Europos Sąjungos reikalai

[Palpatine]

Jei nėra ko slėpti, kam einant į tualetą duris užsidaryti?

Ir naivu tikėtis, kad tik tuo baigsis. Judama Kinijos keliu.

[Lettered]

Jei nėra ko slėpti, kam einant į tualetą duris užsidaryti?

Ir naivu tikėtis, kad tik tuo baigsis. Judama Kinijos keliu.

Tai kokios objektyvios problemos, taip ir nesupratau?

[Palpatine]

Tai kokios objektyvios problemos, taip ir nesupratau?

Tai kokios problemos pašalinti tualeto duris ? nėra ką slėpt, užpakalius visi turi

Ir kalba ne apie ko slėpimą, o apie :

Below are the implications if the Chat Control 2.0 proposal were to be approved:

• Mass Surveillance: Every private message, photo, and file scanned automatically: no suspicion required, no exceptions*, even encrypted communications.
• Breaking Encryption: Weakening or breaking end-to-end encryption exposes everyone's communications - including sensitive financial, medical, and private data - to hackers, criminals, and hostile actors.
• Fundamental Rights: Undermines your fundamental rights to privacy and data protection, as guaranteed by Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter - rights considered core to European democratic values.
• False Positives: Automated scanners routinely misidentify innocent content, such as vacation photos or private jokes, as illegal, putting ordinary people at risk of false accusations and damaging investigations.
• Ineffective Child Protection: Child protection experts and organizations, including the UN, warn that mass surveillance fails to prevent abuse and actually makes children less safe - by weakening security for everyone and diverting resources from proven protective measures.
• Global Precedent: Creates a dangerous global precedent enabling authoritarian governments, citing EU policy, to roll out intrusive surveillance at home, undermining privacy and free expression worldwide.

[Lettered]

Tai kokios problemos pašalinti tualeto duris ? nėra ką slėpt, užpakalius visi turi

Ir kalba ne apie ko slėpimą, o apie :

Kaip suprantu nieko naujo, kas ir dabar nėra daroma?

[Palpatine]

Kaip suprantu nieko naujo, kas ir dabar nėra daroma?

Ar tamsta bent skyrė 5 min pasigilinant prieš rašant blėnius ?

Tos reklamos yra iš visokių apps metadata, encypted žinutės nebuvo liečiamos, dabar viskas bus peržiūrima, ir galimai užflagins tave dėl žinutės turinio kaip potencialų probleminį asmenį.
Maža to atidarant emailų ar kitas paskyras reikės verifikuoti amžių naudojant ID, ponas Lettered taps Vardaitis Pavardaitis
Maža to kad su duomenų sauga bus katastrofa, ir netik government matys viską bet ir hackeriui bus paprasčiau gaut tavo duomenis.

[andyour]

Maža to kad su duomenų sauga bus katastrofa, ir netik government matys viską bet ir hackeriui bus paprasčiau gaut tavo duomenis.

Čia 100% visi tie duomenys anksčiau ar vėliau nutekės į juodą rinką kur visokie nusikaltėliai panaudos savo aferoms.

[Palpatine]

Čia 100% visi tie duomenys anksčiau ar vėliau nutekės į juodą rinką kur visokie nusikaltėliai panaudos savo aferoms.

Būtent. Taip pat nėra paslaptis kad už šito įstatymą stumiančių asmenų stovi senos geros megakorporacijos

[mantasm]

Kažkaip tyla Lietuvoje dėl žmogaus teisės į privatumą niekinančio įstatymo forsavimo, kuris gali paveikti net ir šį forumą :

"This is a political deception" − New Chat Control convinces lawmakers, but not privacy experts yet

Chat Control Was Supposed to Be Dead—But Brussels Is Trying to Bring It Back to Life


https://edri.org/our-work/chat-contr...ally-going-on/

Kažkaip nesitiki, kad ES pradėjo judėt 1984 su didžiuoju DI broliu link

ES stumia 1984 paniatkes jau gerą dešimtmetį. Tik vis nepaeina. Bet kaip sakė senas alkašas Junckeris… Bandai, bandai… ir užteks, kad vieną kartą paeitų.

[Tomizmas]

Reikia gyventi taip, kad nebūtų ko slėpti, nereiks tada ir bijoti, man pvz. visiškai dzin, kai dirbu legaliai, jokių nusikaltimų nedarau ir pan. Čia panašiai kaip su grynais, isterikuoja dėl grynųjų operacijų apribojimų tik tie, kas dirba nelegaliai.

Būtent. Aš pavyzdžiui neturiu ko slėpti, tai ko man bijoti? Toks jausmas kad pas daug ką sąžinės neramios.

Net jeigu tarkim gyvenčiau Kinijoje su jos socialinių kreditų sistema (kurios daug kas bijo), kaip mano gyvenimą tai paveiktų? Niekaip. Nes nenusižengiu ir taip.

