Thanks Joachim! Still frustrating that Politico still implies that the bill has any power to stop CSAM, given that everyone who wants to trade it will obviously just use another layer of encryption.
> The campaign has irked some recipients. “In terms of dialog within a democracy, this is not a dialog,” said Lena Düpont, a German member of the European People’s Party group and its home affairs spokesperson, of the mass emails.
What is a dialog, then? A dialogue between well-connected lobbyists and bureaucrats, and everyone else should just shut up and take it?
Or, or, "normal people" sending emails only for the lawmakers to go "thanks for the feedback, we're doing it anyway"?
> One EU diplomat said some EU member countries are now more hesitant to support Denmark’s proposal, at least in part because of the campaign: “There is a clear link.”
> Ella Jakubowska, head of policy at digital rights group EDRi, said “This campaign seems to have raised the topic high up the agenda in member states where there was previously little to no public debate."
This is amazing, and makes me regain a bit of (much destroyed) faith in democracy.
> But Danish Justice Minister Peter Hummelgaard, one of the loudest proponents of tough measures to get child abuse material off online platforms, said in a statement that his proposal is far more balanced than the Commission’s original version and would mean that scanning would only happen as a last resort.
A metaphor: I once played in a D&D campaign where a player tried to create an extremely overpowered but technically legal character. His justification was that he would only use the extreme powers in moderation, so it would not be unfair or unbalanced. But why would he ask for such unprecedented powers if he didn't intend to use them?
I actually think that a role playing game is exactly the soft of situation where this is in fact reasonable.
There is a lot of mythology about gods walking among men, hiding their true nature, etc. And more recent examples include the TV show Lucifer.
Someone wanting to roleplay that sort of being is entirely plausible. Without knowing the person's personality (which you presumably did) it's hard to say whether they would have genuinely wanted to do that or if it was an excuse.
Yeah, if you have a huge amount of trust between player and DM that can work. There are both in-game and out-of-game ways to manage issues if they arise: in-game a DM can always limit or restrict something after the fact, out-of-game a problem can spark a conversation and ultimately a D&D game is a set of people who voluntarily get together and play.
(That said, another approach is to have a conversation about "what are you trying to achieve", and find a way for everyone to have the fun they'd like to have without risking something game-breaking.)
As GM, I strongly disagree. Any player who wants a character with "I can overrule the GM but I will do that only occasionally" power is a very big red flag. A D&D game isn't a mythological story or TV show. It's a community told story where one character having an "OP" (over powered) character basically destroys the balance between player and GM as well as between player and player, both of which are extremely important.
To make it clearer, the players and the GM will be struggling against each - in a controlled way, yes, but also a meaningful way. I'm not a super deadly GM but players will be risking death in at least low-key way and so everyone will sooner or later be "using everything they have".
Edit: basically, saying "this rule/power/etc exists but won't have an impact" is more or less saying that the "rules aren't serious", in either the 'Chat Control' or the DM situation. But the very nature of rules is that we wouldn't have them if they weren't serious.
I of course agree that the player should not be able to overrule the GM. I don't think that was the situation here.
If you're playing an off-the-shelf campaign this is problematic. If the GM is creating the game as you go, then a good GM should be able work with the player to make this reasonable. The GM can always use GM-power to prevent a player from doing something, even if it involves a literal hand of God reaching down to stop them.
A conversation with the player beforehand to make sure you're on the same page about this sort of thing would go a long way. Let them know under what circumstances you're willing to allow them to use whatever the power is. Let them know the consequences if they don't follow those rules.
Unlike with ChatControl, a D&D game is a situation where the necessary trust is able to exist.
An example: agree the player character is some trickster djinn sent from another plane to learn to be a human and how to trick people. They have immense cosmic powers of life and death, but as part of being sent over, they can only use the power for immediate comedy. Violations result in the djinn getting yanked back to their plane and disincorporated.
Boom done. Now you have a massively OP character that can only use their power in humorous situations that don't affect the storyline, and if they try to abuse that then that's instant-death.
I actually did that for a campaign. It wasn't extremely overpowered but I did have some abilities that could have been extremely OP if abused. I don't even think it was really legal as far as RAW was concerned. In the end I was probably one of the least effective characters, but I was able to do some cool things with those powers and we had fun roleplaying it.
IMO that's a little different since many of them also buying the utility of appearances, which be flaunted at entirely legal speeds or even while parked.
In contrast, an expensive speedy car disguised as a cheap slow one would be much more suspicious.
Allow me to introduce you to sleepers which are somewhat expensive cars disguised as cheap pieces of shit. Most I've been in are absolutely terrifying but seem like lots of fun.
Based on how often I find myself watching laden work vans pass vehicles that can easily "do better" this, or something like it, is likely a common reason for purchase
Please. Your comment was plain old flamebait that's clearly against the guidelines, particularly these ones.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer...
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
Users did the right thing to flag that comment, simply because it's against the guidelines and the intended use of this site. Please take a moment to read them and make an effort to observe them if you want to keep participating here.
I believe the Autobahn still carries the legal requirement to drive at a safe speed at all times. Pedal to the floor racing is not often safe speeds for a public road.
I mean, every person who purchases a car does so, at least implicitly. The very act of obtaining a driving license contains an (often explicit) promise to abide by the rules of the road.
You’re conflating two things and ignoring the thrust of the point: nobody buys a fast car to drive it slowly. Maybe some people do, the vast majority do not.
If promises about licenses meant a damn, we wouldn’t have speeding cameras.
> "[...] A dialogue between well-connected lobbyists and bureaucrats, and everyone else should just shut up and take it?"
Why, yes... that's exactly what the types of outfits like the European People's Party [1] expect on many things. But year after year these incompetent grouches get the majority of votes. And that's before one has to deal with the full-blown far right, fascists, and the like (e. g. ESN [2], PfE [3], et cetera).
Agreed. Even in the U.S. personal privacy is not a left/right issue. Both major political parties will sometimes pay lip service to privacy when campaigning yet when in power they both engineer votes that permit further erosion of privacy rights and expand exceptions for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to vacuum up personal data from citizens with little oversight.
The bill is bad, but this is disingenuously stupid:
> Still frustrating that Politico still implies that the bill has any power to stop CSAM, given that everyone who wants to trade it will obviously just use another layer of encryption.
