[HN Gopher] Don't Spy EU
___________________________________________________________________
Don't Spy EU
Author : giuliomagnifico
Score : 166 points
Date : 2023-11-15 13:03 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (dontspy.eu)
(TXT) w3m dump (dontspy.eu)
| aethelyon wrote:
| I used to be worried about face scanning. But sometimes I wonder
| if it's an inevitable evolution of technology.
|
| Which - to be clear - is not support for it, but a question about
| what is emergent from the new things we create.
| rmellow wrote:
| 1. Photographs/video might be inevitable: cellphone cameras are
| ubiquitous, people love to share media and memories; There are
| strong cases for CCTV for security. however ...
|
| 2. Analyzing images for biometric markers and linking it to a
| database of persons can absolutely be legislated against.
|
| 3. One step further, utilizing biometric information for
| decision making is also very easy to legislate against.
|
| Some companies might do these things secretly anyway, but then
| we have the need for audits and strong enforcement of the law,
| which is another matter. First step is to get this into
| legislation.
| repelsteeltje wrote:
| I agree. This is much like legislation around traditional
| weapons: Sure, you can't _un-invent_ nuclear physics, gun
| powder, bows and arrows, knifes, sticks. They are to some
| level ubiquitous, available to anyone with enough resolve.
|
| But that doesn't mean any entrepreneur can decide to produce
| or hoard large amounts of weapons for personal or commercial
| gains. In most countries, there are legislative boundaries
| that make sure the state has monopoly of violence and
| (preferably _democratic_ ) government controls that force.
|
| That system of course is still dangerous and fragile, but far
| better than roving gangs or ultimate power at the hands of
| commercial organizations...
| RandomLensman wrote:
| In a lot of countries you are not allowed to just record
| private conversations with listening devices (and it is not
| happening as a mass phenomenon), so clearly we can
| legislate successfully against use of technology.
| madflame991 wrote:
| What would prevent me from walking around the street or
| in semi-public places recording non-stop on my phone?
| Heck, I could have a few phones in my pockets!
| HowTheStoryEnds wrote:
| Legislation is not about prevention but about punishment.
| riversflow wrote:
| > This is much like legislation around traditional weapons.
|
| The problem with that comparison is that it would be very
| obvious and noteworthy if Nestle started to drop bombs or
| hired mercenaries to prey on villages who tried to fight
| their abusive water practices, or whatever analogous
| weapons fiction you can imagine to Big Tech abusing their
| data and resources for invasive spying. People would die
| and/or be injured, likely property would be destroyed--
| these are _extremely tangible_ things.
|
| Big tech could be using facial recognition for years and
| fly under the radar. Privacy is essentially intangible.
| ben_w wrote:
| 2: governments can legislate against against anything, but
| this feels like the other side of the same coin as pro
| cryptographic freedom: you're trying to ban maths.
|
| We can, and IMO should, ban this type data use in commercial
| and party political contexts, but that isn't going to do
| anything to stop criminals and foreign governments doing
| these same things for their own commercial and political
| goals.
|
| We need a milieu where we can survive that.
| rmellow wrote:
| Agreed, I meant this in a commercial and political context.
|
| Banning research is entirely different.
| Geee wrote:
| It should also be inevitable that people develop tech for
| defending themselves as a response. Face masks / face paints
| might become more popular.
| jjgreen wrote:
| The laws on that have been in place for 20 years: https://www
| .libertyhumanrights.org.uk/advice_information/exp...
| autoexec wrote:
| Many (most?) places in the US have outright bans on wearing
| masks in city/county ordinances, sometimes with exceptions
| for children or Halloween, sometimes not. Those laws were
| basically ignored for covid though and I know several
| people who found masking extremely beneficial for cold
| weather or allergies and they'll keep masks on hand for
| those circumstances.
|
| No matter how popular that becomes I suspect it'll turn
| into something that police will enforce selectively
| whenever it suits them rather than those laws going away.
| jjgreen wrote:
| During Covid in many locations in France, it was both
| illegal and mandatory to wear a face-covering.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| > I used to be worried about face scanning. But sometimes I
| wonder if it's an inevitable evolution of technology.
|
| Werent you worried about face scanning precisely because its a
| seemingly inevitable evolution of technology? The use of "but"
| is confusing to me. It seems like the reason for being
| concerned has assuaged your concerns.
| kosasbest wrote:
| > I used to be worried about face scanning. But sometimes I
| wonder if it's an inevitable evolution of technology.
