesn’t fit the EU and what it stands for. If you think otherwise, you might not understand the EU.
I don’t feel like defending attacks based on your assumptions so I’m going to step out of this discussion. There aren’t just good and bad guys, the world is so much more complex than just black and white. You keep on attacking me for thinking “we are the good guys” even though I already said we aren’t. We indeed are better than others and others are better than us. That’s how the world works. But there are no good guys. I try to be become better and help others become better. I don’t look down on others, rather prefer to help them instead. I try to be a good guy but I also make mistakes. I’m only human. But at least I’m doing the best I can.
I wish you a good day
You just attack me based on your assumptions.
No, I’m calling out a behavior I disagree with
You are doing exactly what you are accusing me of: You act like you are better than me by making me a bad guy.
That’s not remotely what I was saying, please actually read what I said and make a real effort to understand what I meant.
If you think the EU isn’t a better place than the DPRK, you’re free to go there.
I think that we are explicitly talking about something bad the EU is doing. I do also think the DPRK is a much better place to live than Gaza, and the EU supports that. so maybe you should go to Gaza?
I do not expect certain things to happen in a free democracy
Well they do, so maybe you should recalibrate your expectations to be based on real life and not the good-guy/bad-guy fiction you apply, so you don’t end up looking at things the EU does and saying “this is something [bad guy country] does!” Also, hard to call it a free democracy when the people you murder overseas don’t’ get to vote, and all of your media is owned by right wing oligarchs.
I’m willing to fight for it and speak out.
Doesn’t seem like it, seems like you’re more interested in fighting foreigners.
I don’t feel like defending attacks based on your assumptions so I’m going to step out of this discussion.
So you can’t actually defend yourself but are too stubborn to admit it.
There aren’t just good and bad guys, the world is so much more complex than just black and white.
Correct, so maybe you should start actually acting like it, rather than splitting the world into the good guys (free democracies) and the bad guys (totalitarian regimes) and treating totalitarian policies of the good guys as some how being ontologically of the bad guy countries that had nothing to do with them.
though I already said we aren’t.
Then stop acting like you think you are.
But there are no good guys.
Then act like it.
I don’t look down on others, rather prefer to help them instead.
That sounds like you look down on them. Do you ever actually entertain the possiblity that anyone might be right outside of “west best” liberals?
I try to be a good guy but I also make mistakes
And will you actually change your behavior when your mistakes get pointed out? Or will you double down?
This motherfucker likes Kim Jong Un and Juche shit.
Even as an American, this is terrifying. Everyone knows my country is shit, but I’ve always seen you guys as the gold standard and for this kind of thing to even be discussed over on your side of the pond is absolutely horrifying…
It’s a specific group within the EU that’s trying to do this.
Like those Project 2025 people.
This has widespread support under MEPs, accross party lines. It’s only Germany and Poland that opposed it last time. (1)
And Germany won’t oppose this time because the government is righ wing as hell.
Is there a list of those who support?
I think that was for Clientside scanning, not all the awful things this secretive group is trying to push.
always seen you guys as the gold standard
In the land of the blind
If the bottom of the barrel is what you’re trying to compare a golden coated shit is taking all the money.
Lol I mean, nobody is perfect, but you guys have things like freedom of movement (even between countries) and France and Germany pushing open source software forward for the sake of privacy, security, flexability and community. Plus, you guys seem to have a mindset of “until it’s proven safe, it will be illigal” compared to our “until it is proven UNsafe, it will be legal”. Maybe “gold standard” isn’t the best term, but I feel like you guys have better way of thinking about the world
I fear your glasses are tinted too rose. If you look at what they do instead of say, a different conclusion reveals itself.
Plus, you guys seem to have a mindset of “until it’s proven safe, it will be illigal” compared to our “until it is proven UNsafe, it will be legal”.
pushing open source software forward for the sake of privacy, security, flexability and community.
What happened instead was that bad governance made sure that there is little to no tech developed in the EU. We missed the 21st century tech boat.
Something they aim to “fix” the same way they always do: give money to professional grand receivers with the better political connections (example).
That failed, ofcourse, not in delivering grants, but in creating succesfull technology. So now they also try a new strategy: just fine foreign companies that they can’t tax.