Obviously, many people will not because many are already caught not using any, and many more are just using simple consumer options that this legislation would eliminate.
We can agree that the legislation is horrible without lying to ourselves and asserting that it would have zero impact
Agree that it would have impact, but not the good kind.
The services that deal with CSAM would be flooded with false positives from the automated scanning. They would, in turn, have to find methods of short-cutting the assessment of these false positives so that they can actually function.
The real CSAM would be drowned out by family snaps of kids in pools, of teenagers sexting each other, etc. The ability of the relevant services to actually detect and catch real abusers would be severely hampered. Actual abuse would be caught less and more kids would be harmed.
Five minutes of thought leads to this obvious conclusion. Which implies that this was never about protecting kids in the first place. It's about controlling what people say, as always.
Peter Hummelgaard, Danish Minister of Justice: "I indisputably believe that surveillance creates an increased sense of security ... and given that the prerequisite for freedom is security, yes, I believe that more surveillance equates to more freedom"
Peter Hummelgaard, Danish Minister of Justice: "We must break with the totally erroneous perception that it is everyone's civil liberty to communicate on encrypted messaging services."
I'd love to see this argument transfered to physical mail. Should it be illegal to send physical letters that are encrypted without also somehow providing the government with an unencrypted copy?
If that somehow seams reasonable on its face to someone, then I don't know where to begin a reasonable discussion.
Yes, but that parallel example is not relevant here because modern online messaging is profoundly different in crucial ways. Governments can (and do) intercept and store nearly all electronic messages which permits instant searching and deep cross-referencing of all content and sender/receiver metadata for every message ever sent by anyone, anywhere, at any time. None of which is true for physical mail. If you don't find that terrifying, you don't fully understand what it means.
When they do intercept physical mail messages, if the sender has encoded the message, in most democracies, the government is not permitted to compel the sender to decode the message. And even if you come under suspicion today and they start intercepting your physical mail, they can't have an LLM read ALL the physical letters you've ever sent at the press of a key. With electronic communications they don't even need suspicion first. The LLMs are already actively searching everything hunting for anything the government labels sufficiently "suspicious." The "Five Eyes" intelligence agencies have been capturing all email, instant messages and phone call metadata for more than 15 years already.
Perhaps the EU should consider adding access to secure encrypted communication to the human intrinsic rights to prevent such things in the future. He seems to be motivated by increases in gang crime that he will get blamed for.
He has no good explanations or arguments. He was beaten as a child by his father and now he is reproducing the abuse of power he experienced on all of us. I'm not even trying to be snarky, it's the only framing that can explain his behavior.
It's not even the fact that that belief is unfounded, but that he's actually equating a sense of security with security itself that makes that statement a bold yet easily overlooked lie. That he calls himself a social-democrat!
I was thinking about cognitive therapy to decrease the likelihood they would harm people as a result of the proclivities they cannot change. Some people have a natural urge to murder people all the time, if they learn to control it there is no reason they cannot contribute to society.
> Peter Hummelgaard, Danish Minister of Justice: "I indisputably believe that surveillance creates an increased sense of security ... and given that the prerequisite for freedom is security, yes, I believe that more surveillance equates to more freedom"
I mean, he's kinda right. It just depends on if you feel you're a target or not. If you're not the target, you feel an increased sense of security from any threat caused by the people who are the target.
A really obvious example is a dictator like Kim Jong Un: there's a huge amount of surveillance in North Korea, but all of it serves him and none of it threatens him.
So, especially someone kind of unthoughtful and ignorant of the complexities might feel "an increased sense of security" from this surveillance, because they know they're not a pedophile so assume surveillance purportedly targeted at pedophiles will do them no harm. You might even feel "more freedom" to the degree you feel pedophiles are a threat to you or your family.
>Still frustrating that Politico still implies that the bill has any power to stop CSAM, given that everyone who wants to trade it will obviously just use another layer of encryption.
MSM today has no choice but to parrot or echo the opinions of those in power if they want to stay in business otherwise they get shut down for $REASON witch can be any of the following labels: hate speech, misinformation, fake news, woke left, radical right wing, Putin supporters, etc. Just spin the roulette and pick one.
>What is a dialog, then? A dialogue between well-connected lobbyists and bureaucrats, and everyone else should just shut up and take it?
> MSM today has no choice but to parrot or echo the opinions of those in power if they want to stay in business otherwise they get shut down for $REASON
What a load of crap! There is still tons of "mainstream media" outlets that don't do this. One of the biggest in the UK would be The Guardian, there are hundreds like it.
The decision to toe the line, like the WaPo, are purely because of money (Jeff's and his readership's), not because anyone is "shutting them down" for X or Y.
The US is seeing lots of pressure on media because of not parroting the ruling party line. The current US president openly says any news he doesn't agree with is not only a lie but that the media companies are literally the enemies of the people. This doesn't even get into the tweet storms and the canceled programs in order to fall in line!
Your last point seems to be the parent's point as well -- if you want to keep your media business alive (to make money; that's what businesses are) in the US you have to be careful criticizing those currently in power. Unless I misunderstood you to and you meant that parroting the party line is a way to make more money but not doing it is also perfectly effective and not at all a risk.
I haven't checked the Guardian in dept, but I believe they towed the same messaging during COVID as any other major Western publication and the same regarding the Russia / Ukraine situation right now.
Alternative voices are to be found on tight corners of the internet, like an individual on Twitter for example.
>One of the biggest in the UK would be The Guardian
I used to like the Guardian in 2009-214 but now, I trust someone's "it came to me in a dream", before I trust The Guardian, given their recent flops and biases.
The quote from Yes, Prime Minster - "The only way to understand the press, is to remember that they pander to their readers prejudices" which makes those news aggregations sites more appealing, though cheaper to stick with other avenues for balance.
"Still frustrating that Politico still implies that the bill has any power to stop CSAM"
Why wouldn't they? It's a NATO aligned, pro-Israel rag under Axel Springer, of course they're helping to sell surveillance technology that can be abused by militaries and state agencies, one of the main israeli exports and generally appreciated industry by NATO.
