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

221–230 of 278 posts

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#221

Post by buzer »

eumember wrote: post #217
buzer wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's called "pay-or-okay" (or "consent-or-pay") and there hasn't been many decisions on it yet which has led noyb to sue German DPAs: https://noyb.eu/en/years-inactivity-pay-or-ok-cases-noyb-sue... There is one case where DPA ruled in favor of the company, but it's currently being appealed: https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-ok-der-spiegel-noyb-sues-hamburg-d... Another one ruled against company and court agreed: https://noyb…

According to GDPR it’s illegal to condition content on tracking approval. This is VERY clear if you read the law. I can’t understand why this has become very popular to do just recently.

Personally I do agree, but enforcement is unfortunately behind DPAs and it's pretty clear that they are trying to avoid ruling on it.

In theory someone could directly sue some company which engages on this via Article 79, but this can be expensive and depending on jurisdiction the plaintiff can end up with personal liability on defendant's legal costs if court ends up finding that this is actually legal (e.g. Finland has "loser pays" rule in civil suits).

Additionally this does also touch ePD and in some countries there might be different agency which handles ePD complaints compared to GDPR, like in Finland Data Protection Ombudsman handles GDPR, but Transport and Communications Agency (Traficom) handles ePD. If there is something that touches both the Ombudsman usually lets Traficom take care of ePD aspects before they give any GDPR ruling. Both of these can take years.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#222

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

int_19h wrote: post #194
flumpcakes wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the article is biased. The simple fact is that a law that existed since 2011 and expired in April is now back in effect. So we are back where we were on February. I don't remember moving from an anti-democratic hell scape to serene democratic beauty back in April so it's probably a nothing-burger. I often see news articles that trade on the fact the general populace aren't professional bureaucrats and so fram…

Perhaps your democracy has been in decline for some time now?

But why should we think EU democracy is in decline in the first place? Is there some evidence that EU citizens oppose CSAM scanning and political institutions aren't responsive to that? I'm not an expert, but my understanding from polls and such is that CSAM scanning generally has popular support, and the only reason it's controversial is the passionate advocacy and lobbying of privacy groups. (Of course, that's not necessarily anti-democratic, if the privacy groups have important information about Chat Control they think the general public might not have realized.)

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#223

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

sharken wrote: post #202
JensRantil wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for clarifying this!

Indeed, reusing "Chat Control" and giving it a new meaning is a surefire way to cause confusion. And the underhanded way of trying to get something as controversial as this to pass, says a lot about the politicians pushing this agenda. Chat Control is about allowing mass surveillance and removing privacy, no should be the obvious answer here.

I think you're misunderstanding something here. "Chat Control" is a term invented and popularized by privacy groups who oppose any scanning of private chats for any purpose; any confusion caused by having the same term refer to different things has to be laid at their feet, although they argue it's appropriate because any kind of scanning is abusable in basically the same ways. The people who support scanning private chats don't use the term "Chat Control".

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#224

Post by vsl »

munksbeer wrote: post #156
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.…

Yes, in EU the Commission proposes legislation: https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/planning...

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

Did you miss that the article talks explicitly about it being in the second reading already?

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#225

Post by Yokolos »

embedding-shape wrote: post #196
Yokolos wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think the European wealthy are innocent of pedophilia? What about Prince Andrew? This goes far beyond just the current US administration.

> You think the European wealthy are innocent of pedophilia? You think children should be executed in the streets? Neither of us said any such thing, why ask that as a question even? My only point being that Epstein himself doesn't seem related to EU Council, based on facts, while he was very close friend of the current sitting US president, and the whole thing is still being actively swept under the rug by the US Ju…

If you don't think the EU and European governments are sweeping the same shit under the rug, I have a bridge to sell you.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#226

Post by impossiblefork »

Rexxar wrote: post #165
sunaookami wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You see an article about how the EU tries to force a law after it got struck down by forcing it through with a legal trick and all you can think of is how any comment that critizes this is propaganda? Get a grip

EU doesn't tries to force a law. Some politicians does. EU is just a group of institutions.

It's strongly connected to the structure of the EU though, and the weak control that voters have over appointments to the commission, and every level of indirection is one at which the appointer can be influenced.

If EU institutions are used to push this sort of thing, we must treat that as what they are for. Systems do not get a pass because someone external is 'using them', but must be treated holistically.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#227

Post by impossiblefork »

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

A system is responsible for anything that happens when it is permitted to operate.

You can't separate the EU from what people use it to do.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#228

Post by gib444 »

jwr wrote: post #57
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.

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.

As a reminder, legislative bodies have responsibility for (supposed) unintended consequences too.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#229

Post by jasonvorhe »

embedding-shape wrote: post #181
jasonvorhe wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If any of this was about protecting children, that Epstein thing wouldn't have been buried and forgotten already.

The whole Epstein sage is very closely tied to the current US administration, I haven't seen much of it being tied to anything about the EU Council. I think you might confuse the government ties Epstein had, at least the ones we knew about.

Ahh, to be that naive again. Those were the times. One definitely sleeps better.

If you haven't done any digging, don't make such claims. This is a network that goes way beyond the current US administration. I'm sorry you're still trusting whatever media you consume.

(I'm not gonna debate this. It's not that difficult to find some investigative research on this.)

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#230

Post by Double_a_92 »

flumpcakes wrote: post #213
julienreszka wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no there is no reason to scan communications.

The most obvious answer: to stop CSAM being shared on large platforms. Cloudflare has a tool that does it for some of their services.

Just because it's criminal, it doesn't mean that every private entity has to help to prevent it at costs of your privacy.

If there are people that host parties in their homes to share CSAM, does that mean that it should be mandatory to install surveillance cameras in your house?

Also as if people that are seriously sharing CSAM, wouldn't encrypt the data before sharing it.

Post reply on HN