Still failing to address the original issues on why we aren’t part of 21st century technology development. As addressing those issues would require them to look in the mirror.
Nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives
They already see the coming day. This is why they want the control and enhanced viability
Well then you’ll have to go full blown socialism
This is to make sure VPNs have to retain data and zero logging will be illegal
They have been a thorn in the side of Disney, Netflix, Amazon and HBO for years.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention, I wouldn’t be aware of it otherwise. For what its worth, I left my ideas as feedback there.
Also, I would just like to point out that before lemmy (and subscribing to various EU communities) I was not at all active in voicing my opinion about such things as I didn’t have any idea that it was even possible/how to do it. Lemmy as a whole has helped me become more active in this regard :D
I have also left some feedback for the first time!
Every year they try to push this same shit with a new name. One day there will be a reichstag fire and it will be passed.
So fucking transparant, yet I don’t see a way to stop them.
The rough quote is, we have to win against this every time. They only have to win once.
Pretty straightforward: join anarchist groups like the ccc and the fau, vote radical left and tell everyone you know to do the exact same. It already helps in some areas, just keep doing it.
And how do you ensure that the “radical left” doesn’t support surveillance measures? Not like the ideology has a good track record on that matter.
You mean like every other government? I dont. Radical leftists stand for human rights. Of course there is a chance that they get coopted. But every other political ideology does not need to get coopted to oppress people.
Most moderate anything government doesn’t even begin to come anywhere close to the control of a “radical” leftist state.
What is your basis for “radical” leftists standing for human rights? Radical leftists are rarely liberally minded. I don’t disagree that many left-wing parties stand for decency, environmental protection, and various rights - but “radicals” do not.
You are making assumptions. It shows that you dont have any idea of leftism.
The idea of leftism is that people (and animals in most cases) are the same and deserve their needs met.
You can criticize the measures taken to ensure this, especially in capitalist societies where you may have to use force to break capitalist resistance. If all you ever knew is rape, being disallowed to rape can feel repressive. But its still okay to repress it.
And it is okay to disagree on this. Thats why we have both anarchists and marxists. Massively simplified, one party wants to mentally arm the population and push for a self educating, politically mature population. The other one wants to change the system from the top and reeducate the public on cooperation and classless society while forcefully repressing the regressive ideas.
They both actually want the same, communism. The classless, stateless society.
Of course that is an ideal, a utopia that might never be real but the millions of people dying under capitalism every year and the exploited people all over the world, the exploited planet that is starting to kick us out are WAY worse than all that has been seen before. The strongest argument for marxism is the limited time we have before we will just die out (starting with those who already are exploited the most today).
no thanks, no person who waves around hammer and cycle gives two shits about betterment of mankind, the same way someone waving a swastika around does not.
Interesting take. What makes you say that?
I didn’t know about those groups, thanks for bringing light to it although I’d be wary of voting radical left unless the alternative is only a right-winger
“Wary” of radical left why exactly?
Radical right and radical left. You should be wary of both of them because they are radical.
- Radical plans often need to be enforced to be accepted
- Enforcing political will is authoritarian.
- I’m anti-authoritarian above everything else.
The current center was extremely radical for most of human history. And if you think that centrist politics don’t need to be enforced then I would encourage you to pick up a history book.
The current center was extremely radical for most of human history. And if you think that centrist politics don’t need to be enforced then I would encourage you to pick up a history book.
Ah, a “centrist”. So how much killing of people is central enough for you? How much genocide?
The idea of “radical = bad” is a trick. It’s got zero to do with reality.
Example: depending on where you ask, radical means entirely different things. Read about the overtone window.
That said, radical leftism is about human rights. It is about destroying hierarchies between people. In short it means: everyone gets what they need and does what they can. Or “food, water, housing are inalienable rights.”
The radical right is about superiorism. White power, discrimination and ultimately destruction of what they view as “lesser” be it people who look different, have different ancestral history etc.
And you think its smart to compromise between the two? I suggest reading books.
So how much killing of people is central enough for you? How much genocide?
Very non-radical actions you asking me to support.
From all of that I get that you’re someone who thinks it’s left Vs right. Two positions, Two ends of a line. If you’re not at one end, you’re at the other and what lies in-between (if anything) is grey, cowardly, compromising, compliant lemmings.
