Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

End of "Chat Control": EU parliament stops mass surveillance

patrick-breyer.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 324 posts

Re: End of "Chat Control": EU parliament stops mass surveillance

#191

Post by rsynnott »

cluckindan wrote: post #169
rsynnott wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

European parliament parties are really not particularly cohesive, and the EPP in particular is a bit of a random mess; it is _broadly_ liberal-conservative and pro-European, but its membership is a bit all over the place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_People%27s_Party#Full... Note that in some countries it has _both ruling coalition and opposition_ member parties.

EPP is the predominant christian nationalist party.

Eh, I wouldn't say that's true. It has a lot of "Christian democratic" parties (the likes of CDU/CSU), and also a bunch of 'liberal-conservative' parties (there's a fair bit of crossover). However, it's pro-Europe, and certainly not particularly nationalist. Nationalists (at least ethnoreligious nationalists; leftist nationalists like Sinn Fein go elsewhere) would largely be in ECR, the absurdly-named 'Patriots.eu', ESN.

Re: End of "Chat Control": EU parliament stops mass surveillance

#192

Post by vrganj »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #120
izacus wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article you're commenting on is reporting how directly elected representatives defeated the motion. Why do you keep lying?

That's the parliament. What about the council and the commission? Am I not allowed to hold them accountable? Does my power as a citizen only extend to a fourth of the balance of power? They keep getting away with these attrition tactics with regards to implementing near Stasi levels communication surveillance. What about the day they're pushing to give the council unlimited powers, or to abolish voting rights, or to…

The Council and Commission are representatives of your democratically elected national government. You as a citizen of your country get to pick said government.

If the EU were to not exist, your representatives in the Council/Commission (e.g. your national government) would be more powerful because they wouldn't be checked by the Parliament, not less.

Your problem is with your government, they just successfully deflected it to the EU in your mind.

Re: End of "Chat Control": EU parliament stops mass surveillance

#193

Post by cucumber3732842 »

rsynnott wrote: post #184
cucumber3732842 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That constitution sure did stop Giuliani from having the cops shake down all those black guys. At the end of the day you still need people to actually believe it, for whatever "it" is.

Yeah, this is more or less what I'm saying. Large parts of 'Chat Control' likely _are_ unconstitutional, but that doesn't necessarily stop it being brought (it just makes it likely that the courts will kill parts of it if it ever passes).

> (it just makes it likely that the courts will kill parts of it if it ever passes).

Years after harm was done and lives were ruined no less.

Re: End of "Chat Control": EU parliament stops mass surveillance

#195

Post by adw »

_the_inflator wrote: post #167

No, this is the end of the wording for the initiative, nothing else. We will see many new initiatives, old wine in a new bottle. Any bet that EU diehard bureaucrats will change tune, not the goal. They are going to use the so called salami tactic. Death of free speech by many cuts, so to say. It is in the left wing DNA. Have a look at German history regarding "Landes-Verfassungsschutz" units. It is disturbing to read…

You’re painting an EPP/ECR initiative as left wing? That’s inconsistent with the facts.

Re: End of "Chat Control": EU parliament stops mass surveillance

#196

Post by triceratops »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #151
triceratops wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't abstract. Your government sends representatives to represent its platform and priorities. If you don't agree with the reps you need to elect a different government.

It's a abstract because you will never ever see a situation where voters neglect national elections to adjust the EU council or commission. Maybe it's what needs to happen, but the way thing are arranged it just won't.

Why "neglect"? You're voting for a government that does the things you want.

Re: End of "Chat Control": EU parliament stops mass surveillance

#197

Post by bigyabai »

__loam wrote: post #186
ryandrake wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the problem with modern democracies (it happens in the USA too). They only have to win once and it's law. We have to win every time.

Need to amend constitutional rights to privacy then these laws can be struck down in courts.

I feel like that would end with the same surveillance loopholes that Google, Microsoft and Apple exploit today.

Users need the ability to choose operating systems and software that is not exclusively green-lit by a first-party vendor. It's not glamorous, but pretending that software isn't a competitive market is what put us into this surveillance monopoly in the first place. "trust" distributed among a handful of businesses isn't going to cut it in a post-2030s threat environment.

Re: End of "Chat Control": EU parliament stops mass surveillance

#199

Post by dmitrygr »

_fat_santa wrote: post #113

It seems like an almost never ending hamster wheel of chat control being introduced, voted down, then introduced again in the next session.

We need a double-jeopardy-like constitutional amendment for legislation. Legislation once-tried and failed cannot be tried again.

Re: End of "Chat Control": EU parliament stops mass surveillance

#200

Post by krapp »

dmitrygr wrote: post #199
_fat_santa wrote: post #113

It seems like an almost never ending hamster wheel of chat control being introduced, voted down, then introduced again in the next session.

We need a double-jeopardy-like constitutional amendment for legislation. Legislation once-tried and failed cannot be tried again.

That would be antithetical to democracy. The people must be allowed to introduce any legislation they want, as often as they want.

Otherwise it would be trivial for a government to intentionally fail to pass anything they disagree with, and thus act as a de facto dictatorship.

Post reply on HN