> The campaign has irked some recipients. “In terms of dialog within a democracy, this is not a dialog,” said Lena Düpont, a German member of the European People’s Party group and its home affairs spokesperson, of the mass emails.
It is a dialog. Millions are against it, a few (powerful people) in favor. The powerful are too detached from reality and consider this "not a dialog".
On a meta level, it even gives them a taste of the millions of messages that‘d get flagged false positively monthly, overwhelming police and other systems.
It's as much of a dialog as they allow for people to express their views. If I write a politician a well reasoned, thorough explanation of why I support or oppose something, the best outcome I get, as a non-lobbyist, is having a "for" or "against" viewpoint tallied into a giant bucket.
So if elected reps are going to distill our "dialog" down to an aggregated tally of support or opposition, then a canned email covers the entire dialog that's allowed.
We are very talented at distilling the noisy information going through the web each day into lists.
Let’s distill diplomatic topics and their sub topics into lists as well.
Let’s keep the lists around. They should be as indefinite as the topics they trace.
Do some tech-AI-open-source-local-… stuff to compile our many mouths into the lists they belong. Unstructured data-> structured data.
Compile collective thought by semantic meaning. Each person should be able to influence the whole proportional to total participants of the list.
It could be a dialog! A dialog takes two sides. Now that the other side has finally heard the voice of literally millions of people who oppose Chat Control, it can respond intelligently, and a dialog would start.
Saying "it's not a dialog" is just evading the (uncomfortable) dialog. Maybe some MEPs are going to actually engage in the dialog.
Yes, and in fact, Lena's response is part of the dialog. And its dismissiveness is telling. Not only does it reflect her attitude toward her constituents, it also exposes her tacit premise that digital communications are somehow unreal.
It's as if, for her, only phone calls, speeches, or handwritten letters would be enough to start a dialog. She seems to be under the misapprehension that digital communication is something to which norms and laws and, fundamentally, rights don't apply. Which is a misguided and dangerous belief.
Exactly. That's the right dialogue to have about this: repeated "no" combined with as much power and leverage can be brought to bear to get people out of office for trying.
Feel free to accuse the Germans. Russian bribes is basically why they have some of the most expensive energy in the world now. They're surprisingly corrupt for a "developed" "high tech" nation.
This can't be, bribes can only happen in corrupt Eastern Europe. No way it's happening in founding EU member, they will be kicked out of the club at once
One interesting anecdote about this bill was that the European Commission allegedly funded digital advertisements promoting it, targeting specific political demographics, which is something that could possibly be prohibited by their own regulations.
Absolute hero, and a slap in the face to many commenters here who seem to believe that individuals can’t have a political impact through the clever application of technology. Fairly simple technology at that. A good comparison is the deflock.me site that seems to be successfully raising awareness of widespread surveillance.
Note that this technology complemented ongoing campaigns rather than standing alone; that’s important. It would be difficult to have an impact by building a tool in isolation.
> Joachim himself declined to provide his last name or workplace because his employer does not want to be associated with the campaign. POLITICO has verified his identity. Joachim said his employer has no commercial interest in the legislation, and he alone paid the costs associated with running the website.
Yeah, there were 119 people born in 1995 with first name Joachim, and 123 in 1994[0]. There is a pretty good chance that there is currently only one 30-years old Joachim employed as a software engineer in Aalborg.
Yeah, a quick search says there's 21000 men aged 25-34 in Aalborg. Let's say an equal spread of 2100 men in each age, how many would be named Joachim? Probably a few dozens...
There are 119 people born in 1995 with first name Joachim, and 123 in 1994. So probably somewhere around 120 30-year old Joachims in Denmark right now. About 3.75% of the population lives in Aalborg. So assuming an even distribution of 30-years old Joachims, we would expect 4-5 people in Aalborg. There seems to be a very good chance that there is only one possible software engineer named Joachim then.
The fake anonymity journalists often give to sources (‘Richard D , from small town X, aged 34, works as a carpenter specializing in 16th century house renovation’) is something I find rather striking.
What’s not clear to me though is whether they’re deliberately tricking their source, or whether they genuinely don’t understand that their source is not anonymous when they give that many details.
> Joachim himself declined to provide his last name or workplace because his employer does not want to be associated with the campaign. POLITICO has verified his identity. Joachim said his employer has no commercial interest in the legislation, and he alone paid the costs associated with running the website.
This type of approach from the journalist always confuses me. Why would his employer matter? What does that have to do with anything?
Even before journalism was under a sustained assault from the right, clarifying potential conflicts of interest was fairly standard practice. Now, I see journalists more frequently bending over backwards to (futilely) preempt criticism.
While of course we’re grateful to the person who setup the website, this isn’t the first time a campaign against a piece of policy has included a website. Politico makes it sounds like it’s a fight between the little man and the “big parliament” but emailing your MEPs (the ones you elect every couple of years) has always been an effective way to signal your views. And yes, for bigger issues there have been websites and flyer actions to remind people to voice their views.
It’s democracy and absolutely a form of debate.
Also, I think Politico should absolutely review how they try to protect the identity of people they’re writing about because naming the guy and providing so much information in this day and age is just plain doxing.
Please go have a look -- this is really well done with a clear message, good documentation and the call to action implemented very nicely (which is the background for TFA).
the article is more-or-less fine, but the headline is ridiculous
> one-man ... campaign
it's a website that drafts an email for you, and then you send it yourself. it's an organizational tool, yes, but broad involvement is sorta the point
> spam campaign
gross mischaracterization, citizens sending emails to their govt representative for legitimate purposes - making their political opinion known to the politician - is not spam under any sane definition
The whole point of it is that it enables a duckton of people to campaign against it in an easy way. And much more noticeable than a stupid change.org petition where you're just one of an easily-ignored number on a website.
I used the service and got 3 emails back, they were probably as ready-made as the one I sent, but still nice. The reply's were all from politicians from my country why are against ChatControl.
Worth looking at the website even if you're not in the EU or especially interested in privacy matters. It's well-designed and has a decent user flow for picking who to contact or omit.
"spam" is a grave mischaracterization, at that. It's a tool assisting citizens to voice their concerns to their elected representatives.
