EU mandantory chat control

[Nominal Animal]

See Dunbar, R. I. M, and Sosis, R. Optimising human community sizes, Evol Hum Behav. 2018 Jan; 39(1): 106–111. (doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2017.11.001).
For some reason, societies with 50, 150, and 500 are disproportionately more common than other sizes, in historical small scale agricultural societies.

In more general terms, humans rarely have isolated societies, and instead tend to "layer" according to the type/depth/frequency of interaction.  You have something like a household, something like a village, something like a county (with up to about 2000 humans, about the maximum where everyone can "know" everyone else), and something like a "nation" or "state" (a much more abstract definition).  Laws and mores and culture is similarly layered.

Something simple like whether alcohol or a specific recreational drug is allowed or not, can be governed at any level.  The more abstract or widely affecting human-human interactions a matter is, the wider the reach, and therefore the "higher" up the level such stuff is typically decided.  A "nation" typically has common base laws, but local customs can vary slightly.

I don't have good references for it right now, but I seem to recall that in societies with up to 2000 members or so, "laws" emerge from the social pressure, without anyone really having to set them.  Because of this, I do believe any society with up to 2000 members or socan set their own laws and politics just by interacting with each other, but anything larger, and you need institutions.  Thus, the ten million limit seems quite high to me, unless "layering" is assumed.

Humans haven't yet arrived at any real agreement on global basic laws, either.  For example, in Western societies, 'ownership' and 'possession' are completely separate concepts (and the difference is important for the functioning of Western societies), but there are human societies (in developing countries) where the two are interchangeable in many respects.  (It is an interesting topic in and of itself, but because such societies exist in developing countries, such discussion is considered "hate speech" against members of those "protected groups".)

[bd139]

Freedoms of expression stuff usually relates to public speach, what you say to your mates no one could give a toss. Now they may want to stop terrorists etc, fine, but if they turn up a text you sent to a mate saying you hate a particular minority does that class as hate speech? nope or at least I suspect legally they will struggle and erm, resources? never mind the resources to detect, now that they have discovered that 1 in 2 people have some unhealthy views that if said to the offendable party or otherwise in public would get them in the nick but in a private chat is not the same, how do they prosecute half the population?

I don't even see the need for all of this end to end encryption no one can ever break. It's a need created by the mere fact that it was provided. For me it's more of a pain, I change phone, well that's all my whatsapp messages gone! yep, oh you want to use whatsapp on your PC, sorry can't see that last message you just sent or received on your phone, it's gone mad and signal is even worse. Since when did we have a problem that needed such unbreakable encryption - we never did. Communications are already sunt encrpted, but they it seems to work now is that it's impossible for even the user to retain their stuff never mind the go,vernment.

My sister insists, or rather her husband does on using signal, so I get all the photos and videos of my niece on signal - it's a pain in the arse trying to get that stuff out of signal thanks to the encryption paranoia! because family chats and photos/videos need high end encryption - for what? oh and needless to say, he who decided to use signal has never donated a penny to them! what a fucked up society we live in, there is one thing the conspiracy theorists have right, one word - sheeple! we care so much for our privacy while we literally give it all away to facebook who all these idiots who refuse to use whatsapp still use.

I'm sick of hearing about privacy and snooping from people who broadcast their lives 24/7!

Just a point on privacy and messaging.

Anything that you tell anyone else is not private any more. At no point can you trust the other party not to distribute it or ensure that their endpoint is secure. The biggest attack vector to privacy is loose mouths. Ergo private messaging is a misnomer.

Signal / Telegram etc are pointless if you want absolute privacy. Don’t say stuff.

Yes exactly, but oh no, your privacy is threatened, use our app! Everything is end to end encrypted, as far as I am aware you can't use an app on a phone that is not which is why the VPN's these youtubers shill are virtually scams. But in the name of you buying into these services they can be bloody hard work to use because the fact that phones encrypt data stored and use encrypted communications was not enough.

