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
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.
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
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
"You have no privacy anyway, Get over it!"
Scott McNely ceo Sun Microsystems 1999
Jin
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.
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
the EU should have struck down lockdowns as a human rights violation
So if you are so proud of your country can we now know what that wonderful place is?
and yet the EU now wants unified facial recognition and fingerprinting for all travellers entering the Schengen area,
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.
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