361–370 of 463 posts
Just 4 countries are against: Czech Republic, Italy, Netherlands, and Poland. https://fightchatcontrol.eu/
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…
> Being able to go on vacation with no trouble is massive. You are unironically using 'vacation destinations' as argument for modifying your legal system to fit foreign lobbying needs. All is lost.
I'm just pointing out that "an organisation something does something bad, therefore it shouldn't exist at all" is a bad argument that ignores the good it does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does governments have any say in this? If not then most MEPs of mentioned countries are too in favor of Chat Control. This is what it says when you click on one of the 4 countries.
EU law 101: (1) EU Commission (i.e. the executive) proposes a law; (2) EU Parliament signs off on it; (3) EU Council (i.e. the equivalent of a senate, comprising national governments) puts the final stamp on it. The complicating factor being that a given law may or may not require unanimity at the final EU Council stage. In general, the governments have the final word.
Chat control though will definitely not make it to a summit meeting, and almost definitely does not warrant unanimity, it's probably a simple majority issue, i.e not foreign relations, defense, etc.
I have to admit that I don't understand how they can push for this so often! Wasn't this rejected not so long ago?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
EU law 101: (1) EU Commission (i.e. the executive) proposes a law; (2) EU Parliament signs off on it; (3) EU Council (i.e. the equivalent of a senate, comprising national governments) puts the final stamp on it. The complicating factor being that a given law may or may not require unanimity at the final EU Council stage. In general, the governments have the final word.
The EU council is not like the senate. It's the council of the executives of the member states i.e. the meeting of the governments of the states, summit meetings happen between prime ministers and presidents. Chat control though will definitely not make it to a summit meeting, and almost definitely does not warrant unanimity, it's probably a simple majority issue, i.e not foreign relations, defense, etc.
Otherwise agreed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the banners are not about cookies specifically, they are about tracking. It's illegal to track people without a lawful reason (and one of the valid reasons is user consent).
What are you supposed to learn from the banner anyway? It's just an additional annoyance. You should just assume that anything that your browser exposed may be used to track you. The real problem is that most browsers and browser configurations are far too permissive for the sake of avoiding breakage. The real technical solution to online tracking is standardization of browser attributes so that users look identical,…
As long as the web is an applications platform rather a hypertext document platform there will always be enough small differences to fingerprint. There is never going to be a technical solution, the solution is going to have to be social (legal, e.g. the GDPR).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
99% of the people just click accept and go through. This could be solved on the client side, by requiring all devices with browsers sold in EU to have separate cookie jars per domain and by default those cookies would be deleted on window/tab close. If you wanted to stay logged in to a site, you'd click a button next to the url bar that says "keep cookies for this domain", and be done.
> This could be solved on the client side
GDPR legally prohibits tracking in general, not cookies specifically. Advertisers use fingerprinting more than cookies these days already, even if browsers removed cookie support altogether it wouldn't change anything.
The common fallacy people have regarding chat control (and should be clarified) is that it's not like internet is made of a few select providers, anyone can open an encrypted tcp connection from an ip to another, and the global traffic is too massive to be scrutinized, also the most widely available apps already comply to the single police request to access conversations from suspects. This means that this will creat…
> it's not like internet is made of a few select providers In practice it is. Almost all messaging happens on a few apps. > also the most widely available apps already comply to the single police request to access conversations from suspects That is not true: Signal is widely available and doesn't do that. WhatsApp probably doesn't do it either. Don't get me wrong: I am against ChatControl as well. I believe that sec…
The problem is that politicians were corrupted by power.
MEPs can pass the resulting deal or try to amend it. But amendments often mean the bill is pulled back into another trilogue rather than properly debated and rewritten in public.
The bill never gets debated, and the bill never gets rejected, so the commission can keep trying until it gets passed
The common fallacy people have regarding chat control (and should be clarified) is that it's not like internet is made of a few select providers, anyone can open an encrypted tcp connection from an ip to another, and the global traffic is too massive to be scrutinized, also the most widely available apps already comply to the single police request to access conversations from suspects. This means that this will creat…