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

EU member states still cannot agree about end-to-end encryption

cyberlaw.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 154 posts

Re: EU member states still cannot agree about end-to-end encryption

#101

Post by mrtksn »

mannerheim wrote: post #99
mrtksn wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's complex, they can be sued or funding can get cut but EU is not like the USA. It's more like a club where the countries come together to decide how to do things and then they implement local laws to do it. They are not hostile countries brought together by force, the hostilities are usually between neighbours and EU acts as a way to resolve them. For example, countries close to the borders see large refugee influ…

If they can be sued for it, I wouldn't say it's accurate to say they can continue opposing it. Even cut funding, if they still have to contribute funds to the EU, would be coercive.

You miss the point, they can be sued after agreeing to it but not implementing it.

For example, let's say Poland agreed to GDPR but they went ahead and made itself a hub for data brokers with no respect to GDPR, then Poland gets sued and funds cut. Poland doesn't get sued or funds cut if they voted against GDPR and blocking it in first place.

Re: EU member states still cannot agree about end-to-end encryption

#102

Post by mannerheim »

izacus wrote: post #84
mannerheim wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can the EU sanction countries for not complying?

Yes. But having local polititians whine against EU regulation and then vote for it is a common pattern to get easy wins with easily led people like the original posters here.

What if politicians who voted for an EU regulation get voted out? Would politicians who opposed the regulation have no choice but to comply or leave if the majority of EU countries continued supporting it?

Re: EU member states still cannot agree about end-to-end encryption

#103

Post by DocTomoe »

Xelbair wrote: post #32
bestouff wrote: post #4

Who cares ? AFAIK the parliament is against snooping, so it won't pass.

because they keep trying again and again, ad nauseam?

It's the EU way of doing things. Data retention gets killed by courts every year, and every year a new iteration is being proposed by politicians.

Remember the Lisbon Treaty, which necessitated a referendum in Ireland - which was repeated until the politically desired result was in.

Re: EU member states still cannot agree about end-to-end encryption

#105

Post by mrtksn »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #77
mrtksn wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It freaks me out to the point that I rather have my country leave the EU. What makes you think that your country’s politicians don’t want that but some people in Brussels are forcing it? Those people in Brussels are just people from all the countries, including yours. You also vote them in. The desire of governments controlling the population is universal.

I didn't vote for Ursula, and if the shit gets really really bad, our government is a few kilometers away from where I'm now, and modern pitchfork analogs are easy to find.

She is appointed by the MPs you elected, in a similar manner with the British Prime minister.

Re: EU member states still cannot agree about end-to-end encryption

#106

Post by orwin »

rdm_blackhole wrote: post #86
mrtksn wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fun fact, the American president and the British prime ministers are also not elected. If you like to argue over technicalities, we can do that.

I am not a citizen of the UK nor from the US, if this system is enough for you, then by all means feel free to disagree. In my book an elected official is someone who was voted in office. If you are not elected then you are appointed. If you are appointed you do not need to be accountable because the people cannot revoke your mandate nor can they vote you out. To me it seems inconceivable that someone who was appoint…

Your ministers are appointed, no?

Re: EU member states still cannot agree about end-to-end encryption

#107

Post by sakjur »

robertlagrant wrote: post #74
devjab wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brexit didn’t really help in terms of privacy though, the UK being one of the leading western anti-encryption countries politically. At least within the EU you have the chance of having at least one member state be an adult about it and realise that mass surveillance won’t work out the way they hope.

Well, the UK government could still introduce a law of their own anyway. Unless you're saying the EU would've created an EU-wide law that mandated that member states couldn't do it, but that seems very unlikely based on what we know of the EU.

They kind of have one. The charter of fundamental rights of the EU contains privacy protections that has been used to shoot down at least the data retention directive and IIRC the EU-US data transfer frameworks.

It’s possible that the CJEU strikes down a chat control-style law based on that charter, but preferably we don’t have to test that.

Re: EU member states still cannot agree about end-to-end encryption

#108

Post by mrtksn »

SenAnder wrote: post #92
mrtksn wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are appointed by the elected(the governments of the countries and the European Parliament, which are all elected). When you say it like "they are not elected but appointed", you make it sound like some 3rd party is appointing them and you have no power on it but those who appoint the members of EC are the members of EP(elected every 5 years) and the national governments(elected accordingly to the local laws). If…

> They are appointed by the elected The more indirect the method is, the more control shifts from voters to lobbyists and insiders versed in the system.

IMHO that’s about centralization of power, not the directness.

How many businessmen you see going around and promoting EU? if it’s that easy to influence they should love it.

Here’s a quote from Anthony Hilton about the media magnate Murdock:

I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. ‘That’s easy,’ he replied. ‘When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.’”

Re: EU member states still cannot agree about end-to-end encryption

#109

Post by mrtksn »

mannerheim wrote: post #102
izacus wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. But having local polititians whine against EU regulation and then vote for it is a common pattern to get easy wins with easily led people like the original posters here.

What if politicians who voted for an EU regulation get voted out? Would politicians who opposed the regulation have no choice but to comply or leave if the majority of EU countries continued supporting it?

The newcomers will have to start a new movement and make EU change it or exit EU. EU is very bad if your country suddenly wants to be a something completely different for a few years for example, it’s much more accommodating to gradual changes over the years.

Suddenly you decide that you want to collect all the private data online and sell it to the highest bidder? Decided that cancerogenic chemicals in the food are cool? It’s not going to happen fast.

Re: EU member states still cannot agree about end-to-end encryption

#110

Post by Arnt »

rdm_blackhole wrote: post #97
Arnt wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A quick glance at Wikipedia suggests that the main sponsor is Ylva Johansson, who is not presently an elected politician, because she stepped down in 2019 after being a member of the swedish parliament for 13 continuous years, for this party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Party_(Sweden) I have the impression that this is often the case: EC members are recruited from members of national parliament, ministers and…

Small reminder that the left party described in your comment is actually formerly known as the communist party in Sweden and that they supported during WW2 the invading soviet forces vs Finland. That may explain why she is interested in bringing this legislation forward. I think privacy is not at the forefront of preoccupations for communists.

When I grew up (far north in Norway) it was said that filling out a membership form in the communist party would get your phone tapped at once. She's older than I am and I'd be surprised of the Swedes treated their communists any different in first 30 years of her life.

Anyway, my point is that she's been repeatedly elected. She didn't get her present job in an election, but someone who's won three elections in a row recently is democratically legitimate, even if the current job isn't directly elected.

Post reply on HN