Why wouldn't they? It's a NATO aligned, pro-Israel rag under Axel Springer, of course they're helping to sell surveillance technology that can be abused by militaries and state agencies, one of the main israeli exports and generally appreciated industry by NATO.
Good, this is the person that should be blamed loud and clear
I am worried what happens when those people who would otherwise be in prison instead have children and those children don't get this kind of therapy.
The fact that he's actually saying this is incredible, and not in a good way.
I'd love to hear him explain the government exemptions in the bill with this in mind.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/danish-justice-min...
If that somehow seams reasonable on its face to someone, then I don't know where to begin a reasonable discussion.
When they do intercept physical mail messages, if the sender has encoded the message, in most democracies, the government is not permitted to compel the sender to decode the message. And even if you come under suspicion today and they start intercepting your physical mail, they can't have an LLM read ALL the physical letters you've ever sent at the press of a key. With electronic communications they don't even need suspicion first. The LLMs are already actively searching everything hunting for anything the government labels sufficiently "suspicious." The "Five Eyes" intelligence agencies have been capturing all email, instant messages and phone call metadata for more than 15 years already.
> The cops can intercept physical mail
You didn't answer the question...
...which is the government's fault and they should be blamed.
I mean, he's kinda right. It just depends on if you feel you're a target or not. If you're not the target, you feel an increased sense of security from any threat caused by the people who are the target.
A really obvious example is a dictator like Kim Jong Un: there's a huge amount of surveillance in North Korea, but all of it serves him and none of it threatens him.
So, especially someone kind of unthoughtful and ignorant of the complexities might feel "an increased sense of security" from this surveillance, because they know they're not a pedophile so assume surveillance purportedly targeted at pedophiles will do them no harm. You might even feel "more freedom" to the degree you feel pedophiles are a threat to you or your family.
MSM today has no choice but to parrot or echo the opinions of those in power if they want to stay in business otherwise they get shut down for $REASON witch can be any of the following labels: hate speech, misinformation, fake news, woke left, radical right wing, Putin supporters, etc. Just spin the roulette and pick one.
>What is a dialog, then? A dialogue between well-connected lobbyists and bureaucrats, and everyone else should just shut up and take it?
Yes, that's precisely how it works:
What a load of crap! There is still tons of "mainstream media" outlets that don't do this. One of the biggest in the UK would be The Guardian, there are hundreds like it.
The decision to toe the line, like the WaPo, are purely because of money (Jeff's and his readership's), not because anyone is "shutting them down" for X or Y.
I used to like the Guardian in 2009-214 but now, I trust someone's "it came to me in a dream", before I trust The Guardian, given their recent flops and biases.
So much wisdom on comedy, even 80s comedy Who reads the papers? - Yes, Prime Minister - BBC comedy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M
Your last point seems to be the parent's point as well -- if you want to keep your media business alive (to make money; that's what businesses are) in the US you have to be careful criticizing those currently in power. Unless I misunderstood you to and you meant that parroting the party line is a way to make more money but not doing it is also perfectly effective and not at all a risk.
Alternative voices are to be found on tight corners of the internet, like an individual on Twitter for example.
If promises about licenses meant a damn, we wouldn’t have speeding cameras.
(Technically correct is the best kind of correct)
[1] https://www.drivencarguide.co.nz/news/no-charges-laid-on-bug...
Please. Your comment was plain old flamebait that's clearly against the guidelines, particularly these ones.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer...
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
Users did the right thing to flag that comment, simply because it's against the guidelines and the intended use of this site. Please take a moment to read them and make an effort to observe them if you want to keep participating here.
In contrast, an expensive speedy car disguised as a cheap slow one would be much more suspicious.
There is a lot of mythology about gods walking among men, hiding their true nature, etc. And more recent examples include the TV show Lucifer.
Someone wanting to roleplay that sort of being is entirely plausible. Without knowing the person's personality (which you presumably did) it's hard to say whether they would have genuinely wanted to do that or if it was an excuse.
(That said, another approach is to have a conversation about "what are you trying to achieve", and find a way for everyone to have the fun they'd like to have without risking something game-breaking.)
To make it clearer, the players and the GM will be struggling against each - in a controlled way, yes, but also a meaningful way. I'm not a super deadly GM but players will be risking death in at least low-key way and so everyone will sooner or later be "using everything they have".