But then maybe we do need all this scrutiny, our prime minister was investigated for things the proof or disproof of which lay on a phone he no longer used so the whatsapp messages were lost, so yes we obviously do need this stuff to monitor our corrupt politicians

Unless your phone was compromised by NSO Pegasus then ALL your communications are open to whoever bought it.

https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/news/252516052/Pegasus-spyware-discovered-UK-government-networks

[Simon]

Unless your phone was compromised by NSO Pegasus then ALL your communications are open to whoever bought it.

https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/news/252516052/Pegasus-spyware-discovered-UK-government-networks

If they are going to get you they are going to get you.

[Simon]

See Dunbar, R. I. M, and Sosis, R. Optimising human community sizes, Evol Hum Behav. 2018 Jan; 39(1): 106–111. (doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2017.11.001).
For some reason, societies with 50, 150, and 500 are disproportionately more common than other sizes, in historical small scale agricultural societies.

In more general terms, humans rarely have isolated societies, and instead tend to "layer" according to the type/depth/frequency of interaction.  You have something like a household, something like a village, something like a county (with up to about 2000 humans, about the maximum where everyone can "know" everyone else), and something like a "nation" or "state" (a much more abstract definition).  Laws and mores and culture is similarly layered.

when you can drive the length of a country in a day you need more universal laws than for every 2000 people or no one knows where they stand. And where are these boundaries set? Personally I would abolish the low level stuff that is a mere distraction. We all need a police force, why is this managed locally? where up until recently and probably still in the UK you could evade capture by being in the next county as it took a lot of paperwork for one force to tell another something, in the 21st century where you can drive a county in an hour this is not even stupid, it's worse.

[TimFox]

There has been a lot of work on the theory of market-center organization.
https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter2/transport-and-spatial-organization/central-places-theory-urban-system/
Geographically, every small town in the US has a grocery store, but for specialized medical care one goes to a larger population center.
These relationships form something like a lattice.
Many years ago, a paper in the Scientific American on this topic had two illustrations mapped:  one was a simple one in a flat country where there were no important physical barriers between towns.  The other was in a South American country where the indigenous and colonial populations didn't mix, but were both spread across a landscape.  There were two separate "lattices" of market centers.

[Nominal Animal]

when you can drive the length of a country in a day you need more universal laws than for every 2000 people or no one knows where they stand.

Sure.

The true question is, should people living in a city at the center of a region be able to dictate the laws to the people outside the city but within the same region, just because they're technically the majority in that region?  It is at the heart of Gerrymandering, after all.  Right now, EU is considering dropping the requirement for unanimous decisions, which immediately means smaller countries like Finland will be completely controlled by the largest countries like Germany, France, Italy and Spain.  I don't like that either.

Thing is, I don't believe that sort of multiculturalism –– the idea that the laws and customs that one should acknowledge depends on who you are interacting with, instead of where you both are –– will ever work.  I do not know of a single example of where it has ever worked without devolving into heavy crime and violence (like the melting-pot cities of USA).

So, there are not too many options.  Either you enforce a specific set of laws and thus world-view and base culture, or you let people come up with their own. 

One is nicer if you travel a lot, the other is nicer if you prefer to stay put.  Neither is more right than the other.  I am pointing out that a layered compromise, where laws that affect more people are set in the widest context, and laws that only apply to a small locale are set at the smallest context, seems to be the path of most gain with least oppression to me.

The damning thing about the EU mandatory chat control is that it makes many aspects of discussing such things –– i.e., whenever it involves negative behaviour and "protected groups" –– illegal, and thus outside the public discussion.  Which I know for sure EU "politicians" really love.  I know for a fact that the majority of Finnish politicians would absolutely love laws that forbade their decisions and actions to be publicly discussed; and that our "journalists" wouldn't complain at all as long as their opinions and publishings were also protected from discussions and comments.

