Live data from Hacker News

EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

heise.de

101–110 of 278 posts

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#101
This means the council has systematically overridden the will of both EU parliaments and states' objections in pushing this legislation. TLDR: there are, roughly and not 100% accurately speaking, 4 ways to make legislation at the EU level

1) commission + parliament (meaning the EU commission has initiative (veto rights over any law, like the US president), and parliament can only "propose amendments", which pass with 50% of votes, or deny). This is what normally happens.

Parliament denied the law. Twice.

Member states vetoed the legislation at least 3 times (it doesn't technically work like this but member states can force the commission to veto legislation, and Belgium, Hungary and Denmark have done so) (technically member states can force the EU commission not to introduce legislation and because nobody else can do so either, this is normally effectively a veto)

2) council + parliament. This is where we are. If the executives of the member states (NOT parliaments) want to push through a vote, they can use this path. The difference is that only 2/3 majority of parliament can stop the law from passing or put in amendments.

Technically, this is meant for bypassing the EU commission. But of course, in reality it is for getting past the Danish and potential Belgian and Hungarian and other's vetoes. The commission really wants this.

3) council + commission. This completely overrides any legislative involvement in ... well, legislation. They have already threatened to do this.

4) the council can just force legislation through without anyone's approval

Normally "democracy" in the EU means that legislation requires BOTH a majority of Europeans to agree (Parliament) AND no executive government. Both have already been bypassed.

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). It means current scanning is illegal.

Just so we're clear, this basically means that all messengers (not any specific one) will have to intercept everyone's messages, scan for specific words, and if found report the whole chat history to the police.

Of course, it already turned out "BTW carrousel" (an illegal tax avoidance strategy) is one of the sentences they scan for to "protect the children".

The article itself also contains evidence against the idea that this protects children (that child protection investigations keep increasing despite the scanning not taking place anymore)

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#102
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.

It’s just design by committee bureaucracy and its members attend Bohemian Grove

I genuinely don’t think such folk have as much influence and power as everyone thinks. In my (direct) experience it’s just a complete mess and they’re reacting naively to every problem.

They’re fighting a battle against the real problem which is the paid up influence campaigns that give them problems to defend. Start at the press, the social media companies and the think tanks.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#103

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…

Also, another key fact to bring up here once again:

The institution that forced this through is the EU Council, the body that represents national governments and is composed of heads of government.

The reason they have to force it through and couldn't do 2.0 is because the EU Parliament stopped them.

In other words, it's the nation states that want this and the EU institutions that are blocking it, not the other way around as often framed online.

If not for the EU, a much worse version of this would already be law in the nation states.

You can see this play out in real-time in the UK, which has gone real dystopian ever since Brexit.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#104

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.

Ao is the prime minister in any country that adopts parliamentarism.

I am still to see as many people getting riled up about how those countries are not democratic.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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

I've never seen anyone ask for the dissolution of the EU in chat control threads, and I read every one of them.

What I see people (Europeans) lamenting is how undemocratic the EU is. As much as I think von der Leyen should be imprisoned, the issue is not the people in the government, but the institution itself. The Commission and the Council are the ones pushing these things, every time.

The people in government are bad, and there's no reason whatsoever to think that'll improve amy time soon: what prevents bad people from doing bad things is the regulatory apparatus of checks and balances, which the EU very much lacks (in parts, granted). Worse, it has introduced US style corruption (or "lobbying") into countries that historically lacked it.

If Chat Control 2.0 passes, given the general direction this would be showing, I'd very much understand people wanting to exit from the EU and cut the amount of undemocratic bullshit they have to contend with.

But to return to your point, when something people strongly reject happens in their country, they do, rightfully, advocate for the dissolution of that government. Much harder to do with unelected bureaucrats sheltering in another country.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#107
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ok, theres defo a lot of idiots on HN and in USA who disagree with you.

Still, kinda weird to complain about bureaucracy and regulations in this context cus its the only solution to these problems of egality and corruption which humanity has been struggling with ever since the dawn of civilisation.

Tho, It's kind of a solved problem too. We should all just try to be like Denmark, they at the top or near the top of practially every metric. Happiness, corruption index, Gini, Quality of life, healthcare, education, carbon. They have a massive powerful bureaucracy, lots of strong regulation, extremely high taxes, low corruption.

The solution to any eco-geo-political issue is just "be more like Denmark". Once everyone gets to that level we can think about further improvement.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#108
Hn is a goofy place. It feels like on odd days we see posts like this, about the EU creating this legal framework for the destruction of privacy. On even days we see posts about quitting American saas in favor of Europeans on the basis of privacy. Somehow the dots never connect.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#109
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s just design by committee bureaucracy and its members attend Bohemian Grove

I genuinely don’t think such folk have as much influence and power as everyone thinks. In my (direct) experience it’s just a complete mess and they’re reacting naively to every problem. They’re fighting a battle against the real problem which is the paid up influence campaigns that give them problems to defend. Start at the press, the social media companies and the think tanks.

They form these groups to network and do favors for each other and provide cover for each other. After a while you are asked to do increasingly compromising things to yourself to do deeper into/stay part of the club such as blood rituals. Bohemian Grove high priest Henry Kissinger led simulated animal sacrifice rituals attended by many others in the "inner circles" of the top strata of decision makers and wallet holders. They do this because engaging in a common taboo unites the group extremely strongly, and these behaviors are the ultimate taboo.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#110

Hn is a goofy place. It feels like on odd days we see posts like this, about the EU creating this legal framework for the destruction of privacy. On even days we see posts about quitting American saas in favor of Europeans on the basis of privacy. Somehow the dots never connect.

The dots connect very normally, politicians make mistakes. People need to protest against it.
Post reply on HN