Your government who wants to control you. Or do you still think that data is collected just so that Google can give you more ads ?
How exactly?
In Italy we had 67 different governments since 1946.
What can they do with CSAM data?
Government can't blackmail citizen, they can't use CSAM scans for other purposes, they can't even authorize a scan, because that's the justice system prerogative.
Do you really believe that in Europe governments are in control of everything like it happens in Russia or in North Korea?
They are as weak as they can be.
No, but I really believe European leaders are jealous of the authoritarian powers they lack, and are working to resolve that.
You can believe anything you want.
That wouldn't make you right.
national parliaments have to pass these legislation, EU is formed by 26 countries, all with very different ideas, traditions, political stances and objectives.
So, Orban?
Yeah he would love to be the sole leader of his country.
In my country?
those that tried have been destroyed by their same allies, out of fear of having to live in someone else's shadow.
If everyone wants to be the one and only leader, nobody will ever be.
Opposing forces always balance themselves.
Funny that all USA businesses lament that there is too much democracy in EU (like too much democracy is bad!), but now HN says that there is an imminent risk of totalitarianism...
Democracy is already crumbling.
And American has the NSA!
Why not?
>Do you really believe that in Europe governments are in control of everything like it happens in Russia or in North Korea?
Wait you think Russia is in control of it's citizen? Oh man, western propaganda seams to work even better then the russian counterpart.
Because they can't, the moment they do, they'll be roasted for doing it.
Those who tried, failed miserably.
Justice system here is not run by governments, it's a completely separated power.
> Wait you think Russia is in control of it's citizen? Oh man, western propaganda seams to work even better then the russian counterpart.
They control everything in the control rooms, which is not even the case oin EU democracies.
Do you really believe EU governments will control every communication over the wire if this law is approved in the 26 EU countries?
> I think that's what their warning shot is
These arguments have been in discussion for at least a decade.
Why do you think they want to read your email?
What purpose could it serve?
Do you really think France will accept to put the email of their citizens out in the clear if Germany refuses? (nations can still delay the implementation of regulations, technically forever)
> There is a reason we have search warrants
They are still required.
CSAM is only what Apple already does (and that's another reason why I don't buy Apple products).
Ah you think the government sends an official person and start to blackmailing you?
>Justice system here is not run by governments, it's a completely separated power.
Oh c'mon, it's pretty naive to think like that.
>They control everything in the control rooms, which is not even the case oin EU democracies.
Ah yes the russian control room's who had not heard of that.
>which is not even the case oin EU democracies.
https://european-pirateparty.eu/chatcontrol-the-sequel-nobod...
https://tutanota.com/blog/posts/why-a-backdoor-is-a-security...
I really cant believe that you think the EU is so much better. But i see, the propaganda to implement that we are the good one's worked pretty well for you.
You mean governments are run by criminals that break the law?
If being blackmailed over alleged pedo pornography in that case is what concerns you the most, I think you have a pretty simplistic view of what's happening in the real World right now...
> I really cant believe that you think the EU is so much better.
I really can't believe you don't see it!
> But i see, the propaganda to implement that we are the good one's worked pretty well for you.
I don't really think you are making any sense.
You just posted propaganda links of a commercial email service and of European pirate party which is the most biased source of information about digital rights in Europe, they are so small (only 4 seats in the parliament, 3 from Czech Republic, one from Germany, zero from any other EU country) and and in need of funds that are constantly screaming "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE" and have been for more than a decade now, for no reason.
I consider myself much more on the left side of things than the pirate party and have been participating on discussions about digital freedoms as a tech consultant for the EU commission, the pirate brought virtually nothing to the table.
But it's working for them, their MP salaries are still flowing in their pockets anyway.
Ask them why their HQ is in Luxembourg City (one of the richest cities in the World) and not in some more piratesque place...
Ah yeah...the old propaganda because you have to implement backdoors in your encrypted email-service...i don't know what you try to proof here, but it's kind of disgusting.
>You mean governments are run by criminals that break the law?
Ever heard of Berlusconi? Or maybe Nixon....or your King Juan Carlos ;)
Really?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/14/dutch-governme...
The Dutch IRS ran a shadow profile system for over ten years, resulting in countless families in financial trouble, numerous divorces, suicides, and kids being removed from their parents and placed in foster care. Compensation/restitution for the affected families is finally coming, but its tragically slow progress is adding insult to injury.
And the government that stepped down over it, is still (again) in power. The very same prime minister that has presided over the country during the entire time this program ran was re-elected after his previous cabinet dissolved.
None of the people working at the IRS have even seen the inside of a courtroom, at least not as defendant. Such a roasting they got.
