Europe is on the path to destruction. Now all that’s left is to apply real resistance, not through papers.
Those who are behind it are going to fulfill their duties and it’s a typical copy (similar or the same) of the United States, but with a really nice and friendly appearance.
There’s the irrefutable proof. It’s the beginning.
(Other thread with a lot of context)
In case you don’t know, this has already been in effect until April.
Then it was shut down.
It was voted against multiple times now and it has only passed because Parliament President Metsola and others involved exploited a loophole to execute a gambit just before summer recess, filing it urgently and for rejection, so it would need an absolute majority while many MEPs were already on vacation.
As you can already see from the snippet, 314 voted against, 276 voted in favor.
Last vote in March regarding its extension voted 307 to 306.
This shows a clear tendency to not move in that direction, unlike what you claim.
Please be careful how you phrase your comments and please don’t haphazardly project things, as they may influence others, who only glance over the snippet and your comments, as last time it happened, I already criticized the defeatist framing your comment had, and that was even before one of the two votes needed, with evidence of a majority of opposition.
And regarding your claim that it is a copy of the developments in the US, it is absolutely not and already falls flat on the premise where those spying companies are located.
In Europe, our GDPs are not huge parts Big Tech, they need to lobby more careful here, and as you can see by the repeating opposition on these topics, there is strong evidence that it is not going to be like in the US.
There has been a lot of evidence time and time again that these companies are involved in corruption or extreme lobbyism on government level. While I’m not an expert and can’t possibly judge this myself, it is clear that this is simply not possible with how the EU as an international union is composed.
Like I said before, it reads as if you live under an authoritarian or oppressive government, and I feel sorry for you, but we in the EU are still one of the most promising candidates in the world who might even be able to avoid total surveillance altogether.
IMO this must stay a place of welcoming activism and not only a place of how to put up with oppression and authoritarianism where it already happened.
I see, you insist on calling me a “defeatist” and telling me to be careful with what I say.
However, I’ve got something better for you:
- Why didn’t Edward Snowden fight the NSA at the time, even though he had at least a few people by his side? Would you call that defeatist? On the contrary, it was a victory to run away—not as a coward, but because he couldn’t win. The same is going to happen in Europe no matter the numbers.
- Why didn’t Edward Snowden go to Europe that same year when he left the United States? Simply put, he knew very well who Europe is. If he went, they were going to capture him no matter what, how, or why. I call that: a wise strategic decision.
- Why don’t I look at the vote numbers, what they do and don’t do? It’s simply noise to me, a distraction. As long as the adversaries remain standing, including those who don’t show their faces to the public and are in different countries, what is done in private is a small act of demonstration at the public level.
- Am I a fan of Edward Snowden? No. These are patterns I use at different levels (including industries of different categories) to reinforce my thoughts and detect the needles in a haystack that high-level adversaries leave, almost invisible to the vast majority of people.
- Am I giving up in front of the adversaries? No. They have armies and weapons of mass destruction. I attack where they are vulnerable—where? By helping people resist until the end like a true soldier. They can’t control where a person is strong, and that is their mind (without personal security, there is no personal privacy; the tools come later, like the VPN, among others).
- I’ve already worked in the past with certain activists, I know how it feels and I’ve helped them. But you have to understand that where something can’t be done, it can’t be done, and I don’t waste energy on it; if they come to bother me, I tell them the truth (it’s the way to resist until the end).
Are you looking for my help? I advise you to go out into the countryside (outdoors) of nature itself, take a deep breath and think about reality itself, while relaxing. If you’re angry or something is causing you fear if it’s happening, turn it into courage.
Don’t let yourself be fooled. Hang in there.
Argument getting off-topic
Sorry, maybe it’s the language barrier, but i have a hard time finding your point. I don’t mean it in the nonsensical way, I just have trouble understanding the greater meaning behind the examples.
As for why Snowden did not turn to Europe and instead fled to Hong Kong, it’s because the US has extradition treaties with almost all of Europe, not because he knew EU had ulterior motives behind its public face.
I’m sorry if you find I’m calling you a defeatist, in fact, I did not. I am just saying your comments have a defeatist framing, which is indisputable when you just claim there is a hidden agenda from invisible shadow actors and that we can only learn to “resist until the end”. Which I find confusing, because isn’t choosing your representatives and telling them your opinion on how to vote not resisting a movement toward surveillance?
I find it hard to differentiate at what point you would start resisting and what you find irredeemable, given you say you are from somwhere else.
(Also, maybe it is the language barrier again, but since you put victory as an opposite of defeatist, defeatist actually means to give up and saying that there is nothing we can do anyway. It is not losing to somebody.)
If you don’t live in Europe and don’t experience agenda swings even with minor changes in the political landscape, please refrain from telling people the greater fight is already lost or that there are conspiring agents behind the curtains.
So, were you able to understand why Edward Snowden went to Russia and not to Europe? You yourself said it (you answered).
The difference is simple: victory is won by resisting until the end where you can’t win (giving up is not an option) and not attacking where you can’t win (waste of energy).
I gave you valuable information; you’ll decide what to do with it.
Why do such a bullshit loophole exists in the first place?
Who would design a law making process with “If the parliamet doesn’t fully disagree, then the law pases” ?