[MadScientist]

For a eu law to exist it must be both passed by the council of ministers which is made of elected national government ministers and the eu parliament which is also directly elected,  certain vetos also exist , secondly two types  of eu laws exist , directives and regulations , directives can  implanted as Desired and even “ gold plated” a process particularly the uk Abused , regulations must be translated into national law verbatim

No eu law can violate the eu treaties

Enforcement is carried out by the member  state in the normal way

It’s an extremely democratic process , all decision makers are elected , the commission merely acts as a  civil servants

Eu law has been at the forefront of equality fairness and general anti national dogma

[Infraviolet]

I'm not sure quite what the latest reply adds to this thread, detailing how the EU passes directives doesn;t really talk much about the underlying issues, that is to say the dire threat to free speech and privacy rights.

I think that since governments (nearly everywhere globaly, not just in the EU) overreacted (that is my opinion, please don't take it the wrong way) to covid with extraordinarily totalitarian panic-induced (politicians logic, "we must do something", "that is something","we must do that") measures they've felt emboldened to try to force anything they want on to populations (look at the Oxford "berlin wall for cars" zones plan). Thankfully a proportion of the population have, since the same events, felt both emboldened and proud to ignore intrusive government diktats. So what we're looking at is a future where governments make legislation nobody likes, and increasing numbers of people form a "counterculture" which simply ignores those diktats. As long as a few talented people perform basic software maintenance to keep a few open source truly secure and censorship free communication platforms up and running in violation of surveillance diktats, then the numbers of people dropping away from the controlled platforms will rise epxonetnailly over time. I'd like to see if Musk would be bold enough to make twitter in to such a defiant platform.

[MT]

No eu law can violate the eu treaties
Enforcement is carried out by the member  state in the normal way
It’s an extremely democratic process , all decision makers are elected , the commission merely acts as a  civil servants
Eu law has been at the forefront of equality fairness and general anti national dogma

What you say here is complete and utter myths. EU is not democratic but all about elite supremacy.Every single country in EU are dodging EU laws as much as they can,
evidently so by their own justice system reports on the actual dodging and complaints from EU supremacy headquarters. The later form of "EU supremacy" origins from
the German Nazi party who built it on various "supremacy ideas" originating from the 1800 national industrialization movement era , "eugenics" for example , EU today
is completely taken over by WEF/WHO Schwab nazis. eg mandatory vaccination, vaccination passports straight out of the nazi manual with no regard for e.g  Hippocratic Oath
and Nuremberg Code who dictates the "demand of voluntary consent of participants in medical experiments" because of what the nazi and Bholsevikis did in WW2. So there you go!
So called democratic EU during 2020-22 push for mandatory vaccination with experimental chemical compounds where the content held secret is a direct violation of mentioned
Hippocratic Oath and Nuremberg Code no matter any fucking EU laws. Here, educate your self abut the Schwab nazi, his great reset book. https://archive.org/details/schwab-the-great-reset

[jonpaul]

"You have no privacy anyway, Get over it!"
Scott McNely ceo Sun Microsystems 1999

Jin

[MadScientist]

 

No eu law can violate the eu treaties
Enforcement is carried out by the member  state in the normal way
It’s an extremely democratic process , all decision makers are elected , the commission merely acts as a  civil servants
Eu law has been at the forefront of equality fairness and general anti national dogma

What you say here is complete and utter myths. EU is not democratic but all about elite supremacy.Every single country in EU are dodging EU laws as much as they can,
evidently so by their own justice system reports on the actual dodging and complaints from EU supremacy headquarters. The later form of "EU supremacy" origins from
the German Nazi party who built it on various "supremacy ideas" originating from the 1800 national industrialization movement era , "eugenics" for example , EU today
is completely taken over by WEF/WHO Schwab nazis. eg mandatory vaccination, vaccination passports straight out of the nazi manual with no regard for e.g  Hippocratic Oath
and Nuremberg Code who dictates the "demand of voluntary consent of participants in medical experiments" because of what the nazi and Bholsevikis did in WW2. So there you go!
So called democratic EU during 2020-22 push for mandatory vaccination with experimental chemical compounds where the content held secret is a direct violation of mentioned
Hippocratic Oath and Nuremberg Code no matter any fucking EU laws. Here, educate your self abut the Schwab nazi, his great reset book. https://archive.org/details/schwab-the-great-reset