Edit: basically, saying "this rule/power/etc exists but won't have an impact" is more or less saying that the "rules aren't serious", in either the 'Chat Control' or the DM situation. But the very nature of rules is that we wouldn't have them if they weren't serious.
If you're playing an off-the-shelf campaign this is problematic. If the GM is creating the game as you go, then a good GM should be able work with the player to make this reasonable. The GM can always use GM-power to prevent a player from doing something, even if it involves a literal hand of God reaching down to stop them.
A conversation with the player beforehand to make sure you're on the same page about this sort of thing would go a long way. Let them know under what circumstances you're willing to allow them to use whatever the power is. Let them know the consequences if they don't follow those rules.
Unlike with ChatControl, a D&D game is a situation where the necessary trust is able to exist.
An example: agree the player character is some trickster djinn sent from another plane to learn to be a human and how to trick people. They have immense cosmic powers of life and death, but as part of being sent over, they can only use the power for immediate comedy. Violations result in the djinn getting yanked back to their plane and disincorporated.
Boom done. Now you have a massively OP character that can only use their power in humorous situations that don't affect the storyline, and if they try to abuse that then that's instant-death.
I've played in games with "the GM kills you" mechanics and it felt juvenile/arbitrary/abusive. Remember, this is a game where every players' character needs to "shine" and similarly needs to know they're being judged with fairness and compassion by the GM (compassion especially along the lines of "understand what I say my character does as something reasonable").
A player that in good faith wanted to role play such a character, would work with the DM in advance to structure rules well-understood by all parties about exactly what would happen if they abuse their situation.
All the DnD situations can be trivially resolved by good-faith and communication on all sides.
Unlike Chat Control, where good faith cannot be assumed.
D&D is intentionally a collaborative story, and it shouldn't be out of the question for players to collaborate with the DM. Focusing on "the balance between player and GM" is great for a dungeon-crawl style game (which I would argue is the only thing 5e is actually designed for, and is poor for what most people try to use it for, but that's a whole other rant), but putting too much focus on it in a more roleplay-centered campaign can lead to a very adversarial relationship between players and the DM. If you have great players, you should trust them to collaborate with you, not just opposed to you.
But I don't think this really relates to "my character has excess-or-god-like powers but I won't use them" situation. The point isn't the characters can't have more free-form powers that GM interprets sympathetically. The point is if the player has to say their character has special over-the-top-powers, they are creating a rule, not leaving things for free collaboration. I remember in a FATE game in which one player specified has character's aspect that "world's greatest thief" and this both abuse of the FATE system and actual harassment/psychological abuse of another players. I learned the lesson that aspects never should superlatives to them.
For starters the government is not in the habit of releasing these new powers, once it's established it will stay for a very, very long time.
And you can be sure the new powers will be used in unintended ways, which the citizens will have a hard time blocking.
So it's actually very simple: No to Chatcontrol, now and forever.
It doesn't require analyzing of all text and sound. Everything else is still fair game.
Why, yes... that's exactly what the types of outfits like the European People's Party [1] expect on many things. But year after year these incompetent grouches get the majority of votes. And that's before one has to deal with the full-blown far right, fascists, and the like (e. g. ESN [2], PfE [3], et cetera).
1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_People's_Party]
2. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_of_Sovereign_Nations_Gr...]
Besides, your reading of the decidedly centrist Danish Socialdemokraterne as leftists is bizarre to me, especially since they moved more and more towards the right. Something they share with other classic social democrat, i. e. centrist (status quo), parties in the S&D, e. g. their German compatriots from the SPD.
Things that were anathema in my very Catholic country just 20 years ago (divorce, abortion, gay marriage, assisted dying, but also maximum work hours, minimum wage policies, equal pay policies, women's quotas, tax funded subsidies/pensions for people who never contributed to social security, etc) are now so mainstream that even “conservatives” (never mind “centrists”) have co-opted most of them.
But for certain leftists, “ideological purity” apparently trumps all of those advancements.
Now, we're starting to find out what “ideological purity” looks like when that gets co-opted by the right side of the spectrum. And it's not pretty.
Progressives, sans scare quotes, fought long and hard for lobbying access to get the parties in power push through what should be considered basic human rights in any civilized society.