|
| The cat's out of the bag. But you can still exercise caution. I
| remember when that app FaceApp was trending, and everyone
| wanted to see what they looked like when older, oblivious to
| the ulterior motives behind the app. Essentially they were
| building a FR database from user generated content. So, don't
| feed the beast and don't upload your faceprint to apps every
| chance you get.
| mrweasel wrote:
| The EU is weird.
|
| When companies spy on their customers/users it's a 4 million Euro
| fine, when member states want to track the phones of its citizens
| it's a human rights violation, but when the EU it self wants
| something similar or worse it's a question of safety.
| Lolaccount wrote:
| 2 out of 3 with room for improvement. I'll take it compared to
| some places I've been.
| mrtksn wrote:
| EU is not something different than the member states, it's %100
| made of (elected) or (appointed by the elected) from the member
| states.
|
| So the appointed by the elected will consult with the elected
| and come up(or already came up) with a proposal and the elected
| will vote on it.
|
| This website is made by some interest groups(both from Italy)
| that want to pressure the elected to reject a certain proposal.
|
| Nothing weird really, just politics of a democracy in action.
| If you agree with the position of these interest groups you can
| support them, if you don't care you can ignore them or if you
| disagree you can start a counter campaign.
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| I wish it was so simple, there are a bunch of different
| bodies; only the parlement is directly voted in. Especially
| the EU commmision the most powerful part are picked by the 27
| leaders. Consequence is lot of deal making and influence by
| main countries France & Germany; and no direct responsiblity
| to citizens. It's not all bad, but also not all great.
| hef19898 wrote:
| And those 27 leaders come into power how? Winning the
| lottery or finding a coucher in their breakfast cereals?
| mrtksn wrote:
| They are the heads of state of each country. Elected
| directly, no lottery involved.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| Heads of the governments, not the heads of state.
| mrtksn wrote:
| right
| nosajio wrote:
| The EU holds elections in each country which barely
| anybody knows about. They're not heads of state. Members
| of EU parliament are called MEPs, and are totally
| separate from heads of state elected in national
| elections.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Well, sarcasm works only so-so on the internet. And that
| people dont vote during EU elections, which are heavily
| advertized at least in Germany, is hardly the EUs fault.
| mrtksn wrote:
| The EU commissioners are the appointed ones by the EU
| parliament(elected directly by the citizens) and the 27
| leaders(head of state of each country, directly elected)
| elect the EU president.
|
| The direct responsibility to the citizens concerns the
| elected ones. The commission is powerful but their power is
| restrained by the elected ones and the elected ones can
| replace the appointed ones if they are not happy with it.
|
| Anyway, direct democracy exists only in few places, like in
| Switzerland. EU and most of the democratic world runs on
| representative democracies, that is you elect people who
| you trust that will work the best for your interests and
| send them in a fancy building to vote on stuff and hoping
| for the best.
| peyton wrote:
| > you elect people who you trust that will work the best
| for your interests
|
| The EU _explicitly_ works for collective interest, not
| individual interest.
| mrtksn wrote:
| I find it useless to dive into a discussion on whose
| interests are the collective interests. Let's hope that
| we will get rid of those who's interests are not aligned
| with the collective interests.
| raxxorraxor wrote:
| How much the EU has a democratic deficit is a personal
| question for each constituent. In my case its democracy
| is very far removed from accountability and
| representation, so I believe the deficits are quite
| pronounced.
|
| It is not really honest to say you can put layers upon
| layers of indirect representation and the democratic
| process would not suffer. Legitimacy is lost on the way.
| somewhereoutth wrote:
| The Commission is decidedly not the most powerful part! It
| is simply the secretariat for the EU, what in the UK is
| called the Civil Service. It is involved with policy
| formulation and implementation sure, but only at the behest
| of the other bodies.
|
| The most powerful part is the Council, where each member
| government is represented and is the mechanism by which
| member states pool their sovereignty. Nothing happens
| without the (often required to be unanimous) agreement of
| the Council.
|
| Recent case in point: an EU Commissioner stated that aid to
| Gaza would be cut in the aftermath of the Hamas attacks -
| this was quickly backtracked when a member state objected.
| peyton wrote:
| A governing body chartered for the collective interest of its
| members is indeed something different than a group of states
| working for their own interests. Just because I vote for my
| representative doesn't mean my representative is no different
| from me.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| > EU is not something different than the member states
|
| This is clearly false. The member states exist independently
| of the EU. If you get rid of the EU, all the states still
| exist. Which means the EU is something more than "just the
| member states". The EU is obviously a governing body on top
| of and between the member states. There is an EU president,
| parliament, and other offices for crying out loud. There is
| no way you yourself can believe what you're claiming.
| mrtksn wrote:
| If 5 people come together and form a music band, is that
| band just that 5 people or something external? That's what
| EU is, 27 states who send people to do stuff that concern
| all the member states in Brussels.
|
| You can load as much meaning as you like on top of it, but
| there's no external party. The president of the EU
| commission(there's no president of EU) is elected by the
| heads of the governments(the EU member state governments,
| elected by the people of that state) and approved by the EU
| parliament(directly elected by EU member state citizens).
| So, If one of the band members is elected by the other band
| members to be the lead singer, is that band member
| something external?