No system is perfect but you have no idea now the EU makes laws. The chat proposal is merely just that it’s already been ruled as against the rights charter by the ecj, the council of ministers is not considering the proposal as the general view is the rcj would simply violate any such law

It’s a kite flying exercise that all’s

Ps the EU did not push for mandatory vaccinations , it’s simply cannot overrule national governments in medical matters. The treaties are clear . No country I aware in the EU had full mandatory vaccination policy , furthermore the covid pass was a good idea , again it wasn’t mandatory

Your nazi comments are just utter BS you need. To get out more and give up reading BS websites

[SiliconWizard]

"You have no privacy anyway, Get over it!"
Scott McNely ceo Sun Microsystems 1999

Jin

"Si vous n'avez rien à cacher, il ne faut pas avoir peur!"
- Klaus S.
 

[MadScientist]

I'm not sure quite what the latest reply adds to this thread, detailing how the EU passes directives doesn;t really talk much about the underlying issues, that is to say the dire threat to free speech and privacy rights.

I think that since governments (nearly everywhere globaly, not just in the EU) overreacted (that is my opinion, please don't take it the wrong way) to covid with extraordinarily totalitarian panic-induced (politicians logic, "we must do something", "that is something","we must do that") measures they've felt emboldened to try to force anything they want on to populations (look at the Oxford "berlin wall for cars" zones plan). Thankfully a proportion of the population have, since the same events, felt both emboldened and proud to ignore intrusive government diktats. So what we're looking at is a future where governments make legislation nobody likes, and increasing numbers of people form a "counterculture" which simply ignores those diktats. As long as a few talented people perform basic software maintenance to keep a few open source truly secure and censorship free communication platforms up and running in violation of surveillance diktats, then the numbers of people dropping away from the controlled platforms will rise epxonetnailly over time. I'd like to see if Musk would be bold enough to make twitter in to such a defiant platform.

Actually in my view based on where I live the experience of covid is such that lockdowns etc will never be tried again. Gov has basically said it’s unpopular with  poor results. I live in a democracy , politicians get voted out quick. My minister of health lives 4 doors down from me, I had a pint with him recently. These people know what popular and what’s not. We do not live in a diktat state.  I live in a country that will be the 10th wealthy in the world in 2023 ( big pharma and tech ) a lot of that  wealth is as a result of EU membership. The EU approval here is running  close to 80% and we by law must vote on every eu treaty so we have a referendum nearly every year on the eu

The EU is the best thing that happened in the last 40 years long may it continue get better and include more countries. The uk will come back in in time  , it’s  inevitable

[Bud]

So if you are so proud of your country can we now know what that wonderful place is?

[Infraviolet]

Indeed you do sound optimistic about the future, and about the EU. I was too, back when the EU would strike down Theresa May's surveillance diktats and stand up for human rights in every UK case that got before the Brussels courts. Since 2020 it hasn't been the same though, the EU should have struck down lockdowns as a human rights violation, the EU should have banned vaccine passports as a sinister tool of surveillance with no medical value (unlike the vaccines themselves which have helped vulnerable people), and yet the EU now wants unified facial recognition and fingerprinting for all travellers entering the Schengen area, it now wants pervasive censorship on the internet of anything its politicians disagree with, it wants to assist the Dutch government in mass closures of farms...  2020 changed them and it sounds like they are no longer the organisation which i voted to remain in during 2016.

