zlacker

[parent] [thread] 25 comments
1. croes+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-08-10 19:05:26
Where is the difference to the US, China or the UK?

Governments often try that kind of nonsense. Usually against organized crime, terrorism, child abuse.

But in the end it’s just used for the heavy crimes like copyright infringement

replies(3): >>cobbzi+f >>ronsor+l >>ahoka+y2
2. cobbzi+f[view] [source] 2025-08-10 19:07:52
>>croes+(OP)
The US, at least, has a Bill of Rights that would make this illegal, it would definitely violate the 4th Amendment and maybe the 1st too.
replies(10): >>Nifty3+x >>cobbzi+S >>lawn+i1 >>croes+m1 >>Nitpic+r2 >>rwyinu+e5 >>9dev+e6 >>imposs+B9 >>userbi+dl >>rsynno+ao1
3. ronsor+l[view] [source] 2025-08-10 19:08:56
>>croes+(OP)
The UK is politically, culturally, and geographically close to Europe.

China has always been authoritarian (and hyper-centralized).

The US is working hard to copy bad ideas from authoritarians, but can't do it in exactly the same way, otherwise the ability to criticize the EU, UK, and China is lost.

replies(2): >>pmlnr+W >>rrr_oh+61
◧◩
4. Nifty3+x[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-10 19:10:40
>>cobbzi+f
I hope you're right.
◧◩
5. cobbzi+S[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-10 19:14:55
>>cobbzi+f
That said, it’s not all roses in the US. There are many backdoors the government uses like issuing subpoenas to tech companies to get their data. Sometimes (like the notorious NSLs, National Security Letters) the order is secret and the company can’t even talk about it. This is also why the Snowden revelations were significant— arguably what the NSA is doing (mass, untargeted surveillance) is illegal, but so far (iirc) courts have said nobody has standing to challenge it. Various groups are still trying.
◧◩
6. pmlnr+W[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-10 19:15:45
>>ronsor+l
> The UK is politically,

Europe generally has constitutions, and not precedence laws, which is a massive difference.

> culturally

Debatable. As a Hungarian, living in the UK.

> and geographically close to Europe

This one is true.

◧◩
7. rrr_oh+61[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-10 19:16:46
>>ronsor+l
> The UK is politically, culturally, and geographically close to Europe.

Closer than to the US?

I'm not sure about the first two. The latter is also debatable, at least from the UK's point of view. Ireland feels closer to Europe than the UK does.

replies(3): >>Barrin+Z3 >>peanut+34 >>octo88+H5
◧◩
8. lawn+i1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-10 19:18:18
>>cobbzi+f
The administration and the people will just shrug and move on, like they've done with all the other crap they've shrugged at.
◧◩
9. croes+m1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-10 19:18:48
>>cobbzi+f
The EU countries also have constitutions with laws that make that illegal.

Still they try because there is always an exception that allows breaking those laws.

Chat control isn’t something the EU invented, they tried to implement CSAM in Apple devices and the whole chat control thing in the EU was heavily lobbied by Thorn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_(organization)

replies(2): >>pessim+04 >>kodish+jn
◧◩
10. Nitpic+r2[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-10 19:30:40
>>cobbzi+f
The 1st, 4th and 5th have been repeatedly and systematically weakened both in practice and through the courts though.

1st - gag orders issued by secret courts, no trial, no apeal, can't even talk about it (can't even talk about the gag orders themselves, basically a gag order on a gag order). We only found out about it because Yahoo (out of all of them, the least you'd think would fight this) briefly tried to fight it. All the top CEOs got them. Yahoo briefly tried to fight it at some point and some court docs got out, but it wasn't much.

4th - multiple cases of confiscating cash without a trial, probable cause or anything of the sort. It's called "civil forfeiture", it's been done at both state and federal level, and it's so insanely full of mental gymnastics that at some point they tried to argue in court that "the person is not suspected of anything, the money is suspected of a crime". Bananas.

5th - there's a case where an executive was caught up in some investigation, and she was being held in contempt (jailed) over not divulging an encryption password. I haven't checked on the case in a while, but the idea of holding someone in contempt for so long defeats the purpose, and the idea of having to divulge passwords vs. having to provide a safe combination was apparently lost on the courts.

replies(1): >>cobbzi+Ci
11. ahoka+y2[view] [source] 2025-08-10 19:31:24
>>croes+(OP)
The difference is that PRISM was done as a black op, and this is out in the open.
replies(1): >>accoun+fq1
◧◩◪
12. Barrin+Z3[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-10 19:40:07
>>rrr_oh+61
>Closer than to the US?

Much closer. It's a unitary state with a monarchy and parliamentary sovereignty, it's highly centralized economically and culturally. It's more European than much of Europe. Post war Germany, republican and decentralized economically is structurally more like the US than Britain. The only reason people in the US tend to identify with Britain is Anglo-Protestant identitarianism.

Britain in reality operates a lot like France or Russia, an overwhelmingly strong capital and grand historical old world nationalism with relatively weak constitutional or formal limits on government.

