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

391–400 of 463 posts

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#391

Post by palata »

layla5alive wrote: post #368
palata wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 don't seem to understand it. The problem is that politicians were corrupted by power.

This is an extremely naive view of politics in complex systems like the EU. We're not talking about the US of French president here. The people in the 27 EU countries elect their EU representatives, and nobody knows them. People usually vote for a party, and they usually don't care much about the EU, except for complaining.

It feels like people who are against the EU vote for far-right politicians (the ones that are against the EU).

EU politicians are elected by the people and they represent what the people from the 27 member countries voted. Which is different from e.g. the US president, where the people don't really have much choice. Same in France, where people voted against the far-right and not at all for Macron.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#392

Post by vrganj »

joe_mamba wrote: post #386
throwawayffffas wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the quotes are clearly talking about closer integration which no one is hiding is a stated goal of the European Union. It's right there in the original treaties `an ever closer union`. If you don't like it leave, but the rest have all committed to that a long time ago. The chat control thing has nothing to do with all of the above, it's just a bit of legislation. The whole "we will vote on it again and again unti…

>All the quotes are clearly talking about closer integration Are you saying "the ends justify the means" of this "closer integration"? With that logic, Hitler's end goal was also closer integration of Europe's countries once he conquered them all. >If you don't like it leave Impossible to leave now when you joined 20+ years ago, when the EU was something completely different, which now grew beyond what you signed up…

> Impossible to leave now when you joined 20+ years ago, when the EU was something completely different, which now grew beyond what you signed up for, without fucking your economy. It's called a rug pull with a dead man's switch. Try to leave and we make sure we all blow up.

The EU was always designed to be an "ever closer union". It's literally in the Treaty of Rome from 1957 (!). This is explicitly what was signed up for. It's going a bit slow, unfortunately, but it is the core point. There's no rug being pulled. This was always the goal. It is specifically what everyone signed on to.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#393

Post by AnthonyMouse »

noisem4ker wrote: post #379
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you feel like people are now aware that cookies are being installed, more so than before the banner? Do people understand that they are consenting to this? > That is the law at work. The problem is that's not what anybody, including the users, want. Nobody cares that browsers have cookies as an implementation detail. It's a ridiculous thing to use as the basis of a privacy rule. Does the user care that the site…

Cookies are not the basis of the law, which is about tracking in general, abstracted from the exact means and implementation details.

The law contains some ridiculous language about storing data on the user's device, which applies to cookies in particular even though that category in general makes no coherent sense, because the thing that should matter is if you can identify the user/device, not whether you used something in the shape of a cookie to do it.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#394

Post by joe_mamba »

vrganj wrote: post #390
joe_mamba wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Peace in Europe. That peace in Europe didn't start because of the EU, it started because western Europe was conquered by the US and eastern Europe by USSR so they were a bit too incapacitated to fight each other under those conditions and given the much bigger issues they had at the time.

I didn't say it started because of the EU. It lasted because of it. See the Schuman declaration I quoted below.

Peace between EU countries was stable even before the formation of the modern EU.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#395

Post by vrganj »

joe_mamba wrote: post #394
vrganj wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say it started because of the EU. It lasted because of it. See the Schuman declaration I quoted below.

Peace between EU countries was stable even before the formation of the modern EU.

Before the formation of the European Coal & Steel community, the direct predecessor to the EU, we literally had a millenium of non-stop slaughter.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#396

Post by 11mariom »

tdrz wrote: post #289

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?

> Wasn't this rejected not so long ago?

And that's the issue with all bad laws. They have to approve it once. We have to fight against indefinitely…

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#397

Post by flir »

joe_mamba wrote: post #386
throwawayffffas wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the quotes are clearly talking about closer integration which no one is hiding is a stated goal of the European Union. It's right there in the original treaties `an ever closer union`. If you don't like it leave, but the rest have all committed to that a long time ago. The chat control thing has nothing to do with all of the above, it's just a bit of legislation. The whole "we will vote on it again and again unti…

>All the quotes are clearly talking about closer integration Are you saying "the ends justify the means" of this "closer integration"? With that logic, Hitler's end goal was also closer integration of Europe's countries once he conquered them all. >If you don't like it leave Impossible to leave now when you joined 20+ years ago, when the EU was something completely different, which now grew beyond what you signed up…

> Impossible to leave now when you joined 20+ years ago, when the EU was something completely different, which now grew beyond what you signed up for, without fucking your economy. It's called a rug pull with a dead man's switch. Try to leave and we make sure we all blow up.

