141–150 of 278 posts
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…
Am I crazy or is this website not allowing me to opt out of cookie tracking unless I sign up for a subscription? I know the EU cookie banners have basically ruined the internet, but this seems like a whole 'nother level of obnoxious.
As a reminder "EU cookie banners" are not required if you use cookies for site functionality. They are only required if your site uses these to track users. This needs repeating, it's a common misconception (deliberately spread by many, too) that the EU requires cookie banners for all cookies.
> This shall not prevent any technical storage or access for the sole purpose of carrying out or facilitating the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network, or as strictly necessary in order to provide an information society service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user.
This is the reason why these are usually separated to "strictly necessary" and "functional" cookies. Functional cookies are things which enhance the functionality, but are not strictly necessary. These would generally include things like persistent cookie for language choice rather than just session one.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't the mere fact that the EU is trying to pass laws to erode privacy indicate that there is privacy to erode? The US doesn't need to pass such laws because there are no protections.
> The US doesn't need to pass such laws because there are no protections. The US desperately needs fundamental definitions and protections in regard to privacy, but the fact that it is extremely common for European countries to prosecute illegal speech and associations is a big difference. Americans are trying to defend themselves against the secondary effects of surveillance. Europeans can just jail you for saying m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Im pretty sure it is illegal. In my understanding, it must be equally easy to reject and accept. And the website MUST continue working under either choice. Which is not the case here. I think the lawmakers should have made all forms of tracking illegal instead. That would make law writing and following easier. And closer to the spirit of what they are trying to accomplish and what everyone wants (except you Silicon V…
I hate the tracking too. But how to websites monetize free content otherwise? Advertising doesn’t work if you can’t price it. Without tracking, everything becomes a paywall.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Something particularly ironic is that much of the EU's undemocratic nature comes from features designed specifically to prevent the EU from subsuming its member states. The best path to making Europe democratic again... would be a federal EU, with all the protections for individual member states stripped out, because member states are not a protected class . The Euroskeptics want to go about this backwards. They corr…
The EU is handicapped by its very diversity on this. Imagine the situation where the EU is integrated, and the government wants to pass Chat Control 2.0, or some equally unsavoury measure. Imagine that some people or orgs manage to whip up the people of the Netherlands into protesting in the streets against it: it's extremely unlikely that Poles or Spaniards would be able to build a protest movement on top of that, if they were even aware of it, because of language and national sentiment ("it's just some people over there being angry about whatever, and mainstream media says there's nothing to see there, or that they're evil terrorists, and I don't understand their funny language enough to check").
There are some promising moves towards a EU-wide party in Mera25 for example (if I understand it correctly), but it's ultimately a party for English-speaking, basically well-off, educated, currently left-leaning, young people, which is nothing that one can build a deep movement on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
> It would make moderation impossible otherwise. Why would you need to moderate private messages between users?
It's very common in some spaces to get people who send unwanted (spam/harassment/etc) DMs to tons of people. Just expecting everyone to block those people makes for a horrible user experience, because it means new users might be suddenly met by a bunch of unwanted DMs from aggressive randos that remain unbanned. You really need to be able to ban these people (and that means being able to verify that they did what they're accused of).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 pr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The criticism is about accountability, not whether the system is democratic. The UK pm and the POTUS are both ultimately accountable through elections. In the UK, a general election can change the government. In the US, people vote specifically for presidential electors, even if it’s through the Electoral College. The EU commission is different. People don’t vote for commissioners or the president, and they can’t vot…