281–290 of 450 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, like Greece, who the EU helped by getting their creditors to back off and give up some of their claims.
Is that what you believe? The EU bankrupted Greece then asset stripped them..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, like Greece, who the EU helped by getting their creditors to back off and give up some of their claims.
after 2008 the EU had a gun to their had and were made to sign loans that they could never ever repay. they were lent that money because private citizens mostly owned their homes. Yanis Varoufakis gives good insight into what happened. e.g. "The Euro Has Never Been More Problematic" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhSg9X3q2gc Germany should not and can not be made responsible for bailing these countries out: https://…
I hope my country leaves the European union, soon.
> I hope my country leaves the European union, soon. LOL...why though? By the way...which country is that?
Just look on all the big countries of the world, they all kind of suck. There is simply no way for ordinary citizens to have any effect on EU because of it's size alone. Almost all my countries MEPs voted no to Article 13 but it still got passed.
I don't want Germany and France to control Sweden (which is the country I'm from).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not all of this is the EU - which is not exactly some super-state that controls every aspect of life on the continent. Almost all of these things are in the jurisdiction of the member states themselves, and the EU has little power to control them. If the EU didn't exist, Germany would still be staffing its nursing homes with cheap(er) foreign labour, just done under a visa rather than EU freedom of movement. If the E…
> If the EU didn't exist, Germany would still be staffing its nursing homes with cheap(er) foreign labour, just done under a visa rather than EU freedom of movement. Or worse: the care would be become too expensive and peoples arses wouldn't be wiped at all..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"internet platforms", "organize", "promote", "large amounts", "uploaded by their users", "in order to make a profit". These phrases by themselves are open to interpretation in various ways. In particular, what I find dangerous is that these appear to be specific enough to convince people to believe there will be little to no room for abuse, and yet are vague enough to allow a motivated political actor to target someo…
Indeterminate legal concepts are very common, I don't know why this is always brought up as soon as it's "about the internet".
As for vagueness, the issue has more to do with the scope. To me, as a citizen, the expanse of a given law is over the union of every possible interpretation of it that can be made by a reasonable person.
The more vague the language in a given law, the larger the scope for interpretation; the more specific and descriptive the language, the more restricted the scope.
It seems like an abdication of responsibility by duly elected legislators to leave the interpretation of the bounds of a vague law onto a far-removed, indirectly-elected judiciary, rather than passing specific laws defining those bounds more carefully from the get go. Why not just create a single law "Enforce good. Punish evil.", and leave it to the courts to implement?
As for why this uproar happens specifically on topics regarding the internet, the audience here on HN has a larger interest in everything to do with it compared to other issues. I do think that the same level of caution should be applied w.r.t. any and all vague laws, regardless of the topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that just straight abuse of the law? AFAIK GDPR only protects your personal information, it can't be used to request someone else's personal information (if anything, you could argue that GDPR prevents you from giving out another person's info).
Potentual for abuse of laws is one of the concerns people have about laws.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"internet platforms", "organize", "promote", "large amounts", "uploaded by their users", "in order to make a profit". These phrases by themselves are open to interpretation in various ways. In particular, what I find dangerous is that these appear to be specific enough to convince people to believe there will be little to no room for abuse, and yet are vague enough to allow a motivated political actor to target someo…
Indeterminate legal concepts are very common, I don't know why this is always brought up as soon as it's "about the internet".
Legislation is written contrariwise, which can seem baffling to programmers unfamiliar with the system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like we had this exact same argument over GDPR, but no horror stories have descended about Mom and Pop operations run out of business but the evil Brusselcrats.
This is not related to business but there's a horror story with Romania (it's in the EU) asking a news organization to provide informants information related to some corruption leaks. The information is requested by the national GDPR enforcer so it bypasses the prevention written in the GDPR about news leaks. Now there's a trial going around with this which blocked any further spread of that information until it's so…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The post explicitly mentions a clause that will make that distinction. The author argues it might be removed from the final text as part of the ongoing horse-trading, but at least it’s clear MEPs do understand the difference nowadays.
If they did they wouldn't have implemented GDRP as it was. The very fact that it might be removed in a horse-trade illustrates my point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that just straight abuse of the law? AFAIK GDPR only protects your personal information, it can't be used to request someone else's personal information (if anything, you could argue that GDPR prevents you from giving out another person's info).
Potentual for abuse of laws is one of the concerns people have about laws.