I also feel uneasy about Politico putting the lights on the creator this way and stopping short of doxxing them when they clearly wish to have their identity unknown and could face threats from having their personals broadcasted.
It's also telling that the two opponents to the bill named in the article are Musk and WhatsApp - hardly the most sympathetic picks for the Politico audience.
My main problem with Fight Chat Control is that it asks people to send messages to the wrong audience. The site asks me to contact members of the European /parliament/, while the proposal is being discussed by the EU /commission/, a completely different body.
The commissioners are not elected by the citizens of their respective countries. Instead, they are selected via a parliamentary vetting process, and approved by the European Parliament.
The commission has no direct responsibility towards the citizens in EU. It is also the European Parliament that scrutinized and votes on the laws created by the commission. The commission job is only to write proposal for laws.
This is a bit like complaining that people have objections about a politician speech and send emails to the politician rather than the employed person who wrote it. Should citizens direct their messages and complaints to speech writes?
This does not seem a fitting metaphor: you complain only after the politician has read that speech. But this whole campaign is about a speech that has not been written yet, i.e., a proposal that has not been finalized. You are writing to a MEP about a certain draft that is still being worked on, and that they might have to vote on in the future.
What do you expect them to answer, other than "thanks, I can do nothing for now, but I'll keep that in mind if and when I have to vote on it"? Why not wait and write to them when they actually have to vote on this proposal?
I don't understand. I thought politicians are a subset of the people. If millions are aware of the issue and the speech, why would the politicians be oblivious?
Yes you are correct, but technically the parliament passes the laws, so they have the final say. It should be the commission that gets slapped in the face (or even better dissolved as it's quite undemocratic), but what can you do...
>>or even better dissolved as it's quite undemocratic)
I never understood this argument. The comission's job is to write the laws, the parliment's job is to make sure they acceptable to all member states and either pass them or send them back.
It's the same how say, UK government uses various comissions to write legislation which then goes in front of the parliment which then either passes it or don't - and I don't think we would call the British system undemocratic(well, other than the monarchy and the house of lords - but the way the parliment works is deeply democratic). I don't believe any EU member state directly elects their law writers and comissions that propose them - the democratic part is always at the top.
I think it's fairly common that individual members of parliament do directly draft and submit their own bills, certainly it is not uncommon that they have the right to propose their own bills.
But by volume most of these bills are shit and so just quietly die in a vote nobody noticed, and so most law that we actually have was indeed drafted by a special commission and put forward by the executive before it was approved by parliament.
I mean, in the sense that your comment here was unsolicited, and thus spam, I suppose one could make a semantic argument? But generally "unsolicited" means that it's outside normal communication expectations: we expect people to post on a forum even if their opinion hasn't been explicitly solicited, and we equally expect people to communicate with their representatives.
I agree, I feel like it gives the article a negative bias against the developer. Perhaps the editor wants to generate pressure against them or discourage further opposition?
At least it’s not a complete hit piece, if you ignore the title then it’s mostly balanced.
> Isn't this an egregious headline for such a neutral article? ... And the article itself describes the actual setup accurately in one of the opening paragraphs, so clearly the author knows the facts
I would guess that the author is to involved with writing the headline. An awful lot of journalists have been up in arms the last decade over the editors writing new headlines that imply the opposite stance of the article itself...
Politico.eu is owned by Axel Springer, the same Axel Springer SE which received US$ 7m from the CIA back in the early 2000s [0].
It's the closest to a Fox News-esque entity in Western Europe, I believe. They also own BILD, a tabloid, and Die Welt, a newspaper that constantly publishes climate-skeptic articles, and also infamously published an op-ed by Musk supporting the AfD.
If you think it won't work or not be effective that doesn't change the stated intention.
If you think one or more of the proponents are lying that doesn't change what the article should state unless there is evidence
They already said "aimed at" which implies that's the goal instead of writing "that will stop child..."
It's not an opinion piece they are simplifying conveying information from both sides. The article even details that there is an opposition to the bill.
> The U.K. Online Safety Act was (avowedly, as revealed in a recent High Court case) “not primarily aimed at protecting children” but at regulating “services that have a significant influence over public discourse.”
I have every expectation that Chat Control is either similar or is a blatant cash-grab by people interested in peddling technical "solutions", or both.
>But Danish Justice Minister Peter Hummelgaard, one of the loudest proponents of tough measures to get child abuse material off online platforms, said in a statement that his proposal is far more balanced than the Commission’s original version and would mean that scanning would only happen as a last resort.
That is the whole problem isn't it?
Should government be able to scan your personal data without your permission to fight crime?
If people want to get child abuse material off online platforms, then there are other things that needs to be dealt with than installing back doors for government to scan your personal files. This comment is just seems like some kind of hand weaving of excuse on the politician side to create infrastructure of massive surveillance state.
Ah, nice. This actually helps me to feel less impotent about the issue. It feels like the umpteenth attempt, the politicians are starting to wear me down.
But now I've taken the time to send mails and at least feel like I have done _something_.
See you next time, I guess! @ Politicians
How will the bill stop organized pedophile operations which certainly use specialized covert technologies, websites, messengers, sharing platforms unavailable in official app stores? Anyone thinking it's going to improve detection of such stuff is an idiot.
I just hate how even in that article, they can put the phrase "those trying to pass a European bill aimed at stopping child sexual abuse material from spreading online." and to most regular people, it makes this dude sound like a bad guy. I mean why would he want to stop that?!?!
It's sad how complex us humans think we are when our behaviours boil down to fairly predictable animal and tribal responses.
And what I love about the general suffix above is that you can pop it on anything to make someone oppose to it sound bad:
"those trying to implement mandatory home camera systems aimed at stopping child sexual abuse material from happening."
> a massive headache to those trying to pass a European bill aimed at stopping child sexual abuse material from spreading online.
No, what the actual fuck: it's a bill rolling out a CSAM scanner of unproven efficacy, but with severe side effects for privacy! See, one sentence, and immediately a reader sees that this is a nuanced, contested issue.
What kind of reporting is this, extremely one-sided. Politico, many such cases. Sad.
> a European Union proposal to fight child sexual abuse material (CSAM) — a bill seen by privacy activists as breaking encryption and leading to mass surveillance
Why not call it: "a proposal to break encryption and enact mass surveillance, claimed to be used to fight CSAM"?
