Please don’t kill the discussion by putting previous links. Given the recent synchronised push from both sides of Atlantic to review end to end encryption and limit privacy this submission deserves a new discussion.
HN's approach to this has been the same for many years: when a story has had significant attention within the last year or so, we bury reposts as dupes. That doesn't mean it isn't an important story!
When a story is a major ongoing topic (as this one may be), we treat it as a fresh story each time significant new information (SNI) comes up. See https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... for past explanations. If someone can point to SNI in this case, I'd be happy to take a look.
Von der Leyen keeps her SMS correspondence with Pfizer management secret, but my correspondence with my girlfriend somehow has to become public record (via anti-encryption laws and the resulting data leaks).
Well, welcome to privacy laws in Germany. You have the right to privacy if you are in politics ( national security) or rich ( privacy). If you are poor you have Schufa, deutschland card, etc.
Sure, but secrecy certainly permits privacy. Privacy can be forced (encryption) or permitted (must get a warrant otherwise private). One cannot deny the relationship.
Secrecy doesn't imply privacy, you can do things secretly, like for example bring weed with you in a secret pocket, that doesn't mean police can't stop you and do a search on you if a dog smells it.
They can't ask you to reveal who you're casually talking on the phone though without a warrant, even if the conversation is not secret.
You can use encryption to enforce secrecy, that's true, but not privacy.
If you are constantly messaging with a known drug dealer or someone wiretapped, even if the conversation is secret, your right to privacy goes out the window.
Privacy means you close the door when you go to the bathroom, secrecy means you don't tell anybody where are you going and why.
Which is a lot more dry and clear than what has been posted. We could all seek to be more emotionally disengaged if we want to have actual debates.
One of the things stated, for example is that the bill will not stand up in a court of law; and MEPs were displeased at the “moral blackmail” of the bill: basically “you don’t want to protect children? You must hate children!”
EDIT: what’s with all the low effort euro-skepticism in this thread? Surely we can do better.
I get your point about emotional pollution of a debate about this, but the OP is MEP, so calling a news site to be a "primary source" doesn't make much sense to me in this case.
You can either describe the new site article as "more neutral" instead (which is usually useful in most political debates no matter of your personal opinion), or link to report from EU Parliament for an official report as actual primary source here.
Interesting distinction; to my mind it is not a neutral source, it’s the primary source.
A neutral source would be one that is removed from having an opinion, but since this is the institution itself it is not possible for it to be neutral; like a Facebook blog post talking about Facebook content policies, it cannot be unbiased.
This is one MEPs opinion and he likely doesn’t speak for the institution that has pushed the bill, but the source I supplied is representing the institution.
Meanwhile the former pope and his bishop protected known child abusers who continued to abuse children.
Aiding a criminal is itself a crime in Germany -- I would go for "Täterschaft durch Unterlassen"; without their enablement, no further abuse could have happened.
But the prosecutors seem to be to involved with the church shrug
Instead of going for the known abusers the general population gets the STASI 3.x treatment.
Some days I wish the EU dissolves into irrelevancy. Barely more than a fishbowl full off awkward, self righteous bureaucrats.
Then again, the scavengers and populists are already waiting and are the guaranteed ticket to hell during lifetime.
That's just how things happen. In the US, we filled a database with the DNA of everyone arrested for (not convicted of) any slightly serious crime, and justified it by the search for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_James_DeAngelo, who of course turned out to be a cop who wasn't subject to DNA collection.
The internet is a distraction. Meet with people face-to-face, until the switch is flipped that tracks and monitors that, too.
I wonder if they will be applying a unified definition for child sexual abuse material, or if each service will be free to look for whatever the local jurisdiction deems as such. My country (Bulgaria) doesn't define it per se - all porn is illegal[1], but there is an additional punishment if it involves "a person under the age of 18, or appearing to be such".
The parts where our rules notably differ from (as far as I understand them) those of other EU nations are:
1. Transmitting any pornographic material is a crime. Possession is not criminalised (unless of persons under the age of 18, or appearing to be such).
2. Every clause includes the words "of a person", implying that drawings are not subject to them. I don't know enough law to say for sure.
3. The rules against child sexual abuse material specify "person under the age of 18, or appearing to be such ". The latter part seems to not be part of other nations' laws.
Is this possibly the source of Apple's sudden need to "scan" user documents last year? The Europeans pressured them and they tried to get ahead of the game?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28139889
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27753727
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27736435