As a layman, I can only guess, but I’m sure there are legitimate proposals where this could be applied without an exploitative nature.
It just got abused in combination with a high number of absentees, and collusion of the conservative EPP group parties. I guess there are rules of procedure set to not allow for this, which is why some MEPs spoke of checking its legality.
I have linked this in the other thread, but MEPs Martin Sonneborn and Markéta Gregorová both spoke of rule of procedure violations, like applying the wrong rules for the first or second reading.
The rules they mentioned would normally prevent exploits like these, but their application still needs to be evaluated, I guess, which I assume some MEPs might consider.
If there are violations found, this proposition could still be declared invalid.
—
Continuing the tangent
Yes, like I said, he fled to Hong Kong, because Hong Kong or China have no extradition treaty with the US.
I guess he then went to Russia, because they would be even less likely to extradite him to the US.
You are contradicting yourself. If giving up is not an option, what is no longer caring for / participating in votes or elections then?
And what is attacking in this context?
You might not realise it, but you are clearly advocating to bow to a regime, but also convincing yourself that you don’t.
Either that, or I am having major issues understanding.
I keep telling you, you can not judge the situation in Europe if you are living – how it appears to me – under a regime that abuses its power.
So please don’t just spout it is futile to still participate.
As we are going around in circles and have been since the other thread, I will now discontinue to engage.
I have lurked on this forum for years, but I had to make an account today just to thank you for your other post and to tell you that I agree, I also have no idea what he is trying to say. Maybe it is a language barrier but it does just come across as unhelpful, edgy and defeatist Reddit-esque rhetoric. I think the fact the opposition has grown since March is a good sign, and that is with almost no public resistance or outcry. Our community is very niche at the end of the day, and so although we are aware of what’s been happening on this, the vast majority are oblivious, but I can imagine when told would rebel too. It seems to be a EPP-driven objective, most of the other parties do not seem keen on this. Von der Leyen is already deeply unpopular, if 2.0 gets more publicity and awareness, I honestly believe we can knock this down. We just have to keep shouting from the rooftops.
I appreciate the kind words and share your sentiment that the current situtation might even be beneficial towards defeating CC2.0.
And really no need to thank me. At the end of the day, my rally with the other thread was born out of my personal wish for not to live in these circumstances. Of course I’m also glad for everyone else not having to.
It got messy at times and I had to make some corrections along the ride, but eh, I can live with my limitations if the intention is true. 
Privacy in europe (as in the rest of the world) is in a bad state. However, this mostly comes out of ignorance to it’s implications not a genuine support for the surveillance state.
I.e. social media bans for under 16s are extremely popular in polls… until people are informed they will require an ID check at which point they become extremely unpopular.
Most people are smart but lack knowledge of technical matters. Once it is explained to them they tend to come round to (broadly) aligning with our viewpoint very quickly.
The majority of well-informed people agree with us, it’s simply that most people aren’t well informed on technical matters. IMO that gives the case for a lot of hope that this can be won as
(1) more and more people are becoming knowledgeable due to increasing use of computers and programming in more and more fields and (2) we can, and should talk to people about this whenever possible.
P.S. chat control 1.0 got brought back but not 2.0. This is still very bad but it only affects encrypted messaging services, where privacy is rarely respected anyway. It is not 2.0 which would be the true disaster as it would require scanning of messages on (typically) privacy respecting E2EE messengers like signal
It’s true what you say about not understanding me (I already know this), but before continuing, do you have irrefutable proof of what you claim—that my arguments are not valid? I’d like to see it if you have it.
What I mean in a direct and simple way is that the same story will repeat itself over and over again with the same tale. The words of “politicians, presidents, etc.” use the truth mixed with lies in many ways; probably before coming to power they will tell a great truth, but when they get into power, they change (some don’t, or only partially). The fact is I don’t need to live in Europe to physically realize the facts for myself.
I’m already used to analyzing on multiple levels in different directions, for example:
- Connecting patterns from the past to the present.
- Digging deeper into those patterns across different branches with sub-branches and how they connect to one another, even the invisible (what isn’t public).
- Questioning (if applicable) and analyzing people’s behaviors from different angles.
- In unknown territory, that’s where I take more time (if applicable) to think and reduce false positives.
- Verifying the facts and making a decision according to the situation, among other factors.
I explain all of that (not as manuals or guides) in the mental exercises I shared here in the community as a gift.
My arguments give people actions.
I ask you:
- What will they do afterward if Chat 2.0 is not implemented or the Chat 1.0 change is rolled back with neither of the two versions going back to zero—that is, ceasing to exist? Will they lower their guard while other events keep happening in secret? I already gave the example of Crypto AG at the very least.
- What will they do if Chat 2.0 goes through? Will they ask for help from the armed forces or some other kind? Will they surrender when they can no longer fight?
- The two previous questions from the other thread are still standing, about the false peace and uprooting the problem at its root.
I try to help you all in a different direction—much broader and more complex—without lowering my guard. But well, even though my messages are clear, I can break it down simpler if it still isn’t understood.
This doesn’t require technical knowledge though, just a bit of basic thought.
How on earth do people think they will stop under-16s doing anything online without an age check on everyone that uses the site.
It does not matter though because the President of the EU Commission is not elected by the people, but appointed by a small clique of (also mostly unelected) politicians in the EU Council.