◧◩◪
13. pessim+04[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-10 19:40:16
>>croes+m1
> The EU countries also have constitutions with laws that make that illegal.

I don't think they do. They have constitutions that guarantee "Freedom of Speech" or "Expression," but don't define those terms in any way. I don't know that any of them lack legally prohibited political speech laws.

I feel the US was the origin of this "Hate Speech" nightmare that has been growing to encompass all of Western politics over the past 30 years, but the irony is that you can do slurs all day long in the US, to anybody you want, whenever you want. You will probably be ejected from the premises, though. In the US, the speech still has to be connected to a crime. In the EU, the speech itself is the crime.

replies(1): >>accoun+bq1
◧◩◪
14. peanut+34[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-10 19:40:29
>>rrr_oh+61
I get that maybe you meant culturally, but Ireland is a member of the EU whereas the UK is no longer. This forces a tighter alignment so makes your point about Ireland redundant.

The UK has continuously been pulled between it's dying imperialist vision of itself as a world power, it's close but conflicted ties with the US, and it's similarly close and conflicted ties with the EU.

◧◩
15. rwyinu+e5[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-10 19:48:30
>>cobbzi+f
I'm not convinced the US will even have fair elections a couple of years from now. Do those amendments really matter, when those in power are doing everything they can to break down the rule of law, and turn the country into yet another autocracy?

EU may be sliding towards feudalism, but America is definitely farther down that road than we are. Current administration's relationship with tech billionaires is a concrete proof of that. I have no faith in politicians of either part of the world.

◧◩◪
16. octo88+H5[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-10 19:53:32
>>rrr_oh+61
> The latter is also debatable

Only in terms of perception or semantics or applying a huge negative weighting to a bit of water and ignoring boats, trains and planes exist. But then you say...

> Ireland feels closer to Europe

So are you slyly conflating Europe and the EU?

Some crazy person might say this is really subtle "UK isn't part of Europe" propaganda similar to that in the lead of up Brexit

◧◩
17. 9dev+e6[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-10 19:57:45
>>cobbzi+f
It takes a firm believe to still pretend the bill of rights would be adhered to. You have a convicted criminal as president with ties to child traffickers, taking foreign bribes on live TV, scamming voters with crypto, while punishing universities for teaching the wrong things and imprisoning people without due process for having the wrong opinion.

All the while SCOTUS elevated him above the law; now he actually could shoot somebody on fifth ave and he’d really not have to fear prosecution.

Are you sure you want to make this point?

◧◩
18. imposs+B9[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-10 20:23:41
>>cobbzi+f
The EU also has laws that make it illegal. It annulled a previous law with some of these provisions, the so-called Data Retention Directive.
replies(1): >>nicksl+Io1
◧◩◪
19. cobbzi+Ci[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-10 21:44:38
>>Nitpic+r2
You might not like this example, but the relatively recent evolution of 2nd Amendment jurisprudence, significantly strengthening gun rights, is the result of many impassioned, dedicated groups, lobbying the public and the government for decades.

The lesson is: stay active, stay vocal, stay in the media, and prepare for a very long haul. And file lots of lawsuits challenging everything!

◧◩
20. userbi+dl[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-10 22:10:01
>>cobbzi+f
From what I've seen, the US also has a more "rebellious" culture than the EU, for lack of a better term; laws are viewed less as an absolute and the population is far more willing to break them if the consequences are perceived as minor. This is bipartisan; examples that come to mind include: electing a convicted felon, helping illegal immigrants stay in the country, and going 10 over the speed limit.
◧◩◪
21. kodish+jn[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-10 22:31:46
>>croes+m1
Oh no....

I went deep into this rabbit hole and did a lot of reading on how this org is pushing it's agenda in EU.

I hate this Hollywood idiots with burning passion.

◧◩
22. rsynno+ao1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-11 10:40:53
>>cobbzi+f
Hrm. Remember this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip

Ultimately the US government's key escrow fixation largely faded away, and it was never clear whether it would stand up in the courts, but it still shows up from time to time.

It's quite possible that this would conflict with the EU's can't-believe-it's-not-a-constitution (the Lisbon treaty) if passed, too; for a prior example see the defunct data retention directive, which was nuked by the ECJ: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive

◧◩◪
23. nicksl+Io1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-11 10:48:07
>>imposs+B9
> The EU also has laws that make it illegal.

For now.

replies(1): >>imposs+vI2
◧◩◪◨
24. accoun+bq1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-11 11:08:05
>>pessim+04
That's because the US has the convenience of owning the megacorporations that control every facet of our lives. The government doesn't need the ability to restrict your speech and monitor you if FAANG happily do it for them.
◧◩
25. accoun+fq1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-11 11:09:23
>>ahoka+y2
Since PRISM is widely known now and there have been no real consequences there isn't a meaningful difference.
◧◩◪◨
26. imposs+vI2[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-11 18:44:27
>>nicksl+Io1
I think it's hard to end though. It would require basically re-doing the ECHR and probably other EU treaties, and that just isn't going to happen any more than anyone will make amendments to the US constitution.
[go to top]