How did the author decide which part to present as plain fact, and which as mere activist opinion? The choice isn't arbitrary - the proposal definitely will break encryption and enact mass surveillance - that's what the text of the proposal directly commands governments to do!
I guess such subtleties fade compared to the two bald lies in the title alone - it is not "spam" to simplify EU citizens contacting their representatives, and since that "spam" was sent by those citizens themselves, it is not a "one-man" campaign either, but a mass movement.
Oh I'm not objecting to presenting some parts as negative and others as positive. I'm objecting to presenting some parts as uncontested truth, while others as mere "activists say" (especially since what those activists say is simply what is written in the law - there's no room for opinion).
I love the idea of making tools to make it easy for people to email their representatives, from their own mailboxes. Here's one I vibe coded for a specific purpose:
> Joachim's campaign is blocking more traditional lobbyists and campaigners, too, they said. Mieke Schuurman, director at child rights group Eurochild, said the group’s messages are no longer reaching policymakers, who “increasingly respond with automated replies.”
So, previously they could blow off people like Mieke personally, and now they're getting too many messages to be able to do that. That seems like a pretty clear win.
I'm fascinated by ultra high impact, nonviolent interventions by individuals, such as this.
My favorite example was when a few people made Twitter accounts masquerading as large companies, bought a verified stamp, and then issued a couple tweets that single handedly wiped billions off the companies' stock prices.
If anyone else knows of similar interventions, I would love to learn of them. It makes me think about how individuals can force multiply their impact, and whether there's methods for personal empowerment to be learned from these examples.
> If anyone else knows of similar interventions, I would love to learn of them. It makes me think about how individuals can force multiply their impact, and whether there's methods for personal empowerment to be learned from these examples.
One that comes to mind is Keith Gill [1] of GameStop fame [2].
> You can have outsized impact by participating in democracy.
That's exactly my point, the normal mode of "participating" in democracy is usually called voting, which, individually, in most elections, does nothing. Only in aggregate does a vote matter, there's not been an election decided by a single vote in my lifetime, that I'm aware of anyway. So in reality, to effectively participate in democracy at minimum requires doing something as an individual that causes more than just your vote to happen for the candidate you want. Door knocking or calls for example.
So just saying "participating" isn't enough because many people just interpret that as voting, which is an act with no individual impact.
I'm interested in actions individuals can take that have actual impact, and are thus individually empowering. I believe liberal democracy has made nations of sleepwalkers and the result is becoming apparent in the 21st century as governments seem to act more and more against the will of the people.
I love how we’re wringing our hands about the technological side of this fight.
If every time we found someone with CSAM on their hard drive, we swung them from a tree—folks would think twice before engaging in the production and distribution of CSAM.
We don’t need to break encryption. We need real, permanent, consequences that fit the crime.
How are the EU legislators complaining about this like its a novel idea or somehow undemocratic? This sort of email templating website has been a fixture of contact your reps movements on the state and federal level for years in the states.
I also get a kick out of lobbyists complaining about it.
> Chat controls, government controls - are coming.
Not if the people continue to fight off each attempt. Looks like we may be winning this round. Each time we win this battle, the opposition becomes better organized/funded and citizens become more aware of what is going on. Each subsequent push will have less chance of success once we pass a key threshold; it seems to me that this may be the last big push, if we win here then the public won’t back future attempts. Then your only option to pass this will be removing democracy altogether.
I think you are underestimating how paranoid people are about "pedophiles. It's been used by politicians more and more to create a climate of fear so they can justify a more authoritian set up.
Because I promise you there are people who would give up a great of deal to solve child sex abuse crimes.
They just don't understand the actual risks due to manipulation
From where you speak about "T&S Que" I have no idea what you're talking about. You might have a point but I honestly don't follow (I don't even know what T&S is)
> Elon Musk's X said Monday that the bill could enable "government instituted mass surveillance"
Do they have to mention that Elon Musk owns X every time they mention a post? I don't see how Elon owning X has anything to do with the content of a random X post.
> trying to pass a European bill aimed at stopping child sexual abuse material from spreading online.
Nice try on framing. No, you don’t stop the spread of the material that way. It will just change distribution channel for the price of creating a tool for mass surveillance.
> The campaign has irked some recipients. “In terms of dialog within a democracy, this is not a dialog,” said Lena Düpont, a German member of the European People’s Party group and its home affairs spokesperson, of the mass emails.
What is a dialog, then? A dialogue between well-connected lobbyists and bureaucrats, and everyone else should just shut up and take it?
Or, or, "normal people" sending emails only for the lawmakers to go "thanks for the feedback, we're doing it anyway"?
> One EU diplomat said some EU member countries are now more hesitant to support Denmark’s proposal, at least in part because of the campaign: “There is a clear link.”
> Ella Jakubowska, head of policy at digital rights group EDRi, said “This campaign seems to have raised the topic high up the agenda in member states where there was previously little to no public debate."
This is amazing, and makes me regain a bit of (much destroyed) faith in democracy.
> But Danish Justice Minister Peter Hummelgaard, one of the loudest proponents of tough measures to get child abuse material off online platforms, said in a statement that his proposal is far more balanced than the Commission’s original version and would mean that scanning would only happen as a last resort.
If the option is there, it will be abused.
There is a lot of mythology about gods walking among men, hiding their true nature, etc. And more recent examples include the TV show Lucifer.
Someone wanting to roleplay that sort of being is entirely plausible. Without knowing the person's personality (which you presumably did) it's hard to say whether they would have genuinely wanted to do that or if it was an excuse.
(That said, another approach is to have a conversation about "what are you trying to achieve", and find a way for everyone to have the fun they'd like to have without risking something game-breaking.)
To make it clearer, the players and the GM will be struggling against each - in a controlled way, yes, but also a meaningful way. I'm not a super deadly GM but players will be risking death in at least low-key way and so everyone will sooner or later be "using everything they have".
Edit: basically, saying "this rule/power/etc exists but won't have an impact" is more or less saying that the "rules aren't serious", in either the 'Chat Control' or the DM situation. But the very nature of rules is that we wouldn't have them if they weren't serious.
