[numerik_meister]

You got it right. Lots of people here think this is some sort of big conspiracy by lizards to build a surveillance state. In truth, it is simply software companies that have surveillance products to sell lobbying the government.

Source: at my German uni there are many recruitment drives from these entities

[windexh8er]

You're probably right that this is mostly software companies looking for revenue in the form of a forced purchase of a product through legislation.

But, keep in mind: the government is actively selling out its constituents and creating an environment that enables a surveillance state, even when that may not be the original goal. Slippery slope and all, first it's child pornography - but where does it stop? It won't, because that data set is rich to mine - rich to sell into. We can make up entire product lines that can be sold, via FUD, into our ignorant government friends and force people to buy it even when it's been shown to provide little to no value to the masses.

So, no - not a lizard conspiracy. More like "Dumb and Dumber: Government Edition".

[robonerd]

Surveillance capitalism erodes expectations of privacy. Eroded expectations of privacy in turn normalize government surveillance. Normalized government surveillance erodes expectations of privacy, which in turn normalizes surveillance capitalism.

Incentives are aligned, each party acts in their own self interest and this is the outcome. Conspiracy isn't needed to explain it.

[taylorius]

So, yes she's misrepresenting things to her electorate, in order to bring in a load of surveillance. But please don't think she wants to spy on everyone, totalitarian style - no, no she's just being bribed (sorry, I meant "lobbied").

Sleep tight, eu.

[vmception]

I mean she probably doesn’t think about it that way, she’s probably never stepped back and noticed “we dont have the technology to either protect children or find CSAM” she probably never thought that and said “but I dont care!” and she definitely never thought “because it fulfills the totalitarian prophecy of The Order! >hissss<”

its not about bribery, its about being led on by the nearest grifter because everyone actually working on technology isnt in the same circles as the politicians

[klabb3]

Isn't that just a matter of interpretation and perspective? If surveillance wasn't attractive to governments and law enforcement, why would it be such an attractive market? Governments have massive need for software in general, but it's also no coincidence that they're consistently excited about surveillance, and particularly indiscriminate mass surveillance.

[oblak]

It's both. Don't be fooled it's only about money. It's clearly about money and control.

[emteycz]

So you think Zensursula is pushing surveillance state only so she can then buy surveillance products of US tech companies because ... what? Money going to her pocket?

I think that's much more of a conspiracy theory than the notion that politicians want control.

[lport]

You are putting things in a manner that is too concrete. Politicians do not always need money that is going directly to their pockets.

UvdL has been mentioned in connection with nepotism before (by the German state radio!):

https://www.dw.com/en/german-opposition-to-probe-defense-min...

After that scandal she failed upwards to Brussels. Politicians that are that unassailable should face extended scrutiny. Who protects her and why?

(Here is an unrelated mask procurement scandal that shows how things work in Germany:

https://www.dw.com/en/german-mask-scandal-unforgivable-viola...)

[tut-urut-utut]

Why that surprises you?

As a German minister of defence, she is known as a person who paid half a billion euros to PwC consultants. Also, she renovated a sailing wooden training ship for more than 200 million euros.

And she is accused of removing proofs by deleting data from her phone and “not remembering” anything.

I would trust that person every evil and corrupt thing one can imagine.

[emteycz]

Why is it so hard to believe she simply wants [Chat] Control, then?

[tut-urut-utut]

Of course, she wants Control, although not for control's sake, but because she will get more of what she really wants (money, power, more money, ...)

It's sad that our EU doesn't let any hope that they do something because they believe it's the right thing to do. It's always big business and foreign government interests before interests of Europeans.

[lport]

Why is it so hard to believe that she truly thinks that McKinsey consultants will improve the German Army instead of guzzling money?

[GekkePrutser]

The biggest problem is Germany's and other Western European military is that they've been starved of money for decades.

Paying half a billion to consultants to tell you this is.... Kinda the problem.

[tut-urut-utut]

Sorry, I wrote PwC instead of McKinsey.

Now, if I only could make my previous comment disappear, like she made her messages disappear, so they couldn't be used as court evidence …

[sam_lowry_]

She does, because she will benefit from it, even if only indirectly.

[rmbyrro]

Politicians want more than control, they want informational weapons.

It's clear now how these Israeli zero-day exploit software power politicians' informational armies against their political adversaries.

[throwaway0a5e]

History is chock full of people in positions of power pissing away all sources of resources and closing the door to all sorts of prosperity for both themselves and for the people subject to their actions in order to further consolidate power.

[sam_lowry_]

She is riding the lobbying wave without giving much critical thinking to what happens. After all, she is just a humble public servant, she thinks. What harm can this possibly make?

[bayindirh]

Also, governments are used to being able listen into whatever they wanted to in the past, and now their capability is eroding, and they don't want to lose their apparatus.

e.g.: Crypto AG incident, old phone taps, etc.

[ODILON_SATER]

Why are software companies lobbying for their products and politicians wanting to establish a larger surveillance state mutually exclusive?

[throwaway0a5e]

The fact that said lizards are not actually conspiring amongst themselves does not mean the lizards do not see furthering of the surveillance states as a convenient ancillary benefit.

People ascribe to government officials way too much competence and way too little desire to consolidate power and rule absolutely

[rmbyrro]

> ... simply ...

Might be an understatement?

[drummer]

> big conspiracy by lizards to build a surveillance state. In truth, it is simply software companies that have surveillance products to sell lobbying the government.

The lizards may be behind the software companies though