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

301–310 of 463 posts

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#301

Post by baliex »

sph wrote: post #23
peterspath wrote: post #15

Just 4 countries are against: Czech Republic, Italy, Netherlands, and Poland. https://fightchatcontrol.eu/

There's a lot of flip-flopping. I'm surprised Italy changed their mind when they were very in favour until recently.

I guess that’s how it eventually goes through. When, at random, enough flippers flop or floppers flip that it tips the balance.

And once it’s done it’s done. The relentlessness does not continue into, “are you sure?”, it’ll be over.

For the record, I’m in the EU and do not want this to pass.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#302

Post by mantas »

monssooon wrote: post #240
mantas wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? The green deal stuff seems to be pretty bad. Manufacturing seems to have a hard time. The next tier economy, e.g. AI, is not seen on the horizon. Over-the-top regulations for agriculture and then opening up the market from goods where such regulations don't exist does not seem smart either. And there're lots and lots of small things like those.

Denmark is a world leading producer of windmills

Meanwhile local solar industry is loosing to Chinese at fast pace. Batteries industry ain’t looking good either.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#303

Post by sunshine-o »

kachurovskiy wrote: post #63

Instead of the usual knee-jerk it would be nice to see some level-header analysis on mechanics of these things - who pays for the time of the people that decide to push this particular piece of legislation, how they manage to get into the door, who personally makes the proposal, how they gather support for it.

My current understanding is:

- First you get the idea, framework and influence from academic "centers", foundations and Think Tanks in the US.

- Then you have the lobbying from Big Tech and specialized firms (content scan, censorship, moderation and everything "compliance") from the US, France, Israel, etc.

- Last most of your politicians are largely interested in the system to be kept in place at any cost. So mass surveillance might be the difference between a comfy life and the pitchfork in medium or long term.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#304

Post by retired »

olejorgenb wrote: post #20
enedil wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most annoying the cookie law Also, the least consequential even ignoring often stated fact that cookie banners are malicious compliance. I care much less about cookie banners than about the ads, and for both of I have uBlock origin filters. So, what to be angry about exactly?

And either 80% of banners are not respecting the law, or the law managed to omit mandating making it as easy to reject as accept... Rejecting usually require you to enter into settings and sometimes click "reject" for every individual partner(!)

The largest Dutch tech website doesn’t adhere to the cookie law. They ever reported about websites not adhering to the law while not adhering to the law themselves.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#305

Post by mantas »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #222
mantas wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Market has already did the thing. In this case it's protecting local retailers who import in bulk over consumers importing individually.

For phone cases, maybe, but not for everything under 150 EUR… On top of that, local retailers have to comply with EU regulations etc. while Chinese imports are notorious for not following safety/recycling standards etc., which unbalances the playing field away from local retailers anyway.

Frequently it is exactly the same item from aliexpress or from local reseller. Depends for different types of course.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#306

Post by retired »

pbkompasz wrote: post #36
nxm wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

And at least people are not shot in the streets by the police for protesting...

Dutch police shot at a child during protests.

With video:

https://nos.nl/artikel/2435671-beschoten-boerenzoon-ik-wil-v...

Shots during COVID protests:

https://nos.nl/video/2406436-terugkijken-zo-werden-rotterdam...

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#307

Post by tmtvl »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #278
tmtvl wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember that scandal about that subcontractor for Apple which installed suicide nets after thirteen workers died and another five attempted suicide by jumping off buildings? But no, corporations good, government bad. At least when it comes to government I get to vote. Even better: I'm Belgian, I HAVE to vote, it's not just a right, it's a civic duty. What, when it comes to corporations I can 'vote with my wallet'? I…

> What, when it comes to corporations I can 'vote with my wallet'? I'm sure Apple, whose profits exceed those of some developed countries, will surely change their ways if I boycott them over stuff like the Uyghur slave shops. Your argument is that voting with your wallet doesn't change things even if it reduces the profits of the company by an amount proportional to the number of people who do it, but voting in an e…

I agree that governments could be better at monopoly busting and that a wide variety of choice is better (here in Belgium there are enough different parties (the Greens, the Socialists, the Labour Party, the Christian Democrats, the Liberals, some right wing parties,...) that it seems to work okay, but I gather that elsewhere there's a dearth of choice).