Colloquially when Americans say “government” they are referring to the entire state, including not just elected officials but professional civil servants, police, courts, intelligence agencies, etc.
You have definitely not had 67 different governments since 1946 in the sense that I think was meant.
I've studied English, not American.
So government to me means means "the group of people who officially control a country", like in this BBC headline "Netanyahu out as new Israeli government approved".
We definitely had 67 governments.
Or 67 cabinets, if you prefer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_Ita...
If you're using the same kind of terminology, the federal US has had probably 117 governments, as this is the 117th Congress. However, we as Americans don't necessarily consider this a "new government", in that many of the institutions aren't radically different. We still have the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services, we still have the FBI, we still have the CIA, we still have the Social Security Administration, we still have the NTSB, we still have the FAA, etc. For Americans, the institutions are a massive part of the identity of "the Federal government", and unless all the institutions change its pretty much seen as a continuous government.
Its definitely a messy turn of phrase which means different things in different contexts. Either way, while Italy has had 67 cabinets/governments, I imagine a lot of institutions have stayed the same. The ability for abuse is based in the institutions, the will to abuse is often with the politicians. So its not like a "new government" woudl somehow wipe clean all the record collections and ability for the State to act on it, you just have different people telling people to pull the levers a little different every few years.
So it's the combination of PM (Mario Draghi right now) and Ministers, appointed by the head of State (that is now Sergio Mattarella)
We had 67 of them in 75 years.
Regardless, if debating in good faith you should respond to what people clearly mean, not to what you feel the words they’re using should mean in “correct” English.
> Or 67 cabinets, if you prefer.
Absolutely nobody is disputing this. The Wikipedia link is unnecessary.
you're wrong: I never said I was using the correct English, I said that in the English that I have studied it is called a government.
It's called government here too
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Italy#Executive_...
I'm not making up words. If in America it means something different it's irrelevant, we're not talking about America.
> Absolutely nobody is disputing this. The Wikipedia link is unnecessary.
Reptetita iuvant.
Anyway, somebody was disputing this
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31353588
You have definitely not had 67 different governments since 1946
> You have definitely not had 67 different governments since 1946 in the sense that I think was meant.
You are engaging in bad-faith pedantry, and this discussion is now a waste of time.
I cut the irrelevant part, I always assume people say things that represent "what they understood or meant".
In that case the original post saying " you haven't had 67 governments in the way I mean" is completely useless, irrelevant, pedantic and in the end brought us to this conversation
Nobody cares what "government" means to an american when the context is not America.
Believe it or not, USA is only a tiny fraction of the World population and that tony fraction is in a good part not American too.
What Americans think, believe or mean is irrelevant to 95.75% of the Planet.
Didn't know it wasn't used like that in Italy.
Please read the comment more carefully. I'm saying about what I am personally aware, not a universal truth.
Remember the Servers: "Strict in formulating the output, loose in interpreting the input".
This becomes beyond confusing, impressive, when you realize that 'Minister' is an expression for "servant" (cpr. "civil servant" etc.) as a derivation from 'minus' - 'Minister' is the opposite of 'Master' ('Ma[gi]ster')!)
Very consistently, when anyone (including Americans) talks about parliamentary systems, the number of governments or changes of government refer to the same thing as the number of administrations or change of administration when referring to the US system of government.
There are other contexts where there might be ambiguity, but this is one of them.
Anyway, even if you’re right, it doesn’t matter. Nobody was talking about parliamentary systems or Italy specifically when the person who kicked off this thread warned about “the government” having too much power. It’s absolutely obvious to me that they meant “the state” and were misinterpreted by people who thought the word was being used in its parliamentary sense.
> Government can't blackmail citizen, they can't use CSAM scans for other purposes, they can't even authorize a scan, because that's the justice system prerogative.
In the United States, legal blackmail is called a "plea bargain". You agree to admit you're guilty of a crime, even if you aren't, in return for the government not pursuing harsher charges against you. This occurs without trial, because of course the whole point of the plea bargain is to avoid going to trial.
Why would an innocent defendant want to avoid trial? Well, good lawyers are extremely expensive, and public defenders are extremely overworked. Also, police will often say whatever they need to say on the stand to get a conviction and justify their arrest. How many cops are ever jailed themselves for perjury?
> In this essay I shall address the modem American system of plea bargaining from a perspective that must appear bizarre, al though I hope to persuade you that it is illuminating. I am going to contrast plea bargaining with the medieval European law of torture.
> My thesis is that there are remarkable parallels in origin, in function, and even in specific points of doctrine, between the law of torture and the law of plea bargaining. I shall suggest that these parallels expose some important truths about how criminal justice systems respond when their trial procedures fall into deep disorder.