[PlainName]

the EU now wants unified facial recognition and fingerprinting for all travellers entering the Schengen area, it now wants pervasive censorship on the internet of anything its politicians disagree with

This is, if not wrong, at least a slippery slope.

the EU should have struck down lockdowns as a human rights violation

But this is dogmatic. At that time there appeared to be the choice of many thousands dying or having people take extreme care not to spread the infection. People being people, the only way to achieve that would be by mandatory lockdown, so it was excusable as being for the benefit of, well, everyone. The problems we had with it were basically that it didn't happen when it should, so it was less effective and lasted longer than it should. In principle, though, it wasn't some elite treading on the plebs thing that it's being made out to be now, and a genuine attempt to mitigate a very serious situation.

[John B]

I guess except for the elites that were able to travel around, wine dine and party to their hearts content whilst not having their income negatively affected. 

[PlainName]

Elites are always like that, regardless of what's going on. It is stupid to say, "Well I'm not going to look after myself and my neighbours because so-and-so has too much money and gets away with shit." That's cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[magic]

So if you are so proud of your country can we now know what that wonderful place is?

Can't be quite 100% sure, but it gotta be one of the net beneficiaries - explains the fanatic enthusiasm and the desire to get UK back

Voters are cheap to buy and it's 100% legal as long as they vote to be bought.

[JPortici]

and yet the EU now wants unified facial recognition and fingerprinting for all travellers entering the Schengen area,

That doesn't sound right.
They probably want to harmonise the documentation format so it's more easily interchangeable. Do you have any idea of how much time is wasted converting one document from one format to another?
no, i'm not talking about converting .doc to .odt or something trivial, i'm talking about the document format: which information are written where, how they are grouped, dimensions, etc so that each office's software can interpret it correctly.

And that is GOOD.

For the same reason the so called "green pass", the EU covid vaccination certificate was a GOOD thing. I live on the border of three ASLs (sanitary districts) and before the GP they would emit three different documents, written in a different way, with different data on it. On paper only, of course. If an officer or a doctor asked you to show your certificate he would have had to translate between the three, then write up a bunch of paperwork to fill up the data in their own format, minutes wasted every time. That is 100% bureocratic madness. The GP put an end to that for good.

Leave aside the lockdown measures, which were decided and enforced by the states, not the EU.

[Infraviolet]

Truth be told, if nowhere had been stupid enough to invent something so divisive and totalitarian as "green passes" everyone would have been better off. Sure an EU harmonised one sounds better than a separate one per area, but no green passes at all is betetr for freedom, common sense and general economic inclusivity. All the green pass did was make "anti-vaxxers" angrier and more radical (and remember that the vaccine didn't event stop transmission), if the vaccine had simply been treated like every other vaccine in history (individual consent, no stupid coercion, no creepy surveillance or the idea of state permissions to access basic human freedoms...) then it would have had wider uptake.

I can really see the value in harmonising standards across a bloc of countries, but only where there should in the first place be something which should exist and should therefore need standardising. There is never a valid argument for any form of digital ID to access services, and there is no valid argument for having fingerprints and facial scans of all travellers in a centralised file, the potetnails for totalitarian control are just too risky.

P.S. Should this thread have the other EU chat control thread merged on to the back of it?

[Monkeh]

if the vaccine had simply been treated like every other vaccine in history (individual consent, no stupid coercion, no creepy surveillance or the idea of state permissions to access basic human freedoms...) then it would have had wider uptake.

It must take consideral willpower to be that selective in your learning of history.