The biggest problem with 'voting with my wallet' is that it means we get the bad old democracy back: the poor don't get to vote, the rich get to vote more. That may have been good enough a few centuries ago, but nowadays we have universal suffrage and I think we can all agree that's better. I know in the USA there's been some back and forth about it regarding voter ID laws (getting an ID costs money so it penalizes the poor) and the fact that people who can only vote by going to the poll office may get penalized by their employers (who can dock wages for the time the employee spent not working); but technically there is universal suffrage and it's better than what came before.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#308

Post by mike_hearn »

Hikikomori wrote: post #254
wqaatwt wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> simply amended as soon as such a standard emerges That statement just makes no sense. How can a new standard emerge when legally there is no option to validate its actually superior in the market? > figures out something better That’s not how it works. Most innovation does not occur in committees but through trial and error.

Same as before? A group like Intel, Microsoft and a few more create a new standard and can get the eu to adopt it. Which popular cabling standard wasn't designed by one of the big ones?

That's a good example of the mindset that is turning the EU into a backwater. Paraphrased you're saying there's no problem with the EU banning new technologies because the Americans can always be relied on to make progress anyway, and then Europe can just copy whatever they do.

So there seems to be some confusion over premises in this thread.

The people pointing out the USB-C law as a failure are reasoning from the Golden Rule: what would happen if everyone did this? Nobody would design new connectors because of the catch-22 the law creates. You can't know what the next new connector should be without a competitive market, but governments have ended such a market. Also, to invest in a new technology requires a belief that you can actually launch it and gain profit by outcompeting other technologies, but government mandated monopolies prevent that, so there's just no incentive to do the work anymore.

The people arguing the USB-C law is fine are reasoning from a different and totally local perspective: why shouldn't we implement a command economy in Europe when we'll get the benefits of a free market economy by importing US goods anyway? They assume new tech will be developed for the US market and then all the EU has to do is have a committee that approves it.

The problem with this idea, beyond it being just pathetic, is there's no reason the US has to sell to Europe and the more annoying the EU makes trade the fewer technologies will be available for import. It's already common that new US tech products either don't launch in Europe or launch much later. Now frontier models are being restricted and not made available to European companies, that will make them fall even further behind. And we can assume that when a new connector is designed that's better than USB-C products designed around it will launch everywhere except Europe for a while, as only some products will have enough sales to justify an EU specific variant. So Europeans will eventually get used to not being able to acquire many products at home because import is blocked by the EU.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#309

Post by [deleted] »

m4nu3l wrote: post #209
GTP wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, USB-C wouldn't have become a true standard if no-one forced Apple's hand. It's a compromise and, for the time being, I'm happy with this. As another commenter noted, if we feel the need for a new standard the law can be changed in the future. I concede that, depending on the future's situation, this could be difficult to do. But, without such law we wouldn't have had a standard to begin with.

> On the other hand, USB-C wouldn't have become a true standard if no-one forced Apple's hand I don't want a state-dictated standard like this. What you're saying is that because some people want iPhones and they want them with USB-C, everyone else must forgo the possibility of having a better type of connetor until "we" (Is it the majority? I don't even think the majority uses iPhones in Europe) feel like having a n…

[deleted]

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#310

Post by skocznymroczny »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #239
theshrike79 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up when everyone was saying "don't post your face, name or address on the internet" - and that's what I've done. There are a total of maybe 3-6 pictures of me on the internet and my real name isn't attached to most of my brainfarts online. It's not that I hide it like a secret agent, I just don't shove my face and name next to every opinion I have. But the younger generations... They grew up with Snapchat whic…

> There are a total of maybe 3-6 pictures of me on the internet Incorrect, you are probably in the background of random photos on the internet, and by virtue of not having any profiles and social media sites can tag you and form a shadow profile around you.

Yeah, your family members will be more than happy to tag you once Facebook asks them who that person on a group photo is.
Post reply on HN