If you're playing an off-the-shelf campaign this is problematic. If the GM is creating the game as you go, then a good GM should be able work with the player to make this reasonable. The GM can always use GM-power to prevent a player from doing something, even if it involves a literal hand of God reaching down to stop them.
A conversation with the player beforehand to make sure you're on the same page about this sort of thing would go a long way. Let them know under what circumstances you're willing to allow them to use whatever the power is. Let them know the consequences if they don't follow those rules.
Unlike with ChatControl, a D&D game is a situation where the necessary trust is able to exist.
An example: agree the player character is some trickster djinn sent from another plane to learn to be a human and how to trick people. They have immense cosmic powers of life and death, but as part of being sent over, they can only use the power for immediate comedy. Violations result in the djinn getting yanked back to their plane and disincorporated.
Boom done. Now you have a massively OP character that can only use their power in humorous situations that don't affect the storyline, and if they try to abuse that then that's instant-death.
For starters the government is not in the habit of releasing these new powers, once it's established it will stay for a very, very long time.
And you can be sure the new powers will be used in unintended ways, which the citizens will have a hard time blocking.
So it's actually very simple: No to Chatcontrol, now and forever.
In contrast, an expensive speedy car disguised as a cheap slow one would be much more suspicious.
Please. Your comment was plain old flamebait that's clearly against the guidelines, particularly these ones.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer...
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
Users did the right thing to flag that comment, simply because it's against the guidelines and the intended use of this site. Please take a moment to read them and make an effort to observe them if you want to keep participating here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
(Technically correct is the best kind of correct)
[1] https://www.drivencarguide.co.nz/news/no-charges-laid-on-bug...
If promises about licenses meant a damn, we wouldn’t have speeding cameras.
Why, yes... that's exactly what the types of outfits like the European People's Party [1] expect on many things. But year after year these incompetent grouches get the majority of votes. And that's before one has to deal with the full-blown far right, fascists, and the like (e. g. ESN [2], PfE [3], et cetera).
1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_People's_Party]
2. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_of_Sovereign_Nations_Gr...]
3. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriots_for_Europe]
It doesn't require analyzing of all text and sound. Everything else is still fair game.
> Still frustrating that Politico still implies that the bill has any power to stop CSAM, given that everyone who wants to trade it will obviously just use another layer of encryption.
Obviously, many people will not because many are already caught not using any, and many more are just using simple consumer options that this legislation would eliminate.
We can agree that the legislation is horrible without lying to ourselves and asserting that it would have zero impact
The services that deal with CSAM would be flooded with false positives from the automated scanning. They would, in turn, have to find methods of short-cutting the assessment of these false positives so that they can actually function.
The real CSAM would be drowned out by family snaps of kids in pools, of teenagers sexting each other, etc. The ability of the relevant services to actually detect and catch real abusers would be severely hampered. Actual abuse would be caught less and more kids would be harmed.
Five minutes of thought leads to this obvious conclusion. Which implies that this was never about protecting kids in the first place. It's about controlling what people say, as always.
Good, this is the person that should be blamed loud and clear
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45473136
The fact that he's actually saying this is incredible, and not in a good way.
I'd love to hear him explain the government exemptions in the bill with this in mind.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/danish-justice-min...
If that somehow seams reasonable on its face to someone, then I don't know where to begin a reasonable discussion.
When they do intercept physical mail messages, if the sender has encoded the message, in most democracies, the government is not permitted to compel the sender to decode the message. And even if you come under suspicion today and they start intercepting your physical mail, they can't have an LLM read ALL the physical letters you've ever sent at the press of a key. With electronic communications they don't even need suspicion first. The LLMs are already actively searching everything hunting for anything the government labels sufficiently "suspicious." The "Five Eyes" intelligence agencies have been capturing all email, instant messages and phone call metadata for more than 15 years already.
> The cops can intercept physical mail
You didn't answer the question...
I mean, he's kinda right. It just depends on if you feel you're a target or not. If you're not the target, you feel an increased sense of security from any threat caused by the people who are the target.
A really obvious example is a dictator like Kim Jong Un: there's a huge amount of surveillance in North Korea, but all of it serves him and none of it threatens him.
So, especially someone kind of unthoughtful and ignorant of the complexities might feel "an increased sense of security" from this surveillance, because they know they're not a pedophile so assume surveillance purportedly targeted at pedophiles will do them no harm. You might even feel "more freedom" to the degree you feel pedophiles are a threat to you or your family.
MSM today has no choice but to parrot or echo the opinions of those in power if they want to stay in business otherwise they get shut down for $REASON witch can be any of the following labels: hate speech, misinformation, fake news, woke left, radical right wing, Putin supporters, etc. Just spin the roulette and pick one.
>What is a dialog, then? A dialogue between well-connected lobbyists and bureaucrats, and everyone else should just shut up and take it?
Yes, that's precisely how it works:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtdbF-nRJqs
What a load of crap! There is still tons of "mainstream media" outlets that don't do this. One of the biggest in the UK would be The Guardian, there are hundreds like it.
The decision to toe the line, like the WaPo, are purely because of money (Jeff's and his readership's), not because anyone is "shutting them down" for X or Y.
Your last point seems to be the parent's point as well -- if you want to keep your media business alive (to make money; that's what businesses are) in the US you have to be careful criticizing those currently in power. Unless I misunderstood you to and you meant that parroting the party line is a way to make more money but not doing it is also perfectly effective and not at all a risk.
Alternative voices are to be found on tight corners of the internet, like an individual on Twitter for example.
I used to like the Guardian in 2009-214 but now, I trust someone's "it came to me in a dream", before I trust The Guardian, given their recent flops and biases.
So much wisdom on comedy, even 80s comedy Who reads the papers? - Yes, Prime Minister - BBC comedy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M
Why wouldn't they? It's a NATO aligned, pro-Israel rag under Axel Springer, of course they're helping to sell surveillance technology that can be abused by militaries and state agencies, one of the main israeli exports and generally appreciated industry by NATO.
> The campaign has irked some recipients. “In terms of dialog within a democracy, this is not a dialog,” said Lena Düpont, a German member of the European People’s Party group and its home affairs spokesperson, of the mass emails.
It is a dialog. Millions are against it, a few (powerful people) in favor. The powerful are too detached from reality and consider this "not a dialog".