[MT]

No system is perfect but you have no idea now the EU makes laws. The chat proposal is merely just that it’s already been ruled as against the rights charter by the ecj, the council of ministers is not considering the proposal as the general view is the rcj would simply violate any such law
It’s a kite flying exercise that all’s

Ps the EU did not push for mandatory vaccinations , it’s simply cannot overrule national governments in medical matters. The treaties are clear . No country I aware in the EU had full mandatory vaccination policy , furthermore the covid pass was a good idea , again it wasn’t mandatory.
Your nazi comments are just utter BS you need. To get out more and give up reading BS websites

I said they tried to make it mandatory, besides numerous examples of violation of treaties has been made over the decades and during the fake pandemic (does not even fulfill
the requirements to be called a pandemic) overruling of national laws are a standard within EU , simple insert your WEF agents like "New Young Leaders" into the government you
want to control Schwab even bragged about it:



But since you like to defend nazis like Schwab and Bourla and their vaxx passports i doubt you want to educate your self about the Schwab nazi background.
https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/02/investigative-reports/schwab-family-values/

In the pre-war years of the 1930s leading up to the German annexation of Poland, Ravensburg’s Escher-Wyss factory, now managed directly by Klaus Schwab’s father, Eugen Schwab, continued to be the biggest employer in Ravensburg. Not only was the factory a major employer in the town, but Hitler’s own Nazi party awarded the Escher-Wyss Ravensburg branch the title of “National Socialist Model Company” while Schwab was at the helm. The Nazis were potentially wooing the Swiss company for cooperation in the coming war, and their advances were eventually reciprocated.

Ravensburg was an anomaly in wartime Germany, as it was never targeted by any Allied airstrikes. The presence of the Red Cross, and a rumoured agreement with various companies including Escher-Wyss, saw the allied forces publicly agree to not target the Southern German town. It was not classified as a significant military target throughout the war and, for that reason, the town still maintains many of its original features. However, much darker things were afoot in Ravensburg once the war began.

Eugen Schwab continued to manage the “National Socialist Model Company” for Escher-Wyss, and the Swiss company would aid the Nazi Wermacht produce significant weapons of war as well as more basic armaments. The Escher-Wyss company was a leader in large turbine technology for hydroelectric dams and power plants, but they also manufactured parts for German fighter planes. They were also intimately involved in much more sinister projects happening behind the scenes which, if completed, could have changed the outcome of World War II. When Klaus Schwab joined Sulzer Escher-Wyss in 1967 and started the reorganisation of the company to be a technology corporation, the involvement of Sulzer Escher-Wyss in the darker aspects of the global nuclear arms race became immediately more pronounced.
Back in the Escher-Wyss factory in Ravensburg, Eugen Schwab had been busy putting forced labourers to work at his model Nazi company. During the years of World War II, nearly 3,600 forced labourers worked in Ravensburg, including at Escher Wyss. According to the city archivist in Ravensburg, Andrea Schmuder, the Escher-Wyss machine factory in Ravensburg employed between 198 and 203 civil workers and POWs during the war. Karl Schweizer, a local Lindau historian, states that Escher-Wyss maintained a small special camp for forced labourers on the factory premises.

[Infraviolet]

Monkeh, oops, yes, I did type that line too fast. There have been periods in history where governments have mandated vaccines, not so much in the recent history (pre-2021) of developed nations, but plenty around the turn of the 19th in to 20th century. That said, at all those times a "vaccine mandate" meant "take it or we'll hit you with a one-off fine" not "take it and then be trapped in a digital ID card prison of surveillance, or don't take it and be thrown out from society as a whole". So while mandating a vaccine itself isn't so unprecedented, the level of coercion involved in 2020/21/22 and the evils of making the state a middleman in every human interaction via QR codes at doors is still very much a novelty. What was learnt as good public health practice from all those historic periods though, was that vaccine uptake and general health of populations improves if mandates are avoided, look at the smallpox vacine uptake improving after the mandates were scrapped. Perhaps I should have said that evidence based practice had by the 21st century lead to the realisation that vaccine rollouts should be done calmly and without coercion and are more successful when the public doesn't get turned against them by coercive activities, rather than mistakenly saying that such sensible practice had always been the historic reality.

[SiliconWizard]

Oh yeah. "We penetrate the cabinets."