211–220 of 282 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apart from the fact it can't make decisions. It can only propose; the decision is made by the EU parliament.
fortunately I don't think the average EU citizen could name a single member of the EU parliament
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every single democratic system relies on norms at some level. Democratic isn’t a boolean flag. When the French prime minister is using the 49-3 rule to bypass the parliament that’s undemocratic, that doesn’t make the system itself undemocratic. When a US president is using an executive order to pass a law that’s undemocratic, that doesn’t make the system itself undemocratic. Here the maneuver goes against the spirit…
>When a US president is using an executive order to pass a law An executive order isn't a law. It is an instruction for an executive branch agency or committee. https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/execu...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I understand it, chat platforms provider will not be held in violation of the data privacy laws if they add automatic detection and reporting of unlawful content to their platforms. E.G. a CSAM detector in a client app for an end-to-end-encrypted messaging service would be lawful.
Chat Control 1.0 is essentially the existing derogation that allowed cloud providers and messaging apps to do what they do in the rest of the world - voluntarily scan shared media against NCMEC hashes and novel CSAM image classifiers. We're not talking about E2EE here, we're talking people sharing CSAM on Kik, or Snapchat, or sending it via gmail, or uploading it to DropBox etc. etc.
The way legislation is expected to proceed in countries with parliamentary systems, especially with strong civil services, is that
1) a problem is identified. This can be the civil service detecting it on their own, petitioning from groups impacted by the problem (lobbying, the public etc).
2) The government prioritizes problems to solve according to political imperatives.
3) The civil service and/or parliamentary committees gather evidence on the problem and possible solutions.
4) the civil service and/or committee report on the issue. In practice this always finds the solution that the government wanted.
5) A bill is drafted based on the report.
6) The bill then proceeds through parliamentary committee, legislative votes, and whatever else is part of the lawmaking process.
When we see this issues fail, it's typically at step (6). But the problem still exists, and the issue is still on the agenda. It's still a priority to solve. So steps 4-6 are re-tried with different parameters that hopefully allow the bill to pass and the problem to be solved.
Just failing to pass parliament is not enough. You also need the political leadership to redirect their prioritization and implicit preferred solution.
I'm not saying this is good, just this is what happens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chat Control 1.0 is essentially the existing derogation that allowed cloud providers and messaging apps to do what they do in the rest of the world - voluntarily scan shared media against NCMEC hashes and novel CSAM image classifiers. We're not talking about E2EE here, we're talking people sharing CSAM on Kik, or Snapchat, or sending it via gmail, or uploading it to DropBox etc. etc.
It also allows inclusion of client side scanners in E2Ee messengers. It seems that nobody did it (yet), but as far as I can tell, it is within the scope ofthe exception.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They only have to win once. You have to win every time.
I want them to win. The internet is stupid right now. A culture eating its own tail.
So many comments about the EU constantly re-trying the same law with minor tweaks, and about how legislatures do this in general. I wanted to provide an explanation for this behaviour. The way legislation is expected to proceed in countries with parliamentary systems, especially with strong civil services, is that 1) a problem is identified. This can be the civil service detecting it on their own, petitioning from gr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every single democratic system relies on norms at some level. Democratic isn’t a boolean flag. When the French prime minister is using the 49-3 rule to bypass the parliament that’s undemocratic, that doesn’t make the system itself undemocratic. When a US president is using an executive order to pass a law that’s undemocratic, that doesn’t make the system itself undemocratic. Here the maneuver goes against the spirit…
If France has a way for the prime minister to bypass democracy that's undemocratic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s the council. We have to be clear which institution we are talking about within the EU, otherwise that doesn’t make any sense. The European Parliament already pushed back that proposal. The EU is made of a lot of different actors with their own agenda. Here the council, with the help of the EPP party is doing that undemocratic maneuvering: They made it on purpose so that the parliament is unlikely to be able to p…
> The European Parliament already pushed back that proposal. The EU is made of a lot of different actors with their own agenda. It doesn't matter how the European parliament voted. https://www.politico.eu/article/president-vs-parliament-robe...
Even if you are not in the EU, this will affect you. Some countries really like to copy such regulations from others. Once services starts complying, other governments will go like "if you did for them, you can do it for us, right? so it's not technically impossible", and things only get worse from there. Not all services will simply block the EU as well, which would be better to send a stronger message if approved.…
This is existing regulation being extended. It allows sites to scan messages. Not mandates. These kind of responses is why it is hard to trust privacy advocates on HN. They are high on rhetorics, but half the time dont know what they are talking about.
I did saw it was an extension of the 1.0. To my understanding, "allows to scan" can also mean enabling a pipeline for accepting requests of scanning lawful content because, well, they can. In practice, it creates a mechanism to crawl people's information because when they feel like. While the law do make it explicit that this 'allowance' should not be used for anything else outside of the scope, i can't trust they won't. Once the mechanism is there, and that is valid for other countries, it might be used for stuff outside this scope since it's possible.
I work in the ISP field, and this happened in another context. First, a pipeline was built to block sites without a judge, because doing it only with court orders made it to difficult. After a few months of many ISPs complying the scope grew, now they can target piracy websites at will, and you must comply. Why stop there?
My fear is that this sets an example. I hope I'm wrong, but i don't trust them. There's a reason it was rejected before and it is being passed like that now.