Pas mane ir mokykloje pažymių knygelės pastabų skiltis buvo tuščia, kai daug kam reikėdavo įklijuoti papildomus lapus. Tiesiog kai kurie žmonės nemoka gyventi neperžengdami ribų ar vaikystėje, ar suaugę.

[Palpatine]

Tokie nuostabūs ir protingi mūsų mokinukai, bet skaityti prieš komentuojamt neišmokė mokykloj jei apie mistinį slėpimą tik komentuojama. Atrodo kaip trolinimas.

[digital]

Lyg dabar niekas nieko nestebi. Kartais užtenka vien pasikalbėti apie ką nors su kitais žmonėmis ir atitinkamas reklamas pradeda mesti. Tik įdomu, kaip visokius telegram žiūrės?
Reikia gyventi taip, kad nebūtų ko slėpti, nereiks tada ir bijoti, man pvz. visiškai dzin, kai dirbu legaliai, jokių nusikaltimų nedarau ir pan. Čia panašiai kaip su grynais, isterikuoja dėl grynųjų operacijų apribojimų tik tie, kas dirba nelegaliai.

Labai labai idiotiška yra atsisakyti savo teisių, ir dar savanoriškai.

[mantasm]

Lyg dabar niekas nieko nestebi. Kartais užtenka vien pasikalbėti apie ką nors su kitais žmonėmis ir atitinkamas reklamas pradeda mesti. Tik įdomu, kaip visokius telegram žiūrės?
Reikia gyventi taip, kad nebūtų ko slėpti, nereiks tada ir bijoti, man pvz. visiškai dzin, kai dirbu legaliai, jokių nusikaltimų nedarau ir pan. Čia panašiai kaip su grynais, isterikuoja dėl grynųjų operacijų apribojimų tik tie, kas dirba nelegaliai.

E2E šifruotų pokalbių nestebi Dėl to ir tokie įstatymai, kad pasidarė techniškai sunku pasiklausyti.

[Gator]

Būtent. Aš pavyzdžiui neturiu ko slėpti,.

Puiku.
Vardas pavardė, parašas, adresas, el. pašto ir soc tinklų prisijungimai, foto galerija telefone.
Laukiame.

[Tomizmas]

Puiku.
Vardas pavardė, parašas, adresas, el. pašto ir soc tinklų prisijungimai, foto galerija telefone.
Laukiame.

Forume šito eiliniams asmenims nerodysiu, bet valstybė ir jos institucijos viską šitą ir taip: arba 1) jau žino, arba 2) labai staigiai išsiaiškintų, jeigu kažką prisidirbčiau.

[digital]

Tai kad Gator ne eilinis, o moderatorius, taip kad rodyk.

[Gator]

Forume šito eiliniams asmenims nerodysiu, bet valstybė ir jos institucijos viską šitą ir taip: arba 1) jau žino, arba 2) labai staigiai išsiaiškintų, jeigu kažką prisidirbčiau.

Tai visgi turi ką slėpti. Tik neturi ko slėpti prieš Šventąją vyriausybę ir kokį nors jos klerką

Tokiems nesusirpatėliam kaip tu padės ši santrauka suprasti dėl ko tavo požiūris yra nepateisinamas:

Why do people think just because they don't have anything to hide they shouldn't care about their privacy?
I find it surprising that you have nothing to hide. If that is really the case, please post your social security number, full legal name, a copy of your legal signature, all of your bank card information, where you work, your phone numbers and addresses. All of your bank accounts and their balances. Oh, please post some pictures of your checks.

How about posting all of your social media accounts and passwords. How much cash do you keep in your house? Do you have any collectibles or art work that is worth anything?

Do you have children? What are their names, ages, and schools. Is there anything that might entice them to get in a car, please share.

How much debt do you have? How do you get along with your neighbors? Heck, while we're at it, provide a family tree and a list of your friends and long time family friends.

What's the biggest regret you have that you won't tell anyone?

How is your health? Feel like posting your last 10, 15, 20+ years of medical records? do you mind if someone puts cameras in every room of your house (including multiple in each and every room) and broadcasts them on the internet?

Now, even if you are a free spirit and feel safe and want to share everything about you with everyone, privacy is still important because IT IS A RIGHT and some people choose to exercise that right.

Just because you don't choose to exercise it, it is still a big deal because you nor the government nor anyone else has the right to take it from people that want it.

Do you own anything you would be upset about if it were taken from you? Odds are, you have something. It probably means nothing to me. Since I don't have one or think there is no reason why someone might want it, I will pass a law to get rid of it. It shouldn't matter, most people don't think it is important or that it is a big deal or why anyone would need it.

That is how we lose our rights. By not caring about them or thinking it doesn't impact you so why care if the law is passed. It isn't all about you. It is about the people that do care.

Also keep in mind, everytime laws are passed that infringe on our rights, it is a slow erosion. Eventually, they will be gone. If these rights were not important, they would not be protected. Furthermore, those people in politics (or that influence politics) would not be trying so hard to do away with our rights. the more rights they take from us, the more power they can have. They try to convince us it is in our best interest, but, it is really about their interests and their power.

