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

EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

patrick-breyer.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 463 posts

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#91

Post by gpvos »

tough wrote: post #73
mcv wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's the lack of customs charges for items from other European countries. The common market is a really big advantage. There's the Euro, and in the past, the EU did a fairly decent job at holding large corporations accountable, although that seems to have disappeared with Neelie Kroes' retirement. And of course the lack of borders. Being able to go on vacation with no trouble is massive. Do we really want those bo…

Why one couldn't have all these without the EU ?

To hold large corps accountable you need clout, and the individual countries don't have that.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#92

Post by wqaatwt »

blfr wrote: post #16
graemep wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Denmark have been pushing for chat control for a long time. The American view of the EU is very much a grass is greener one. They see the things that are better than in the US but not the things that are worse.

Yes, I know they've been pushing for this when they're pretty reasonable and independent on other issues. How come?

Ar they, though? The established longterm consensus is pretty reasonable in the EU, it’s not self evident that things have been going in the right direction on the whole in recent years.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#93

Post by yownie »

sph wrote: post #22
blfr wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I know they've been pushing for this when they're pretty reasonable and independent on other issues. How come?

I don't want to enter into conspiracy territory, but it seems that there's a big insistence from whomever is behind pushing for this to pass at any cost. First it was Denmark, now the EU parliament president, a Maltese. What's for certain is that those that stand to benefit massively are governments and politicians themselves. And no, it's certainly not that bullshit astroturfed story that has been going around, of M…

https://privatecitizen.press/episode/160/

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#94

Post by d1sxeyes »

jvuygbbkuurx wrote: post #67
kubafu wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell me you don't see the value in the tax as a way of discouraging people from ordering a pair of socks from the other side of the globe, while they can buy them locally?

Why let a middleman rentseek?

It’s not a “middleman rent seeking”, it’s protectionism. If lower cost production is available elsewhere in the world, there are three options.

1. Stop producing locally. Allow the market to take care of it.

2. Deregulate minimum wages to allow local businesses to price locally produced goods competitively.

3. Impose a tariff on incoming goods to protect local producers.

Which is your preference?

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#95

Post by tjoff »

cyanydeez wrote: post #82
Havoc wrote: post #58

The global push to kill privacy makes me sad. Feels like I grew up in a golden age and subsequent generations won't care because they never knew a different world

alright, but the important query is: this isn't happening in a vacuum, there's a lot of various forces. Lets say the primary force we need to prevent is russian influence campaigns that back and push far right nationalists who will destabilize democracy. Is that a sufficient reason for controls? It's always curious what people think about the actual content that's typically pushing these things.

Is eroding privacy the only way to combat that?

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#96

Post by grayhatter »

basisword wrote: post #5
blfr wrote: post #2

First, why does the EU leadership refuse to learn from falling behind the US economically and technologically, most starkly with AI recently, and their failures in regulating the Internet, most annoyingly the cookie law? And why aren't you, the EU citizen, more annoyed by it? I see a lot of pro-EU content on this site when they're terrible on both tech and entrepreneurship. Second, what's up with Denmmark pushing for…

European here. I like the cookie law. It's made it clear to people how much we're being tracked and I can choose to opt out. The implementation could of course be better but the real issue is the scummy web devs choosing to make it as annoying as possible instead of taking the more sensible decision to not have 150 trackers on every page. >> I see a lot of pro-EU content on this site when they're terrible on both tec…

So you like the law, but don't like how it didn't actually solve the problem it was trying to solve?

I assume you're pretty well read up on matters of privacy, right? So you have a better awareness and understanding. But do you believe the average person does? Or would you assume that the average person has either been trained to ignore the banner, automatically consent to more invasive tracking, or is generally more confused about why the banner exists, or what it does?

The cookie consent law is the dumbest application of an attempt to improve privacy. It's made the internet worse, and is being used to train people into consenting to giving away their privacy without thinking... because: "clicking accept is what you have to do to use the page" -- every normal person casually browsing any site.

No implementation for cookie based consent can be done correctly.

Personally, I'd love to see a law that makes any/all dark patterns a crime, and empowers state prosecutors via grand jury to bring charges for them against both the company, and individual authors of the specific commits as jointly responsible. I don't want statutory laws, I want a trial jury to look at it, and decide if any technological measure, pattern, tactic, procedure, design, or measurement was used to encourage one decision over the other instead of a fair choice.

I don't want a set of rules that given enough funding any company is able to win as a negative sum game. I want a jury, not a trailing clause, to decide if the company is clearly acting in good faith or worthy of apocalyptic fines.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#97

Post by microgpt »

anonzzzies wrote: post #54
dminik wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why then do they make the most annoying, user-hostile dark pattern cookie banners they can come up with? No, website operators hate that they have to either stop spamming thousands of tracker scripts or put up a banner. They found out that they can offload blame on the EU instead and so have chosen to make the web as annoying as possible.

Yeah, that's more the point; in discussions with clients I very often get asked how far we can go without any consent. Most companies want all the privacy ignoring stuff and they don't want to tell their users about it.

Realistically you won't be caught analyzing server-side logs of things the client is doing anyway, even if you don't follow GDPR rules with those logs. But they want Google Analytics, right?

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#98

Post by tmtvl »

blfr wrote: post #2

First, why does the EU leadership refuse to learn from falling behind the US economically and technologically, most starkly with AI recently, and their failures in regulating the Internet, most annoyingly the cookie law? And why aren't you, the EU citizen, more annoyed by it? I see a lot of pro-EU content on this site when they're terrible on both tech and entrepreneurship. Second, what's up with Denmmark pushing for…

> And why aren't you, the EU citizen, more annoyed by it?

Because the USA tends to privilege corporations over people whereas in the EU it's more balanced (still pretty biased towards corps, though), and I am a people, not a corporations.

Take, for example, the 'cookie law': I much prefer being annoyed by the cookie pop-up over websites shoving a ton of unnecessary and unwanted cookies onto my computer without permission.

...speaking of which:

> and their failures in regulating the Internet

Which political entity would you say has done the best job in regulating the Internet? Where are citizens most protected from being inundated with advertising, unwanted cookies, unnecessary JavaScript, false news, scams, and all the other garbage one is normally subjected to when not putting in some amount of effort in combating that shit?

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#99

Post by GTP »

blfr wrote: post #2

First, why does the EU leadership refuse to learn from falling behind the US economically and technologically, most starkly with AI recently, and their failures in regulating the Internet, most annoyingly the cookie law? And why aren't you, the EU citizen, more annoyed by it? I see a lot of pro-EU content on this site when they're terrible on both tech and entrepreneurship. Second, what's up with Denmmark pushing for…

While the EU is not perfect and surely needs improvement in many areas, it is still better than not having it. This is why you see a lot of pro-EU content: many people here (myself included) are of the opinion that the EU needs to be improved, not dismantled.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#100

Post by Chu4eeno »

GTP wrote: post #83
wqaatwt wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn’t need the EU for the removal of trade barriers and the common market. Both were established quite a while before the EU as we know it now became a thing in the 90s. > we really want those border checks back Why? You don’t need to be in the EU to belong to Shengen.

The European Union is actually an union of treaties, with countries that sign some and not others. So here you would need to be more specific.

Not really.

Norway is not EU, it's EEA, which is more like what you describe (the population rejected joining twice in referendums, but the politicians still wanted some treaties).

Post reply on HN