Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

patrick-breyer.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

811–820 of 947 posts

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#811

Post by rayiner »

zkmon wrote: post #748
fosk wrote: post #719

The EU is a farce, an undemocratic virtue signaling organization, and this is why: - The Parliament voted against the first reading of this proposal twice in 2026, the first time they only supported limited cases for it, while the second time they actually defeated it fully. - The Commission didn't care, and kept the proposal on the table by refusing to withdraw it. - Once the Commission does that, the proposal goes…

Some folks (mostly Americans) tend to think that their laws, their definitions of terms like "democracy", their beliefs, their norms, their culture - are all universal. You need to specify which EU laws does this violate. "undemocratic" by your definition. There is no universally precise definition of "democratic". Because I'm sure EU council knows how to be democratic by their own definition of the term. They have a…

> Some folks (mostly Americans) tend to think that their laws, their definitions of terms like "democracy", their beliefs, their norms, their culture - are all universal.

The American system was mostly cribbed from Europeans to begin with. Montesquieu, etc. The structure of the EU is bizarre according to the principles of democratic governance articulated by Europeans themselves.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#812

Post by CrisMystik »

Vinnl wrote: post #805
CrisMystik wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The urgency procedure is not the issue here, the problem is that this was Parliament's second reading, and the treaties (article 294 TFEU) say: > Second reading > 7. If, within three months of such communication, the European Parliament: > (a) approves the Council's position at first reading or has not taken a decision, the act concerned shall be deemed to have been adopted in the wording which corresponds to the pos…

It was the second reading, but was it also treated as such? (Because if so, it sounds like this would have been a rejection?) If not, what is the steelmanned reason for doing so?

Yes, it was the second reading; because of that, the motion for rejecting the Council common position was not approved, since it received a majority, but not an absolute majority, of votes

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#813

Post by dwedge »

Roark66 wrote: post #790
pfortuny wrote: post #771

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That summurizes it pretty well. The Commission is essentially omnipotent, and there is no relevat judiciary to stop it. This is farcical. Yes, from a PURELY MONETARY viewpoint, Brexit was a disaster. But there are more important things than money. I'm from Spain btw.

Exactly, also the ECJ is horribly corrupt (search for the corruption scandal revealed by a French journalist few years ago). Nothing happened back them. This will never become law in my country(Poland). Last time they tried to push it people protested in the millions.

> This will never become law in my country(Poland)

I'm sorry to tell you, but if the choice becomes lose EU funding or pass it into law, it will happen.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#814

Post by rayiner »

izacus wrote: post #639
rayiner wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow does it become law if the majority of those present opposed it? The American Congress might be utterly dysfunctional, but we’ve never had a law pass despite the majority of members voting against it. What am I missing?

The fact that there was a second vote on a modified law which passed.

Did it pass because a majority voted for it?

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#815

Post by rayiner »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #521
rayiner wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, but couldn’t a more transparent and accountable structure have accomplished the same result? Why do you need a system with seven different bodies, more than one of which can make what’s effectively laws? For example, why have an elected parliament that can’t even originate law, but an unelected commission that can make regulations that are effectively laws?

That's implementation details though; one can absolutely think that "EU is a good idea" and "specific EU systems need improving" simultaneously, without contradiction. It's like thinking "I like Canada and am a proud Canadian, though I think there's still a lot of inequality and many policies can be improved upon and we can certainly be more efficient".

I understand, but my question is directed to the second point. Even assuming people like the EU in principle, it's constitutional structure seems bizarre and in need of major reform, at least from my American viewpoint. But there doesn't seem to be any movement to "mend it, don't end it." Do most EU supporters also think the constitutional structure of the EU is fine as-is?

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#816

Post by rayiner »

pfortuny wrote: post #771
fosk wrote: post #719

The EU is a farce, an undemocratic virtue signaling organization, and this is why: - The Parliament voted against the first reading of this proposal twice in 2026, the first time they only supported limited cases for it, while the second time they actually defeated it fully. - The Commission didn't care, and kept the proposal on the table by refusing to withdraw it. - Once the Commission does that, the proposal goes…

That summurizes it pretty well. The Commission is essentially omnipotent, and there is no relevat judiciary to stop it. This is farcical. Yes, from a PURELY MONETARY viewpoint, Brexit was a disaster. But there are more important things than money. I'm from Spain btw.

I tried to explain to my wife (American lawyer) how the EU Commissioners are selected and she told me "I'm not having fun understanding this." I had thought it was just the heads of government from each member state. That would make sense given the immense power of the body. But that's apparently not how it works.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#817

Post by inigyou »

BSDobelix wrote: post #229
inigyou wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It still is. Countries can ignore EU laws if they want to.

I'm not sure what you try to achieve: >For example, Poland was hit with massive daily fines when it was embroiled in a dispute over rule of law measures, as well as a separate case linked to environmental permits at a coal mine on the Czech border. >The Commission is allowed to take these fines out of that country’s EU budget allocation, preventing governments from simply refusing to pay up. https://www.brusselstimes…

they can subtract the same amount from what they pay towards the EU, and then what?

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#818

Post by inigyou »

ywvcbk wrote: post #705
inigyou wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a fallacy by default. The existence and slipperiness of the slope must be justified to make it not a fallacy.

In plenty of cases it's absolutely self evident (especially when there are plenty of historical precedents for similar or analogous situations). Yes you can get involved in extended arguments with people arguing in bad faith or whose world view is fundamentally incompatible with your but that's usually just a waste of time (I mean you wouldn't argue with Nazis either just the same as with people trying to institute a…

"it's absolutely self evident" is usually code for "I have no evidence so you must take this on faith"

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#819

Post by inigyou »

okamiueru wrote: post #60
inigyou wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It still remains true that Mark Zuckerberg will get arrested if he is caught using the data for anything other than child porn scans.

I am not sure if the absurdity of that statement is intentional, or a result of just how far the Overton window has drifted. First of all, private companies shouldn't be given that responsibility to begin with. Meta in particular, has a long history of unethical and immoral usage of personal data. I won't use the term "illegal", as the question of legality becomes moot when punishment can be factored in as a cost of…

Western Europe is a place where the political structures, for better or worse (mainly worse) still trust people to follow the law. Much EU politics makes more sense with this in mind. They consider a law saying "you may only use this capability to scan for child porn" to be a barrier against other uses, the same way they consider a law saying "you must get the user's consent before setting a tracking cookie" to prevent anyone from setting a tracking cookie without consent. They don't feel a need for hard fences like "chat must be encrypted" or "browsers must disable cookies on every website by default" because they consider the soft law to be an adequate solution.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#820

Post by Eueudhsbsj32 »

kypro wrote: post #732
Eueudhsbsj32 wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is the "political class" of the EU? In the US, it seems more obvious how corporate money pulls the political strings, but my impression is that corporate influence is a lot weaker in Europe..

> Who is the "political class" of the EU? Highly educated people, often from wealthy backgrounds, who are very globally orientated. They are generally not representative of the average person in Europe. They are the people who European government appoints. > In the US, it seems more obvious how corporate money pulls the political strings, but my impression is that corporate influence is a lot weaker in Europe.. I agr…

> I agree, but not sure that directly contradicts what I said?

I wasn't disagreeing with you; I just added that to explain why it wasn't obvious who the political class is there because their incentives are more opaque to me.

What do you think is the main reason these highly educated people act against the interests of the common people?

For example with Chat Control, are they worried about preventing populism from taking hold? Or do they personally gain something financially?

Post reply on HN