…and you’re telling me to read books? This is the most juvenile and laziest of political thinking. You need to grow beyond thinking anyone that doesn’t agree with you must either be the enemy or a collaborator. At least get past one-dimensional thinking.
And it’s the Overton window (not “overtone”) after Joseph Overton, a US libertarian and free-market supporter. He came up with the concept to describe how think-tanks should manipulate public opinion to consider what was previously unthinkable, particularly in a free-market direction. Of course, that’s all lost now it’s become part of pop-politics.
You’re funny.
I said we should not compromise on these things, you’re trying to make a strawman, and badly.
You started with the left vs right debate and are attacking me ad hominem with it.
Your way of discussion is massively out of line and very condescending.
Also, trying to top my point of the overtone (its not important if i spell it correctly, get over yourself) window is childish, while you’re accusing me of being exactly that. That was massively ableist too.
You’re the exact reason why people with a brain dont like centrists. They’re just fashists undercover. The same attack methods, the same disregard for human rights and decency.
Next you say feminists, vegans or climatechange activists are hurting the cause because they’re “too loud”. Honestly, people in the thousands die every day because people like you say " what can you do?!" Instead of “maybe we stop that”
Anyway. As you can imagine, i dont allow people with less than decent communication style in my feed. So go spill your poison somewhere else.
Not in all cases as I said between a radical left and a right-winger you might be better voting for the radical left but why I say to be wary is because of the Horseshoe Theory
If you were to say progressive leftists is where I’d be all for
Horseshoe theory is bunk because, when you drill down, all it’s basically saying is that people who disagree with the tenets of liberal capitalism don’t respect the legitimacy of a system based on the tenets of liberal capitalism. It’s essentially a tautology, and not incitefull because liberal capitalists also don’t respect the legitimacy of systems that aren’t based on liberal capitalist tenets.
fair enough
The horseshoe theory doesn’t apply to every leftist group. You need to gauge and research their backgrounds to see if they’re authoritarian first.
horseshoe theory doesn’t apply to every leftist group […] research their backgrounds to see if they’re authoritarian first
hence why I say to be wary and why I say I’d vote but not in every circumstances though BrainInABox makes fair points against it
The horseshoe theory is bullshit to discredit anti establishement leftists.
The idea of radical leftism is that the capitalist system needs and breeds inequality and the state is its assistant. There is no overlap of fascism and leftism. There is a lot of overlap between fascism and capitalism though.
Dont believe stuff like this. It has been disproven many times.
Radical leftism means in essence:
- everyone is the same
- everyone deserves the same satisfaction of their needs
- a roof over your head, food and drink are inalienable rights
The only thing i would warn of is that just because someone says they are leftist, socialist, communist, anarchist, etc doesnt mean they really are. Examples: national socialists and anarcho capitalists. They’re both just using the term and perverting the idea. Then there are radical leftist parties that are lost (like russia apologists).
Of course you need to make an informed decision but yes, radical left all the way.
Radical leftism means in essence:
- everyone is the same
- everyone deserves the same satisfaction of their needs
- a roof over your head, food and drink are inalienable rights.
Any progressive leftist would agree with those things hence why I’d be all for them and as you said there are exceptions in radical left where they shouldn’t be taken seriously
Exactly. Its just important to understand that horseshoe is not a viable concept. Use specifics instead. No Gos are:
- russia apologism
- israel apologism
- science denial/esotherics
- selective exclusion from basic rights
One very helpful concept is the tolerance paradox. It states that tolerant treatment of intolerant parties will lead to them dismantling of the tolerant system.
Horseshoe theory is utter nonsense and not worth any kind of real consideration.
well you’re entitled to your opinions but you don’t seem to try to argue in good faith your points to favor your reasoning
to be fair to them: “horseshoe theory” is in itself a bad faith argument designed specifically to derail and disrupt leftist discussions…soooo…why bother with much of an argument?
it IS bunk, it’s pretty obvious that it is bunk, and it takes up a tremendous amount of time and effort to constantly repeat just how bunk it is.
not saying you are wrong, at least in general.
it’s just that this particular topic takes up way more space in online discussions than it has any right to, so i get the frustration - and unwillingness to explain something faaaaairly obvious - of the previous user.
a bad faith argument doesn’t really deserve a proper answer: wasting time on it is exactly the point of bad faith arguments. that’s why they so successful in the first place; they create no-win scenarios. damned if you ignore them, damned if you don’t. that’s why the right constantly comes up with new ones.
