Olives @olives@qoto.org

Apparently, the E.U. Election is coming up, so hopefully you will vote for someone who is decent (against censorship and for privacy would be a good start).

For a U.S. parallel, the chat control "compromise" in the E.U. would still be a violation of the First and Fourth Amendments.

Unless, they've changed it radically, it still has that privacy invasive "age verification" clause, and the other things which I previously covered. I know why EDRi did that, it's the so-called "lesser of two evils", but it also obscures the issues with it.

You should celebrate that we're violating your rights because we're doing it in a less brazen manner.
QT: https://qoto.org/@olives/111501412578299072

https://edri.org/our-work/csar-european-parliament-rejects-mass-scanning-of-private-messages/

"With strong support for this position from all seven European political groups, this marks a positive development for human rights in one of the most controversial draft European Union (EU) laws in recent memory."

Last I checked, it's still a pretty bad proposal.

I should watch more JoJo.

https://www.unodc.org/documents/Cybercrime/AdHocCommittee/Concluding_session/Documents/A_AC.291_22_Rev.1_E.pdf

For now, I'm commenting on Article 13 (no, not the horrible copyright law, ugh, I hate that) of this proposed treaty.

"include written or audio content"

Once again, this is a very bad idea. If someone writes a story about anything that happened to themselves, that would fall under that. If they talk about it, that would fall under the "audio" term (although, for the purposes of discussion, this post will mainly refer to the "written" term).

I suspect this might refer to that one case where someone admitted to their crimes in their diary (in which case, it should be possible to prosecute *those* crimes without this clause...). This passage is extremely abusable and seems to serve no legitimate purpose. It seems to solve for a "problem" which doesn't seem to exist.

This is so-called "real person" bloat where someone thinks they can justify clearly suspicious (and abusable) terms by tossing a bone in later (and still encouraging countries to not adopt the bone, or to otherwise engage in state harassment).

This also still risks sweeping up fantasies, particularly private fantasies, and could even constitute a threat to the use of telehealth services. Could you *please* stop to think about these terms before throwing them in for the sake of "completeness"? It's not going to be used for anything "good", it's very likely going to be primarily used in scenarios where it is clearly and plainly ridiculous.

"A State Party may require that the material identified in paragraph 2 be limited to material that 3. (a) Depicts, describes or represents a real child"

I'd add an element of intent here, these terms seem rather vague to me. This clause should be mandatory (as well as deleting "describes"), otherwise it still encourages countries to do something harmful.

Article 53 3.(h)

"as well as making efforts to guarantee the immediate removal of child sexual abuse and exploitation material"

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean, but intermediary liability / hasty removal can be problematic for free expression.

I don't think that case is going particularly well for the feds, but that speaks to the weakness of the underlying case more than anything else.

It's interesting to see someone claim it was FOSTA which brought down Backpage. It actually wasn't. It was the Travel Act (in other words, FOSTA wouldn't have made a difference in that particular case).

Rather, what the feds did, was they waited until right before FOSTA passed to apprehend the people who ran Backpage. They could have done it at any time prior to that, but they waited until there was a big censorship bill already being pushed out the door. Think about that for a moment.

It's interesting when someone asserts that no LGBTQ+ rights (another phrase used is "rights of sexual minorities") will be violated via the censorship bills, when not once, not once, did they ever advocate for any of these rights. Indeed, they've historically always advocated *against* them (if not still doing so).

It's curious when one of these "think of the children" people feigns "annoyance" over someone commenting on the United Kingdom being "obsessed with pedophiles" to the point of it being quite ridiculous. It's not even particularly hard to find people voicing this view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children This might go back to just how susceptible they are to things like parody and ridicule. You have sensible discussions, then someone barges in and screams, "the children! the children!"

Looks like the Green Party doesn't have your back in protecting your medical data (although, a bunch of other politicians don't either).

It only seems to be one part of the E.U. Parliament though.
QT: https://qoto.org/@olives/111493782332692059

Looks like I typoed that. Should be #ehds.

"sexual diseases such as impotence"

I suppose that is something someone might not want the world knowing about.
QT: https://qoto.org/@olives/111493598205441979

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/nov/29/political-interference-australian-research-council-grants-stopped Hmm... So, the Minister decided what research got funded then.

I'm still not happy with him for playing down the negative implications (for free expression and privacy) of the chat control "compromise".
QT: https://qoto.org/@olives/111493598205441979

https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/european-health-data-space-eu-committees-vote-in-favour-of-mandatory-interconnected-electronic-patient-records-for-all-citizens/

I'm surprised this has gotten so little attention (other than the EDRi's one post). This is really important and sensitive information. This is not okay. #privacy #edhs

https://reason.com/2023/11/28/two-15-year-sentences-illustrate-the-ugly-interaction-of-drug-and-gun-laws/ Mandatory minimums rearing their ugly heads again. Also, drug war related injustices.

https://reason.com/2023/11/28/prosecutors-use-lyrics-diary-entries-as-evidence-in-georgia-rico-cases/

"After Williams' indictment, numerous music industry stakeholders—including Warner Music Group, Sony Music Group, and Universal Music Group, as well as organizations like SoundCloud, Spotify, and the American Civil Liberties Union, plus multiple legal scholars and musicians—signed an open letter calling for an end to the use of rap lyrics as evidence in criminal trials. The signatories called the practice "un-American and simply wrong," constituting "an obvious disregard for free speech and creative expression protected by the First Amendment.""

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/victorian-government-open-to-discussing-decriminalising-cannabis-use-20231129-p5enl4.html Legalizing cannabis would be a good idea.