Translation: the benefits of being in the EU outweigh the drawbacks.

This is the crux of it. From your local parish council to the largest supranational organisation, nobody's going to be in favour of every decision made. They're still better than the alternative.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#398

Post by AnthonyMouse »

vouwfietsman wrote: post #375
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you feel like people are now aware that cookies are being installed, more so than before the banner? Do people understand that they are consenting to this? > That is the law at work. The problem is that's not what anybody, including the users, want. Nobody cares that browsers have cookies as an implementation detail. It's a ridiculous thing to use as the basis of a privacy rule. Does the user care that the site…

I am eagerly awaiting your grassroots campaign to define legislation that would tackle such uses, and also eagerly awaiting it backfiring because of malicious compliance.

Malicious compliance is a result of incompetent drafting. It's common because incompetent drafting is common, case in point GDPR. It's definitely possible to screw it up less than that -- there are many laws that nobody complains about.

You pass a law prohibiting any entity from conditioning the use of their service on the user providing them with a phone number. Even services that actually use SMS or voice calls are required to provide an alternative like email or the web with no reduction in functionality and for no additional cost.

You pass a law stating that any device which is sold or leased to anyone who takes physical possession of it cannot contain a private key the customer is unable to both read and extricate at no cost.

What does malicious compliance look like there? Anyone can give them an email instead of a phone number and if that doesn't work they're in violation. Remote attestation is the only reason for devices to come from the factory containing an inaccessible private key, which is thereby prohibited and unable to be used as a tracking ID.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#399

Post by embedding-shape »

mort96 wrote: post #341
megous wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Messaging protocols are useful even if everyone is not on the same app. In the past I was chatting with my google using friend via some third party jabber server where I had an account. It was useful and didn't require us to be "in the same app". We both were using both different apps and different server providers.

> In the past Exactly. That time is mostly over.

And coming back again:

> As part of changing laws in Europe, Meta now offers the option for you to chat with others using third-party messaging apps that have integrated with WhatsApp and that you choose to turn on. - Whatsapp Help Center

Currently support is a bit shit, given it's relatively new. Give it 3-5 years and I'm sure this will look very different.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#400

Post by throwawayffffas »

joe_mamba wrote: post #386
throwawayffffas wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the quotes are clearly talking about closer integration which no one is hiding is a stated goal of the European Union. It's right there in the original treaties `an ever closer union`. If you don't like it leave, but the rest have all committed to that a long time ago. The chat control thing has nothing to do with all of the above, it's just a bit of legislation. The whole "we will vote on it again and again unti…

>All the quotes are clearly talking about closer integration Are you saying "the ends justify the means" of this "closer integration"? With that logic, Hitler's end goal was also closer integration of Europe's countries once he conquered them all. >If you don't like it leave Impossible to leave now when you joined 20+ years ago, when the EU was something completely different, which now grew beyond what you signed up…

> Are you saying "the ends justify the means" of this "closer integration"? With that logic, Hitler's end goal was also closer integration of Europe's countries once he conquered them all.

I am saying a closer union was what was agreed upon.

> Impossible to leave now when you joined 20+ years ago, when the EU was something completely different, which now grew beyond what you signed up for, without fucking your economy. It's called a rug pull with a dead man's switch. Try to leave and we make sure we all blow up.

The UK left 47 years after joining, it would be better off if they stayed in, but it has not been the end of the world. Also if your countrymen are pro further EU integration and you are against it, you can just leave.

> Why is Cuba a bigger issue for Ursula than what's happening in the EU? LAst time I checked Cuba is on a different continent and an insignificant trading partner of the EU.

Because god knows what is going to happen to American liquefied gas exports to the EU if they are fighting a war in the Caribbean.

Post reply on HN