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

891–900 of 947 posts

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#891

Post by BrandoElFollito »

ktosobcy wrote: post #836
winterismute wrote: post #801

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree that this setup is not very good, the EU Commission is essentially the equivalent of a government in a parliamentary or presidential democracy, and almost all such democracies I know about either have or have developed "ways" for the government to "push through" the will of the "chamber(s)". However, we do not consider those as farces as well, or so it seems to me, I guess mostly because those governmen…

It's mindbogling how ignorant people are when it comes to how the EU is structured and how it works ;(

It's not. The EU for us Europeans is a vague institution, very far from our everyday lives.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#892

Post by hk__2 »

philipallstar wrote: post #786
hk__2 wrote: post #785

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Her name is von der Leyen. "Ursula" is fine for your friends, but it’s awkward for a public figure. Do you write "Donald" as well?

The "Awkward Police" is not a job.

"Snarky commenter" is not either.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#893

Post by lgvld »

gozucito wrote: post #840
flossly wrote: post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worse than a farce. It's actually evil. The way "they" are pushing chat control, and how Ursula is avoiding justice (she has a huge corruption case hanging over her head but manages continuously cancel court dates); this makes a all too clear. The only way to fix this is EU member states become more critical: but for politicians in those states an EU position is the best promotion they can make. So almost nobody…

Could you please give more detail about this for those of us less informed of EU things? What corrupt things has Ursula done? Or what has she been accused of, exactly? How long has she been cancelling court dates? Who is the engineer of all this evil? Her? Someone else?

> ver withdrawing a defeated proposal they can effectively and in pra

didn't know about it but apparently there was the Pfizergate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizergate

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#894

Post by mrtnmrtn »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #879
gozucito wrote: post #840

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you please give more detail about this for those of us less informed of EU things? What corrupt things has Ursula done? Or what has she been accused of, exactly? How long has she been cancelling court dates? Who is the engineer of all this evil? Her? Someone else?

> What corrupt things has Ursula done? Or what has she been accused of, exactly? I'm pretty sure that, for a start, backroom deals with Pfizer during the Covid pandemic. She's been accused of deleting evidence (like SMS) and pressuring companies to delete evidence if I'm not mistaken. I don't know what GP means exactly but the EU institutions are a special jurisdiction: for example a belgian policeman cannot go insid…

« I’m pretty sure that » and « if I’m not mistaken » are not words I’m glad to read on HN for such serious accusations. I’m far from being on the commission side on those cases and think that if you want to make a serious case you have to be more rigorous with the evidence and things you say

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#896

Post by Fnoord »

rayiner wrote: post #858
Fnoord wrote: post #844

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, classic, mixed EP with EC. Makes you wonder if he explained it correctly to his wife (American lawyer), or if she verified. I don't like the way US presidents are elected either, ignoring popular vote, and including gerrymandering. I also don't like how the US president is allowed to bypass Congress.

> he explained it correctly to his wife (American lawyer), or if she verified. Are you saying I am mixing it up now? My post acknowledged I had mixed it up before: given that the Commission is so powerful, I had thought it was comprised of the heads of state. I’m aware that’s not how it’s structured. I was explaining it to my wife because the reality is very complicated! > I don't like the way US presidents are elect…

> Are you saying I am mixing it up now?

That much was clear. I was saying this:

> Makes you wonder if he explained it correctly to his wife (American lawyer), or if she verified.

Still wondering.

> Most European countries avoid that by not directly electing their chief executive at all, and instead providing various ways for the party that controls the legislature to also control the executive.

Moot comparison. Most European countries don't have a two party system. As such, there is more cooperation and consensus between involved parties. They can also easily get rid of the leader of the country, should they opt for it. Now, compare that to GOP and Trump.

> But in practice he’s very powerful if his party also controls the National Assembly

Yes, I am aware. Don't like it. Don't like IRV either. France doesn't do very well in Democracy Index (not terrible either, slightly better than USA pre-Trump IIRC).

I prefer the way the Scandinavian countries, and in lesser extend The Netherlands and Switzerland deal with politics. You can also notice these countries do very well in indices such as Democracy Indez or freedom of press ones.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#897

Post by lou1306 »

rayiner wrote: post #834
lou1306 wrote: post #740

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Council must go at some point. It is a "legislative" body... composed of members of the _executive_ branch of the individual countries. Granted, that's not the only problem with EU governance, but it is a rather glaring anomaly in terms of transparency and accountability. Furthermore, at least in the case of Italy & other parliamentary systems, there's something like 3 levels of indirection between the people and…

Why not just have two bodies like every other parliamentary system? Europeans elect an MP and each member state elects a Senator. Then the majority party in the Parliament appoints a Prime Minister, who can appoint a cabinet. Nobody is more than two steps away from an elected position.

That makes perfect sense indeed, although personally I'd prefer two senators per state. But since the EU as a political union is an afterthought of an economic union, it's full of loose ends like this. Also, national governments will be very reluctant to give up this kind of power.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#898

Post by lou1306 »

fosk wrote: post #753
lou1306 wrote: post #740

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Council must go at some point. It is a "legislative" body... composed of members of the _executive_ branch of the individual countries. Granted, that's not the only problem with EU governance, but it is a rather glaring anomaly in terms of transparency and accountability. Furthermore, at least in the case of Italy & other parliamentary systems, there's something like 3 levels of indirection between the people and…

How are we going to change it? They are simply going to pass a second-reading on a proposal to bring it back and use the same trick over and over again. All it takes is for one person to be "sick" at home for them to get it their way. The EU voters have practically gifted their future to a bunch of technocrats. Over time (decades), it will get worse too, as inevitably power corrupts them more and more. The EU is simp…

"The EU" is a loose term. At least in _some_ cases (such as this one), the Parliament has shown more attention to the voters. I'll concede that the deck is stacked against it, but this reflects a common trend in the West of overpowering the executive branch at the expense of the representative bodies.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#899

Post by sylware »

exfalso wrote: post #793
sylware wrote: post #720

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And your REALLY think E2E is going to "protect" you? If the "services" want to watch, don't worry they will, "they don't need your password". But I guess they "do" that only for the very baddies, aka child exploitation, human trafficking, terrorists, killers, drug dealers, etc. We all know here that "information system security" does not exist, this is a fantasy: there is only some "best effort" with a wide spectrum…

What are you talking about. You think service providers can backdoor aes-gcm? There will always be technology that they cannot get around. The only way to backdoor is to explicitly change the encryption.

Are you misunderstanding on purpose?

This is not specific to 'backdooring aes-gcm implementations' at all. Read again what I wrote, namely this is the general status quo on 'information system security': they don't need your password or aes-gcm key to watch if they really want to. You would be a fool to presume anything else.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#900

Post by izacus »

flumpcakes wrote: post #761
izacus wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really want governments, Apple or Google to build databases of CSAM, thank you :/

It already exists. Most CSAM tools are checking against a hash database. Why would you NOT want this to exist? This seems the only method to not raise false positives.

Let's delete it then.

Why? Because I don't want such pictures to be kept or archived by anyone. This isn't hard.

Post reply on HN