On a meta level, it even gives them a taste of the millions of messages that‘d get flagged false positively monthly, overwhelming police and other systems.
It's as much of a dialog as they allow for people to express their views. If I write a politician a well reasoned, thorough explanation of why I support or oppose something, the best outcome I get, as a non-lobbyist, is having a "for" or "against" viewpoint tallied into a giant bucket.
So if elected reps are going to distill our "dialog" down to an aggregated tally of support or opposition, then a canned email covers the entire dialog that's allowed.
Compile collective thought by semantic meaning. Each person should be able to influence the whole proportional to total participants of the list.
Saying "it's not a dialog" is just evading the (uncomfortable) dialog. Maybe some MEPs are going to actually engage in the dialog.
It's as if, for her, only phone calls, speeches, or handwritten letters would be enough to start a dialog. She seems to be under the misapprehension that digital communication is something to which norms and laws and, fundamentally, rights don't apply. Which is a misguided and dangerous belief.
Make it a radioactive career-ending move to try.
Search Gerhard Schroder for more info.
https://noyb.eu/en/noyb-files-complaint-against-eu-commissio...
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/transpare...
Note that this technology complemented ongoing campaigns rather than standing alone; that’s important. It would be difficult to have an impact by building a tool in isolation.
> The website, called Fight Chat Control, was set up by Joachim, a 30-year-old software engineer living in Aalborg, Denmark.
That's a lot of knowledge about an unknown person.
> Joachim himself declined to provide his last name or workplace because his employer does not want to be associated with the campaign. POLITICO has verified his identity. Joachim said his employer has no commercial interest in the legislation, and he alone paid the costs associated with running the website.
[0]: https://www.dst.dk/da/Statistik/emner/borgere/navne/navne-ti...
There are 119 people born in 1995 with first name Joachim, and 123 in 1994. So probably somewhere around 120 30-year old Joachims in Denmark right now. About 3.75% of the population lives in Aalborg. So assuming an even distribution of 30-years old Joachims, we would expect 4-5 people in Aalborg. There seems to be a very good chance that there is only one possible software engineer named Joachim then.
What’s not clear to me though is whether they’re deliberately tricking their source, or whether they genuinely don’t understand that their source is not anonymous when they give that many details.
This type of approach from the journalist always confuses me. Why would his employer matter? What does that have to do with anything?
A person speaking up is cool. A company speaking up is lobbying.
While of course we’re grateful to the person who setup the website, this isn’t the first time a campaign against a piece of policy has included a website. Politico makes it sounds like it’s a fight between the little man and the “big parliament” but emailing your MEPs (the ones you elect every couple of years) has always been an effective way to signal your views. And yes, for bigger issues there have been websites and flyer actions to remind people to voice their views.
It’s democracy and absolutely a form of debate.
Also, I think Politico should absolutely review how they try to protect the identity of people they’re writing about because naming the guy and providing so much information in this day and age is just plain doxing.
> one-man ... campaign
it's a website that drafts an email for you, and then you send it yourself. it's an organizational tool, yes, but broad involvement is sorta the point
> spam campaign
gross mischaracterization, citizens sending emails to their govt representative for legitimate purposes - making their political opinion known to the politician - is not spam under any sane definition
The whole point of it is that it enables a duckton of people to campaign against it in an easy way. And much more noticeable than a stupid change.org petition where you're just one of an easily-ignored number on a website.
Fight Chat Control - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44856426 - Aug 2025 (498 comments)
(As for Chat Control threads in general, there are too many to list.)
And the article itself describes the actual setup accurately in one of the opening paragraphs, so clearly the author knows the facts:
> The site lets visitors compile a mass email warning about the bill and send it...
And most of the other headlines on their current front page are quite boring and descriptive.
I also feel uneasy about Politico putting the lights on the creator this way and stopping short of doxxing them when they clearly wish to have their identity unknown and could face threats from having their personals broadcasted.
It's also telling that the two opponents to the bill named in the article are Musk and WhatsApp - hardly the most sympathetic picks for the Politico audience.
The commission has no direct responsibility towards the citizens in EU. It is also the European Parliament that scrutinized and votes on the laws created by the commission. The commission job is only to write proposal for laws.
This is a bit like complaining that people have objections about a politician speech and send emails to the politician rather than the employed person who wrote it. Should citizens direct their messages and complaints to speech writes?
What do you expect them to answer, other than "thanks, I can do nothing for now, but I'll keep that in mind if and when I have to vote on it"? Why not wait and write to them when they actually have to vote on this proposal?
I never understood this argument. The comission's job is to write the laws, the parliment's job is to make sure they acceptable to all member states and either pass them or send them back.
It's the same how say, UK government uses various comissions to write legislation which then goes in front of the parliment which then either passes it or don't - and I don't think we would call the British system undemocratic(well, other than the monarchy and the house of lords - but the way the parliment works is deeply democratic). I don't believe any EU member state directly elects their law writers and comissions that propose them - the democratic part is always at the top.
But by volume most of these bills are shit and so just quietly die in a vote nobody noticed, and so most law that we actually have was indeed drafted by a special commission and put forward by the executive before it was approved by parliament.
It doesn't send anything but assists visitors to send on their own.
It is not unsolicited communication.
Politico is not an unbiased publication.
At least it’s not a complete hit piece, if you ignore the title then it’s mostly balanced.
I would guess that the author is to involved with writing the headline. An awful lot of journalists have been up in arms the last decade over the editors writing new headlines that imply the opposite stance of the article itself...
It's the closest to a Fox News-esque entity in Western Europe, I believe. They also own BILD, a tabloid, and Die Welt, a newspaper that constantly publishes climate-skeptic articles, and also infamously published an op-ed by Musk supporting the AfD.
[0] https://taz.de/cia-und-presse/!734289/
I wouldn’t call that neutral.
That's what the bill's intentions are.
If you think it won't work or not be effective that doesn't change the stated intention.
If you think one or more of the proponents are lying that doesn't change what the article should state unless there is evidence
They already said "aimed at" which implies that's the goal instead of writing "that will stop child..."
It's not an opinion piece they are simplifying conveying information from both sides. The article even details that there is an opposition to the bill.