You are simplifying this phrase. “Nothing to hide” and “care about privacy” are not the same thing.

This phrase is usually in relation to a specific reason. And I have used it often!

I will give an example. In Australia we recently introduced a system where your medical records “could “ be stored on national database so that theoretically in an emergency your details could be accessed or if you go to any doctor your medical records are available instantly. People were so worried.

I liked the idea as I have no “medical” things I care to hide. (FYI I have had testicular cancer once or twice) I have nothing to hide!

But my privacy is another story as it encompasses online passwords, food preferences, bank details, bedroom...

Show me the man, and I'll find a crime. Sound familiar? Ask our former president if he's familiar with those words, he will reply in the affirmative. With the way our justice system conducts itself, would you trust them to investigate your past if you've never done anything questionable? I don't.

Why should you care about privacy if you have nothing to hide?
Why do people care so much about their own privacy? Are they usually hiding something?
Why don’t so many people care about their online privacy and think people crazy who cares about it?
Why don't the majority of people care about their digital privacy rights?
Why don't many people care about online privacy?
When I vote, I don’t want people to know who I voted for.

When I post openly critical posts of the government, I don’t want my bosses, or my customers, to know I am being openly critical of the government.

When I write incredibly smutty fanfiction on line I don’t want some of my friends and colleagues and customers knowing I write it.

Nothing I am doing is illegal. Nothing I am doing is anything I am ashamed of.

Nothing I am doing is something I actively wish to hide.

I just don’t think that the things I am doing are the business of some people.

Or — to put it another way — everyone has something to hide from someone, even if they are not breaking the law and even if they do not realise it.

People who say “I don’t have anything to hide” and therefore don’t care about privacy are relying on a narrow and often misleading view of what privacy protects. The argument overlooks multiple practical, social, legal, and systemic harms that follow from unchecked data collection and surveillance. Key reasons why that stance is flawed:

Core misunderstandings

Privacy is not only about guilt or wrongdoing. It protects autonomy, dignity, and personal space—contexts where nobody needs to be “guilty” to be harmed.
Privacy is contextual. Information harmless in one setting can be damaging in another (health data, search history, social media posts, location trails).
Power asymmetry. Individuals typically lack the resources, time, or legal leverage to control or counteract what institutions, corporations, or governments can do with collected data.
Concrete harms and risks

Misuse and mission creep: Data collected for one purpose (e.g., targeted ads) can be repurposed for others (employment screening, credit decisions, law enforcement). Examples: re-identified research datasets, location data sold to third parties.
Discrimination and profiling: Algorithms can create biased inferences (health risks, reliability, political leanings) that lead to exclusion from jobs, loans, insurance, or housing.
Chilling effects: Knowledge or suspicion of surveillance changes behavior—people self-censor, avoid political activism, or refrain from seeking sensitive care—reducing free expression and civic engagement.
Security risks: Large data troves become attractive targets for breaches. Identity theft, doxing, and financial fraud follow from leaked personal data.
Error and false positives: Automated systems make mistakes; erroneous records or inferences can harm reputations and opportunities, and rectifying those errors is often difficult.
Loss of control and consent illusion: “Consent” is frequently uninformed or coerced (take-it-or-leave-it terms). Once data is out, individuals rarely control further sharing or deletion.
Social dynamics and relationships: Private spaces enable intimacy, experimentation, learning, and recovery. Surveillance erodes trust between friends, families, employees, and institutions.
Why “nothing to hide” is strategically weak

It forces a binary choice—guilty vs innocent—that doesn’t map to real life where complexity, nuance, and context matter.
It accepts current power arrangements and surveillance technologies as neutral rather than contestable public-policy questions.
It ignores that most people’s views or circumstances can change. Today’s innocuous data can be weaponized tomorrow as laws, norms, or priorities shift.
Practical clarifications and realistic considerations

Reasonable privacy is a public good: protecting ordinary citizens preserves democratic debate, minority speech, and innovation.
Privacy-preserving design and regulation reduce harms without stopping useful services: differential privacy, minimization, purpose limitation, strong access controls, and data-retention limits.
Risk management, not paranoia: advocating privacy is about reducing systemic risk and preserving agency, not hiding wrongdoing.
Short list of actions that align with the principle (practical, not maximalist)

Push for stronger legal limits: data minimization, purpose limitation, transparency, and robust breach notification.
Use practical technical controls: privacy settings, two-factor authentication, selective sharing, ad blockers, encrypted messaging.
Support organizations and policies that audit algorithms, require impact assessments, and enforce accountability for data misuse.
Conclusion
Privacy protects much more than secrets. It safeguards autonomy, prevents unfair power imbalances and harms, and preserves social and democratic goods. Dismissing privacy because one believes they have “nothing to hide” mistakes a narrow intuition for a robust public-policy and rights problem with clear, demonstrable consequences.