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

EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

heise.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 278 posts

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#81

Post by cryo32 »

everyone wrote: post #79
cryo32 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think it’s a conspiracy or corruption. It’s just design by committee bureaucracy. It always fails into that state.

And no committee, no bureaucracy, no regulations, just let corporations do whatever they want, works great right!? It's not like it immediately collapses to despotism as the slightly bigger fish gobbles up everything in a positive feedback process. With an egalitarian government, corruption is a problem, its bad, its something we try to fight and there are mechanisms to do so. Having no government is just giving up a…

I’m not suggesting that at all. I am simply suggesting that bureaucracies have their own specific failure models.

I am very pro regulation.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#82

Post by flumpcakes »

neobrain wrote: post #61
flumpcakes wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this something they already do? I would be utterly shocked if facebook et al. were not scanning all of your messages (either in transit or at terminus to get around 'E2E' claims).

Yes, this had been temporarily permitted until recently, and AFAIK they continue doing so illegally at the moment.

Why is it currently illegal? If I have a service that let's users communicate, why is it illegal to look through those communications? (especially after they've signed my 400 page EULA). It would make moderation impossible otherwise.

Or are we saying this is being used for something specific that happens to be illegal?

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#83

Post by CrisMystik »

joe_mamba wrote: post #75
surgical_fire wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in a country where the prime minister is picked by the parliament. I don't directly vote for him. By your own ridiculous standards, I don't live in a democracy. I fact, any paliamentarism would not be democratic based on that.

>I live in a country where the prime minister is picked by the parliament. I don't directly vote for him. That's kind of whataboutism. If that works for your country and the people are happy with the arrangement and the results of this system, I don't see an issue. >By your own ridiculous standards I don't think direct accountability to the citizens is a ridiculous concept. If you're unhappy with a MEP, your prime mi…

> the head of the EC, Ursula, is impossible to dethrone by the people via democratic vote or protest

The Commission can be dismissed by the Parliament, with a majority of its members and 2/3 of votes cast

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#84

Post by [deleted] »

flumpcakes wrote: post #64
mattrighetti wrote: post #15

They're not going to stop, are they?

Who is they? These pithy remarks don't really extend the debate or have any nuance - they just sound conspiratorial. There are plenty of reasons to "scan" communications. There are plenty of reasons to have limits on communication "scanning". What part of the spectrum do you fall on?

[deleted]

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#85

Post by yorwba »

joe_mamba wrote: post #65
surgical_fire wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not unelected. The EU Council is made up of the head of government of each member state. They are all elected. The commissioners are picked by the heads of state (elected) and the EU parliament (also elected). This does not absolve them from wrongdoing, but you should understand where your complaints should be directed at.

>They are not unelected. After how many layers does the democratic part get watered down and is just members of the elite picking other elites? Role | Chosen by | Direct citizen vote? -----------------------------+------------------------------------------------------+---------------------------- Commission President | European Council proposes, European Parliament elects| No (indirect via EP) European Council Presid…

Those are primarily figureheads with limited power. The EU is not a presidential system. Which is good, because a single person can never well-represent an entire population, directly elected or not.

The council is more problematic, since a blocking majority might only represent 25% of the population (half of the EU member governments, each elected by majority vote), but in this case they voted in favor, so it's as if they didn't exist and the decision lies with parliament, whose composition is determined by proportional representation. Excellent!

The interesting thing here is that the EU is accused of being undemocratic not because special interests killed a law with wide support among the populace, but because all the different bodies might actually agree and pass a law that privacy activists don't like. Legislation by agreement of multiple cross-cutting majorities must clearly be undemocratic!

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#86

Post by mdp2021 »

vrganj wrote: post #74
surgical_fire wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those narratives pop up from users that have a clear anti-EU bias (and I suspect they might not even be from the EU considering how ignorant they seem to be about how it works, its function ans structure, etc.

Call it what it is: Propaganda designed to stir anti-EU sentiment from groups that would benefit from being able to divide and conquer Europe.

The EU already has in place, apparently, a Digital Services Act that basically stops access to some part of the web. That the slope may bring to enlarged web inaccessibility - and an unlivable eu ("What do you mean you have no internet, no web access?! We take it for granted").

That some actors may ride it, is not their stain, but the eu's.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#87

Post by vrganj »

mattrighetti wrote: post #72
surgical_fire wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not unelected. The EU Council is made up of the head of government of each member state. They are all elected. The commissioners are picked by the heads of state (elected) and the EU parliament (also elected). This does not absolve them from wrongdoing, but you should understand where your complaints should be directed at.

They’re indirectly elected through national governments and parliament. That’s different from being directly elected by citizens. Being appointed by elected politicians doesn’t make someone directly accountable to voters. Citizens don’t vote for commissioners, and it’s much harder for voters to remove or reward them based on their policies.

So is the US president (Electoral College), the UK PM (Parliament) etc etc, yet you never hear complaints here from the same types.

Their opposition is ideological, democracy is just an excuse because their true views would be too unsavory to say out loud.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#88

Post by CrisMystik »

joe_mamba wrote: post #78
surgical_fire wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those narratives pop up from users that have a clear anti-EU bias (and I suspect they might not even be from the EU considering how ignorant they seem to be about how it works, its function ans structure, etc.

>users that have a clear anti-EU bias If a government body wants to interfere in your privacy and take it away, isn't it normal to be against that government body pushing that policy? It's not a bias, it's just a normal common sense reaction to tyrannical behavior, and pushing against that government body is the only way to enact the positive change you want to see. Otherwise if you just bend over and take it all the…

In that case you're against the people currently in government, not the body itself, i.e. some people against Chat Control ask for the dissolution of the EU, but would they ask for the dissolution of their national state if a similar law was passed in their national parliament? I think no

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#89

Post by vrganj »

mdp2021 wrote: post #86
vrganj wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Call it what it is: Propaganda designed to stir anti-EU sentiment from groups that would benefit from being able to divide and conquer Europe.

The EU already has in place, apparently, a Digital Services Act that basically stops access to some part of the web. That the slope may bring to enlarged web inaccessibility - and an unlivable eu ("What do you mean you have no internet, no web access?! We take it for granted"). That some actors may ride it, is not their stain, but the eu's.

The DSA doesn't stop access to any part of the web. This is precisely the misinformation I mentioned earlier.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#90

Post by Thraway198 »

neobrain wrote: post #49

For context, this refers to "Chat Control 1.0", allowing facebook and other messaging providers to scan chats for harmful content (which they had been temporarily allowed to do by a recently expired law). This is still problematic, but the far more dangerous Chat Control 2.0 that would weaken end-to-end-encrypted messengers like Signal is not being discussed here. Not to diminish the gravity of the new development, b…

Wow. Talk about ragebait.
Post reply on HN