> "Things that were anathema in my very Catholic country just 20 years ago [...] are now so mainstream that even “conservatives” (never mind “centrists”) have co-opted most of them."
In my reality, many conservatives, especially of the clerical variety, are very busy rolling back these basic human rights. And their centrist allies play ball. As usual.
> "Now, we're starting to find out what 'ideological purity' looks like when that gets co-opted by the right side of the spectrum."
Starting to find out? You sound like you labor under the absurd illusion that conservatives/right-wingers of any couleur never had some sort of ideological ideal they tried to pitch to hoi polloi. Well, there's enough libraries worth of works to cure someone of that misbelief.
> Still frustrating that Politico still implies that the bill has any power to stop CSAM, given that everyone who wants to trade it will obviously just use another layer of encryption.
Obviously, many people will not because many are already caught not using any, and many more are just using simple consumer options that this legislation would eliminate.
We can agree that the legislation is horrible without lying to ourselves and asserting that it would have zero impact
The services that deal with CSAM would be flooded with false positives from the automated scanning. They would, in turn, have to find methods of short-cutting the assessment of these false positives so that they can actually function.
The real CSAM would be drowned out by family snaps of kids in pools, of teenagers sexting each other, etc. The ability of the relevant services to actually detect and catch real abusers would be severely hampered. Actual abuse would be caught less and more kids would be harmed.
Five minutes of thought leads to this obvious conclusion. Which implies that this was never about protecting kids in the first place. It's about controlling what people say, as always.
[0] https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/08/21/trial-begins-f...
Anyone remember OTR on Pidgin/gaim back in the day? That kind of system could work on any medium rendering this whole thing completely pointless.
Fun days those were.
Somehow I think in the eyes of the politicians the next step would be that you can only install government approved chat apps on your phones.
Desire for control knows no limits.
She's German, so probably a letter on approved paper in an approved envelope. And you will get a response via a certified letter. Or maybe a fax?
Or the dialog should be in the next election cycle when she is voted out and then it will be interpreted as "the people have spoken". I find it funny how politicians when they're cornered start claiming that this is not the right way to stall for time to pass whatever laws they want to pass anyway.
(Did you know it's a criminal offense in Germany to have your fax "participant ID" set incorrectly? The one transmitted in-band, that you configure on your fax device, not the network provided caller ID.)
https://www.heise.de/en/news/Chat-control-EU-Ombudsman-criti...
Thorn hires Europol police officers to lobby their software.
Their framing it as "Spam campaign" is just as awful, rather than "Outreach campaign". Politico is just another capital interests establishment outfit despite occasionally pretending otherwise.
As a general rule, politicians don't actually have a strong opinion on, or much context on, most things which they are asked to vote on. This can make this sort of lobbying/campaigning quite effective; at a certain point you're forcing the politician to _think_ about it, and that's half the battle.
This is completely besides the point, and illustrates exactly what he doesn't want to understand: as long as that last-resort mechanism is available, it will be used and abused. The latest clear example of that exact same thing is the terrorism charges brought against the pro-Palestine campaigners in London: terrorism legislation was also brought in under the excuse that "it would only be used in the narrowest of circumstances".
This kind of legislation is a red line that democracies should never cross.
> The campaign has irked some recipients. “In terms of dialog within a democracy, this is not a dialog,” said Lena Düpont, a German member of the European People’s Party group and its home affairs spokesperson, of the mass emails.
What is a dialog, then? A dialogue between well-connected lobbyists and bureaucrats, and everyone else should just shut up and take it?
Or, or, "normal people" sending emails only for the lawmakers to go "thanks for the feedback, we're doing it anyway"?
> One EU diplomat said some EU member countries are now more hesitant to support Denmark’s proposal, at least in part because of the campaign: “There is a clear link.”
> Ella Jakubowska, head of policy at digital rights group EDRi, said “This campaign seems to have raised the topic high up the agenda in member states where there was previously little to no public debate."
This is amazing, and makes me regain a bit of (much destroyed) faith in democracy.
> But Danish Justice Minister Peter Hummelgaard, one of the loudest proponents of tough measures to get child abuse material off online platforms, said in a statement that his proposal is far more balanced than the Commission’s original version and would mean that scanning would only happen as a last resort.
If the option is there, it will be abused.