This isn’t some feature of American government either: in the US local law enforcement is often completely divorced from the state and federal political process and is run independently at a local level, with sheriffs and district attorneys even being elected positions in many jurisdictions. There is no national police - the closest thing is the FBI (though there are a few other national law enforcement agencies), but it can go after only crimes involving multi-states or interstate commerce, and at a high level it is run essentially like state law enforcement organizations in other countries, largely independent of the political process, although at the very top it is politically appointed, usually with a career official placed in charge.
That's only because in USA the justice system depend on the elected president and elected representatives of the State.
But that's not true in Europe.
Law enforcement forces and justice system employees only have to obey to the laws, not to the politicians in power.
They can't be fired at will.
That’s absolutely not true in the US. Almost all law enforcement has no connection to the President whatsoever. The FBI does have a connection, the director is appointed with legislative assent, but FBI employees cannot be fired at will by politician or even the director.
Further, the FBI didn’t even exist for most of American history, so that’s not why the term evolved the way it did.
Also, your country almost certainly operates similarly to US federal law enforcement. Or are you claiming there’s no democratic oversight of or input into the justice system at all?
Further, if you don’t consider the justice system part of the government, what is it?
Frontex want's to have a word with you.....
And the Italian coastguard let people drown because it's law?....or maybe because it's a political thing? You cant separate the government and justice system completely.
Let's hear your thesis here...
> And your Italian coastguard let people drown because it's law?....
They actually don't.
Some politician (a Trump and Putin supporter, BTW!) tried to make them drawn for political gains and was beaten by a German young Captain Woman. [1]
many people in Europe protested against what Salvini was doing. [2] [3] [4]
France officially condemned what was happening.
Because you know, it's not a dictatorship here or a place where the police kills you if you're of the wrong color, the people still oppose to what Politicians and governments try to do.
Please, don't try to teach me how my country works...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carola_Rackete
[2] Paris: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/127BA/production...
[3] Vienna https://taz.de/picture/3536744/624/23312167_Carola_Rackete_S...
[4] Germany https://media.tio.ch/files/domains/tio.ch/images/4bsj/huh5.j...
Since your talking about Rackete....
>>The EU is no longer rescuing drowning migrants and the number of refugees continues to fall.
https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/carola-rackete-a...
You know that's why she got into troubles?...bringing drowning refugees to europa's coast.
>many people in Europe protested against what Salvini was doing.
So here you gave already proof that politicians can tell the coast guard what todo right?...because the sea-law is pretty clear..you have to help, no matter what.
Thank you for the proof.
In May 2022 already most than 10 thousand people reached the coasts of Italy via Mediterranean sea. [1]
Between 2013 and 2016, over 600 thousand people have landed here.
I think Italy is doing its share on that side.
How many of those immigrants went to Hungary, for example?
That's where EU is failing IMO, it should not be permitted to Orban to refuse redistribution of migrants.
Not on CSAM regulations. If governments wnat to know what people are up to, they have to simply open social networks and wait for the people to write it publicly.
No need to spy their conversations.
The reactions here are completely paranoia fueled.
[1] https://data2.unhcr.org/en/situations/mediterranean
On another note: if USA can please stop bombing African countries, maybe people shouldn't escape from the puppet regimes they install there...
> So here you gave already proof that politicians can tell the coast guard what todo right
They can try forcing the law.
What Salvini did was and still is unlawful.
His popularity dropped in a couple of years to a quarter of what it was.
you can also convince people to march armed against Capital Hill, doesn't mean that that's a President's prerogative, it only means that crazy people are everywhere.
At least we haven't built cages for immigrants' children.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/07/11/written-testimony-kids-c...
> You know that's we she got into troubles...bringing drowning refugees to europa's coast.
No, it was because Salvini was (temporarily thank God) Interior Minister of Italy.
> Thank you for the proof.
I proved it to you that if the system is resilient, no assault on democracy will last forever.
You're welcome.
Next time we'll talk about what constitute a rightful political action and what doesn't.
In a dozen lessons you might learn how democracy works.
Politicians can tell the Coastguard what todo, and they don't "only" do what law says....that was the whole point.
>What Salvini did was and still is unlawful.
Yes and? ...i mean who cares, who gives him a slap on the wrist? And why is the coastguard following a unlawful order?...if they just follow law?
It certainly feels, as if they are trying to do that.
Putin's been there for 22 years, Kim is there by rights of birth, in my country the PM has been there for 18 months and it looks like he's not going to last till the natural end of the legislature, in 2023.
His career as dictator 4 life looks pretty bleak from my POV.