If it helps, i have a political science degree. No one takes Horseshoe Theory seriously. I’m not arguing because there is nothing to argue.
organize with a leftist collective. this is the way to stop capitalism.
I fear that’s an oversimplification, seeing how both the socialist and the marxist MEPs from Belgium voted pro last time (1)
then its possible they are revisionists (ie not really marxists)
this really does complicate things, not unlike the US situation, but it can still be taken over or superseded by a better organization.
i’m not well versed in belgium socialism though. you are the ones who will have to figure out how to navigate this.
what i can tell you for absolute sure is keeping it in the hands of capitalist oligarchs is 100% guaranteed to lose you this war, even if you manage to push back on yet another battle.
Maybe you’re not a real marxist and they are 🤔
supporting a capitalist surveillance apparatus isn’t socialist at all. as i said, though, i have no idea about how that movement works in belgium, so you tell me.
what i do know is that none of you quite got my point that this is a capitalist project promoted by capitalist oligarchs, and you will not get rid of these attempts without attacking them more directly.
“No true Scotsman”.
We don’t have to think in political leanings following the left-right paradigm. Parties and persons considered “leftist” aren’t inherently good, nor is the other side inherently bad. Don’t limit yourself by identifying with just one ideology. In case you didn’t realise, socialists tend to like surveillance as well
Parties and persons considered “leftist” aren’t inherently good
i said almost exactly this in my comment, i think you misunderstood my intent. its ok, english is not my first language.
but i’m sorry, fascists are inherently bad.
socialists tend to like surveillance as well
socisliats aren’t inherently fond of surveillance. most i know are not, including myself.
Don’t limit yourself by identifying with just one ideology.
i really don’t. in contemporary politics, though, its either capitalism or anti-capitalism. right or left. unless you are a feudalist or something.
Of course fascists are bad and can go fuck themselves - but not all “right wingers” are fascists.
Socialist regimes are inherently fond of surveillance. Indiviuals can have any given stance on it. Politically involved people - minus fascists - tend to have stances against surveillance and for data protection.
There’s a lot of nuance inbetween “capitalist” and “anti-capitalist”. I’m not here to defend capitalism but this black-and-white worldview often held by self-proclaimed left-wingers is offputting to the very masses that they claim to represent to such a degree that the working class would rather shoot themselves in the foot by voting for fascists and fascist-adjacents rather than support “crazy leftists”. In the modern age it’s an ideology of a lot of talk and studies and very few results.
not all “right wingers” are fascists
i never claimed this. a big portion of right wingers are fascists nowadays, at least in my country. though “regular” right wingers are there in the form of centrists and liberals, you strike me as someone in this group.
Socialist regimes are inherently fond of surveillance
socialist “regimes” are not inherently fond of surveillance. you are probably thinking of china specifically. none of the other currently socialist countries do the same.
There’s a lot of nuance inbetween “capitalist” and “anti-capitalist”.
again, i never claimed otherwise. but you are either in the “capitalist” spectrum, or the “anti-capitalist” spectrum. you seem to be projecting this rigid black and white viewpoint onto me.
very few results
we don’t have the entire state apparatus in our favor, nor the means to directly counter the abundant and persistent anticommunist propaganda spewed by capitalist states.
ill remind you, though, that more than half the world’s population is living under socialism. successfully at that. maybe you guys should give it a fair try before dismissing it as ineffective.
To the EU:
Just like me!😎💅
At least they give a platform for people to speak out and it’s public, but yes disappointing although if you see the other cross-posts some are not straight talking about the risks other than just saying it’s about mass surveillance or metadata collection which could ring less alarm bells for people reading it (i know mass surveillance should be enough but oh well)
True, that’s actually a wonderful initiative and they should build upon it, the EU needs a public forum to discuss these things.
Its refreshing to see people care about this subject outside of privacy forums.
Im sure the agencies that do monitor us have stopped potential threats, but there is a fine line between this and having secret police.