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| EU countries are allowed to spy just fine. I remember we were
| all freaking out by Snowden's revelations about phone tapping
| in the USA. Dutch Journalist were describing how scandalous it
| was, while at the same time the Dutch intelligence been doing
| that for a long time without needing a warrant, were and no one
| really cared about it.
| ath92 wrote:
| There's a difference between your own democratically elected
| government spying on its citizens and some other government
| you have no control over doing the same. Not saying that it's
| good that the Dutch government was spying on its citizens,
| but it's worse when it's a foreign super power.
| mrtksn wrote:
| EU is not an unrelated 3rd party, its partly the
| democratically elected(the EU parliament) and partly the
| Dutch government(the Dutch head of state) and people
| appointed by those.
| ginko wrote:
| The foreign super power ath92 was referring to was the
| US, not the EU.
| raxxorraxor wrote:
| I disagree, it is the exact opposite in my opinion.
| Compromising data about myself isn't relevant to China (I
| am not in China), but perhaps relevant to my current or
| coming government.
|
| The exception is if I am an official, a public persona or a
| dissident of the country doing the spying. But for
| everything else the impact of your own government spying on
| you is much more relevant.
|
| Of course situations were friendly states spy on each other
| notwithstanding.
| arlort wrote:
| > when the EU it self
|
| The EU doesn't have security services. What you're referring to
| is what (primarily) the member states want and they try to get
| it at the EU level so they won't be in violation of EU laws
|
| In any case this specific request is about adding additional
| safeguards in a new act, not about stopping an ongoing practice
| or blocking a regressive proposal like the chatcontrol issue
| hnbad wrote:
| What's weird about that other than the mistake of thinking "the
| EU itself" is a thing in this context?
|
| States are allowed to have armies, corporations are not. States
| can send people with guns after you and lock you away,
| corporations can not. Do you think that's weird too? States
| hold more power than corporations because corporations exist
| only because states allow them to.
|
| Now whether states are a good thing or not is another question
| of course.
| karmakaze wrote:
| Am I missing something? This sample page[0] doesn't look scary at
| all, and I can't see it swaying anyone's opinion:
|
| [0] https://dontspy.eu/country/#Germany
| nosajio wrote:
| It's already pretty easy to spin up a facial recognition model,
| and it's likely that facial recognition will be an emergent
| property of multi-modal modals like GPT4/Dall-E.
|
| How would the EU enforce a multinational ban on facial
| recognition or biometric pattern recognition?
| PrimeMcFly wrote:
| Probably with an annoying popup banner on every page.
| Propelloni wrote:
| I appreciate the humor. But in case there is a misconception
| at the root of this quip, I still have to point out that the
| annoying popup banners on every page are on the page owners,
| not the EU or the GDPR. Nowhere does the GDPR mandate popup
| banners. Banners are just the lazy answer to a very people-
| friendly law by an economy addicted to surveillance.
| PrimeMcFly wrote:
| > I still have to point out that the annoying popup banners
| on every page are on the page owners, not the EU or the
| GDPR. Nowhere does the GDPR mandate popup banners.I still
| have to point out that the annoying popup banners on every
| page are on the page owners, not the EU or the GDPR.
| Nowhere does the GDPR mandate popup banners.
|
| The GDPR requires notification and consent if a website
| uses cookies or collects information, right?
|
| Seems like a banner is the best way to approach that, so it
| is kind of mandated indirectly.
| ganzuul wrote:
| Depends on details of how autonomous weapons show up in the
| national medias.
|
| It's political capital and the game is border security. Russia
| is moving to a position where they can bluff again. It's not a
| simple matter of true or false because it's a constant race
| condition.
| showmypost wrote:
| I would like to quickly share this through my social media
| channels. A sub-page with pre-made material to spread the word
| would do it. For example 2-3 Instagram story templates, something
| for X/Twitter, TikTok, Facebook, ...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-15 23:02 UTC)