upvote

points

by sph6 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby MichaelZuo5 hours ago|
next
[-]
It is a bit strange why EU countries allow their own credibility and legitimacy get steadily dragged down, bit by bit, by all these thousands of dubious statements, tricks, manoeuvres, and so on.

Do they just not care about weakening their own societies?

reply
upvoteby graemep5 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Much the same reasons why the UK, US etc. do much the same. It is slowed down a bit in some countries with strong constitutions or resistance to it, but the governments all want it.
reply
upvoteby mdp20215 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> "You have to understand that times have changed, it's not like before... Now we have children, the children, the children, children, children and the t-word."

~~ keir starmer

(I'll see if I can still find the source. If anybody beats me to it, appreciated.)

reply
upvoteby rckt5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
The govs consist of people who have their own agendas. Mass surveillance is something they all are aligned on.
reply
upvoteby SpicyLemonZest5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
I guess I'm not sure what's dubious here. The article says they're circumventing "democratic control bodies", but I don't know what that means (perhaps it's a more common phrase in German?), and it sounds like the European Parliament can still vote to reject Chat Control if they don't want it. The article strongly implies there's something dubious going on here, but to me what would be dubious is a procedure that prevents the parliament from voting on Chat Control.
reply
upvoteby flumpcakes4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Perhaps the article is biased.

The simple fact is that a law that existed since 2011 and expired in April is now back in effect. So we are back where we were on February.

I don't remember moving from an anti-democratic hell scape to serene democratic beauty back in April so it's probably a nothing-burger.

I often see news articles that trade on the fact the general populace aren't professional bureaucrats and so frame anything happening in unpopular ways.

reply
upvoteby int_19h1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Perhaps your democracy has been in decline for some time now?
reply
upvoteby theodric5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
They hold all the cards, and have means - above-board or questionable, but effective nonetheless - to enact their will. Do you remember the Treaty of Lisbon referendumS, plural? Just keep asking the question until the plebs answer correctly.
reply
upvoteby 5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby stavros6 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
We have been enjoying a succulent Chinese meal.
reply
upvoteby Lio4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Yeah and Peter Hummelgaard is about to touch you on the penis.

> "We must break with the totally erroneous perception that it is everyone's civil liberty to communicate on encrypted messaging services,"

What an arsehole.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/danish-justice...

reply
upvoteby sph4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
What is it with Danish Social Democrats and wanting to enact mass surveillance at any cost?
reply
upvoteby Ray203 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Isn't this natural for any "Social" ideologies? They imply a system of centralized redistribution, which implies a powerful repressive apparatus and an omnipresent surveillance system.
reply
upvoteby 2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby mdp20214 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Does that ###, which seems to have the most simplistic ideas about the world, also have arguments to defend its position?

I mean: has it ever heard, for example about the 2nd Amendment to the USA constitution, arguing that people must be able to defend from governments themselves?

Is it not aware that data is not accessed "just by the good guys"? ?!

reply