According to the Council Legal Service, the Danish Chat Control proposal still violates human rights

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/45880359

  • The EU Parliament is pushing for an agreement on the child sexual abuse (CSAM) scanning bill, according to a leaked memo

  • According to the Council Legal Service, the proposal still violates fundamental human rights in its current form

  • The Danish version of the so-called Chat Control could be adopted as early as October 14, 2025

The nations welcoming and supporting the Danish proposal include Italy, Spain, and Hungary. France also said that “it could essentially support the proposal.”

Belgium, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Slovenia, Luxembourg, and Romania currently remain undecided or in need of a review with their local parliament.

  • squaresinger@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    18 hours ago

    Ok, lets put it in a way you might understand.

    Let’s say there’s a basic human right to life, liberty and security (Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). That’s quite basic.

    You say you live in Russia. What good does that right do if your holy leader decides that he doesn’t like what you posted online and sends you to the front in Ukraine or into a Gulag? Are you going to tell the military police that they can’t touch you because you got rights?

    Or lets make it more extreme: Say you live in Gaza. Are you going to tell the IDF that you got rights and thus their bombs and starvation just won’t touch you?

    You are likely from one of the countries with English-derived legal system, where the precedent mechanism literally means that there are non-codified rights outside of the law, which the interpretation of the law has to approximate.

    Nope, I don’t live in a country with English-derived legal system. A law is a law and judges interpret laws and not judges.

    But even in a precedent-based system: Precedent means jack squat if the country’s leadership doesn’t care, as seen by the US.

    I say it once again: Rights, laws, constitutions, all that are fine and dandy, and they are somewhat useful as long as the rule of law is mostly upheld. But:

    • If the leadership doesn’t care about any of that, none of it matters.
    • If laws stop being enforced, they stop mattering. A law that isn’t enforced is a suggestion, nothing more.
    • The same goes for constitutions and constitution-adjacent rules.
    • Rights are never anything more than suggestions. If they are supposed to have any meaning at all, they need to be codified into law.

    Look up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. All 193 member countries of the UN ratified these. And yet there are articles in there that every single of these member countries violate. And having these “rights” means absolutely nothing in real-life terms if there’s no mechanism to enforce them or get any benefit from it.

    As a russian, how much do you e.g. enjoy the “right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association” (Article 20.1) and the “right to freedom of opinion and expression” (Article 19)? How much does “having these rights” help you if you go on the street and protest the war?

    • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      11·
      8 hours ago

      You say you live in Russia. What good does that right do if your holy leader decides that he doesn’t like what you posted online and sends you to the front in Ukraine or into a Gulag? Are you going to tell the military police that they can’t touch you because you got rights?

      It’ll just be a violated right. As that’s treated always.

      And you don’t seem to understand that when “right” is treated as a thing separate from “law”, arguments functional against “law” are not arguments functional against “right”.

      But even in a precedent-based system: Precedent means jack squat if the country’s leadership doesn’t care, as seen by the US.

      Which doesn’t change if it’s a right or not. It’s in the word. You are either in the right or in the wrong. If you’re in the right, that doesn’t guarantee you anything in the physical world. That’s the point of such an entity.

      And having these “rights” means absolutely nothing in real-life terms if there’s no mechanism to enforce them or get any benefit from it.

      Wrong. Having a common frame of reference means a lot as a precondition for other things.

      Say, having a program supporting some Kademlia-based protocol doesn’t guarantee you to find other nodes supporting it, or to find a file or other resource you look for on them, or that someone won’t block it. But it’s better than if people can’t agree on any protocol, but, suppose, MS and Apple can.

      I think you shouldn’t treat things you don’t understand so arrogantly.

      • squaresinger@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        7 hours ago

        Are you seriously applying your half-knowledge about programming to legal and philosophy?

        You are so lost that you don’t even know which topic we are talking about and still think that your arrogance has any basis in reality?

        This is pidgeon chess, and you are a delusional pidgeon.

        • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
          11·
          7 hours ago

          You may think whatever you want, you don’t even need to have negative feelings about it.

          But you’ve got no clue at all.

            • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
              1·
              25 minutes ago

              Yeah, and not with the guy who after saying something outta their ass went straight to insults.

              Also why do you care? If you don’t, why did you write this?

              Also Dunning-Krueger is strong with everyone, that’s what follows from that study.

              If you mean that you have achieved something in some specific thing IRL and think I have no similar achievement, then (suppose you’re right, most likely true) your achievement is in that specific thing only, and doesn’t make you one bit more qualified to talk about anything else.