It's always the stated intention, because it's hard to argue against "think of the children". From commentary on similar legislation in the UK:
https://bsky.app/profile/tupped.bsky.social/post/3lwgcmswmy2...
> The U.K. Online Safety Act was (avowedly, as revealed in a recent High Court case) “not primarily aimed at protecting children” but at regulating “services that have a significant influence over public discourse.”
I have every expectation that Chat Control is either similar or is a blatant cash-grab by people interested in peddling technical "solutions", or both.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45508537
That is the whole problem isn't it?
Should government be able to scan your personal data without your permission to fight crime?
If people want to get child abuse material off online platforms, then there are other things that needs to be dealt with than installing back doors for government to scan your personal files. This comment is just seems like some kind of hand weaving of excuse on the politician side to create infrastructure of massive surveillance state.
318K signatures at the time of this posting, which means it gathered ~90K since yesterday. Please consider signing.
But now I've taken the time to send mails and at least feel like I have done _something_. See you next time, I guess! @ Politicians
It's sad how complex us humans think we are when our behaviours boil down to fairly predictable animal and tribal responses.
And what I love about the general suffix above is that you can pop it on anything to make someone oppose to it sound bad: "those trying to implement mandatory home camera systems aimed at stopping child sexual abuse material from happening."
[1] - https://archive.is/jchny
[2] - https://archive.is/0Dqys
Thanks OP for adding it here!
No, what the actual fuck: it's a bill rolling out a CSAM scanner of unproven efficacy, but with severe side effects for privacy! See, one sentence, and immediately a reader sees that this is a nuanced, contested issue.
What kind of reporting is this, extremely one-sided. Politico, many such cases. Sad.
But huge thanks to Joachim for making it easy!
Why not call it: "a proposal to break encryption and enact mass surveillance, claimed to be used to fight CSAM"?
How did the author decide which part to present as plain fact, and which as mere activist opinion? The choice isn't arbitrary - the proposal definitely will break encryption and enact mass surveillance - that's what the text of the proposal directly commands governments to do!
I guess such subtleties fade compared to the two bald lies in the title alone - it is not "spam" to simplify EU citizens contacting their representatives, and since that "spam" was sent by those citizens themselves, it is not a "one-man" campaign either, but a mass movement.
They have a very obvious bias, and the parts supporting their bias are presented as positive.
See also the "exonerative tense".
That doesn't have the same ring to it to persuade clueless and weak politicians to support anything with the word "child" in it.
https://crocker.vercel.app/
After I made it, I came across something similar on another web site, but with some cool additional features:
- support for multiple 'campaigns'
- per-campaign questions (with drop down responses)
- AI to customize the email and subject, instead of just filling in a template
This right here is the problem, a good leader leads by example, not exemption.
"I do not think that word means what [she] thinks it means"
So, previously they could blow off people like Mieke personally, and now they're getting too many messages to be able to do that. That seems like a pretty clear win.
My favorite example was when a few people made Twitter accounts masquerading as large companies, bought a verified stamp, and then issued a couple tweets that single handedly wiped billions off the companies' stock prices.
If anyone else knows of similar interventions, I would love to learn of them. It makes me think about how individuals can force multiply their impact, and whether there's methods for personal empowerment to be learned from these examples.
One that comes to mind is Keith Gill [1] of GameStop fame [2].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Gill
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameStop_short_squeeze
You can have outsized impact by participating in democracy.
That's exactly my point, the normal mode of "participating" in democracy is usually called voting, which, individually, in most elections, does nothing. Only in aggregate does a vote matter, there's not been an election decided by a single vote in my lifetime, that I'm aware of anyway. So in reality, to effectively participate in democracy at minimum requires doing something as an individual that causes more than just your vote to happen for the candidate you want. Door knocking or calls for example.
So just saying "participating" isn't enough because many people just interpret that as voting, which is an act with no individual impact.
I'm interested in actions individuals can take that have actual impact, and are thus individually empowering. I believe liberal democracy has made nations of sleepwalkers and the result is becoming apparent in the 21st century as governments seem to act more and more against the will of the people.
If every time we found someone with CSAM on their hard drive, we swung them from a tree—folks would think twice before engaging in the production and distribution of CSAM.
We don’t need to break encryption. We need real, permanent, consequences that fit the crime.
I also get a kick out of lobbyists complaining about it.
Sorry, but this is what democracy looks like.
The current situation does not work.
Chat controls, government controls - are coming.
The underbelly of social and chat tech is filled with logic gremlins and impossible objects. They’re just constant metastasizing into monster.
And it’s absolutely natural that legal entities get legislated into existence to oppose them.
Go sit in a T&S Que. See the absurdity that has to be wrestled into workflows. See how individual voices and requests are reduced to KPIs.
Knowledge is power and so on - but knowledge must also be earned.
See what reality is for T&S or Ai safety or risk and compliance or what have you.
See the rift in reality as ideas, people and tech are mangled together.
At the very least you can know the absurdity of the reality we live with.
Not if the people continue to fight off each attempt. Looks like we may be winning this round. Each time we win this battle, the opposition becomes better organized/funded and citizens become more aware of what is going on. Each subsequent push will have less chance of success once we pass a key threshold; it seems to me that this may be the last big push, if we win here then the public won’t back future attempts. Then your only option to pass this will be removing democracy altogether.
Because I promise you there are people who would give up a great of deal to solve child sex abuse crimes.
They just don't understand the actual risks due to manipulation
But yeah moderators deal with shit. Not really a problem because they're already being replaced by AI.
In my town there was a meta moderation centre with thousands of people. They just fired them from one day to the next.
Do they have to mention that Elon Musk owns X every time they mention a post? I don't see how Elon owning X has anything to do with the content of a random X post.
> trying to pass a European bill aimed at stopping child sexual abuse material from spreading online.
Nice try on framing. No, you don’t stop the spread of the material that way. It will just change distribution channel for the price of creating a tool for mass surveillance.
Yeah I feel so safe with hundreds of unknown people constantly looking over my shoulder /s
Next sentence,
> The website was set up by Joachim, a 30-year-old software engineer living in Aalborg, Denmark
? Is this what journalism has come to? On top of calling this a spam campaign?