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

151–160 of 278 posts

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#151

Post by mdp2021 »

vrganj wrote: post #89
mdp2021 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Kindly explain why some platforms have issued notice that access would be restricted pending age verification. To my inquiries, that is owing to the DSA. Was I fed wrong information? Where, in which part?

And, about «precisely the misinformation I mentioned earlier»: you think this infomess was caused by foreign agents, instead of internal european lack of clarity?

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#152

Post by einsteinx2 »

greenavocado wrote: post #109
cryo32 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hold…

> They do this because engaging in a common taboo unites the group extremely strongly, and these behaviors are the ultimate taboo.

This last sentence immediately made me think of Epstein’s island and the “ultimate taboo” they were engaging in there.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#153

Post by munksbeer »

mr_toad wrote: post #46
stavros wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, we don't tolerate it, that's why it hasn't passed yet. They keep trying, though.

The power of the European Commission to propose legislation needs to be curbed or removed entirely. Executive agencies shouldn’t be writing legislation. It’s far to easy for them to propose laws that benefit the the European Commission, rather than benefiting Europeans.

You're blaming the wrong people and making this worse.

The article is literally about the EU Council, the elected heads of states of all the EU nations. The elected leaders of the EU nations really, really want chat control. The Commission has nothing to do with this.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#154

Post by constantius »

philjohn wrote: post #141
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…

IIRC they used to catch a lot of child groomers by scanning messages.

Would be interested in seeing your sources for this. I've yet to see evidence that this has the significant upsides that would, definitely not justify, but at least explain, the push towards limiting fundamental freedoms.

There's a reason "who will think of the children" is ridiculed: there's no evidence that this is the intent or that there are outcomes. Everything I've read to date shows that surveillance is not effective in curbing CSAM, that the people (and especially organised crime) that engage into such activity are not using plain text and twitter to talk to each other, that those solutions that are known to have outcomes are not being invested in or enforced, etc.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#155

Post by mdp2021 »

CrisMystik wrote: post #88
joe_mamba wrote: post #78

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

> but would they ask for the dissolution of their national state if a similar law was passed in their national parliament? I think no

?! Yes. Well, to some of us maybe not yet chat control given some proper well conceived legislation. But age verification, yes, may be one of the reasons to ask for dissolution.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#156

Post by munksbeer »

spwa4 wrote: post #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…

>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.

Excuse me? That is quite an assertion. You're saying the EU Commission, the civil servants appointed by the EU Council, are somehow controlling the EU Council to push this agenda?

I don't believe that is true. Please provide evidence.

In the article, it talks explicitly about this being driven by the heads of state.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#157

Post by rpdillon »

Lio wrote: post #54
petcat wrote: post #7

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.

It's not EU cookie banners that have ruined the internet, it's malicious compliance and dark pattens on behalf of those that want to track you.

The result matters, which is why regulations should be considered carefully. The whole cookie fiasco is exactly that: they created a whole industry of shitty compliance and the rules are complex enough that every engineering team is like "just use the off-the-shelf shitty thing". And here we are.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#158

Post by [deleted] »

Ray20 wrote: post #135
sph wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is it with Danish Social Democrats and wanting to enact mass surveillance at any cost?

Isn't this natural for any "Social" ideologies? They imply a system of centralized redistribution, which implies a powerful repressive apparatus and an omnipresent surveillance system.

[deleted]

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#159

Post by mdp2021 »

pessimizer wrote: post #131
mdp2021 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should elaborate. And explain what you understood as "its intended purpose". My understanding of the vote last Friday was about protracting the 2021 temporary compromise (scan voluntarily until we have a full law), which was suspended at the beginning of April. It is not clear how they proceeded that way. It seems some vertices imposed that they would not accept a legal vacuum there. So, it's not a "law". What ra…

I regret to inform you that a temporary exception to a law is also a law. edit: > It seems some vertices imposed that they would not accept a legal vacuum there. I find this sentence unintelligible. Can you come up with another wording? And who are these "vertices" who have been given approval rights over EU legislation?

> to inform you that

What would that entail.

> who are these "vertices"

Apparently metsola, to some source. The eu parliament refused to renew the temporary licence to private message monitoring, which had the "speaker" complain that this would just leave the union with a normative vacuum - apparently insisting that one non-temporary regulation has to be decided. So I read.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#160

Post by wartywhoa23 »

NooneAtAll3 wrote: post #129
flumpcakes wrote: post #82

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?

the opposite question - why is it legal and was made legal? it's unconstitutional in most places to read letters - same thing should be applied to other form of communication as well

You're most likely replying to a professional Overton window mover.
Post reply on HN