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

The disguised return of EU Chat Control

reclaimthenet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 354 posts

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#101

Post by hcurtiss »

frogperson wrote: post #37
andybak wrote: post #35

This is an asymmetric conflict. The factions who want this to pass have more resources, time and background influence and can keep pushing this until they get lucky. And once in place repealing it will be tremendously difficult. How does society resolve this kind of abuse of the democratic process? It is a dynamic that is repeated in many areas.

We stop allowing the rich to become so rich. Billionares are not compatible with democracy or the greater good.

It seems more likely to me this is being pressed by intelligence agencies than billionaires. Billionaires have secrets too.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#102

Post by egorfine »

HPsquared wrote: post #39
andybak wrote: post #35

This is an asymmetric conflict. The factions who want this to pass have more resources, time and background influence and can keep pushing this until they get lucky. And once in place repealing it will be tremendously difficult. How does society resolve this kind of abuse of the democratic process? It is a dynamic that is repeated in many areas.

Constitutions are a pretty common way to say "no to this kind of thing".

Constitutions have a lot of "except in cases prescribed by the law" exceptions which makes it possible to pass into law all kinds of abuses.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#103

Post by dspillett »

xxs wrote: post #59
yoz-y wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. It seems that the only way out is to elect a government that would have that on their program. Dubious that this will happen.

Governments don't change constitutions pretty much anywhere. More also constitution changes are notoriously hard from requiring 75% of parliament votes, to 66% in two consecutive parliament assemblies (need to pass an election), and all versions in-between (or not having a codified constitution).

> Governments don't change constitutions pretty much anywhere.

They do sometimes manage to just ignore parts that they don't like sometimes, at least temporarily, as the recent and continuing mess in the DPR-US illustrates.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#104

Post by egorfine »

whitehexagon wrote: post #69
andybak wrote: post #35

This is an asymmetric conflict. The factions who want this to pass have more resources, time and background influence and can keep pushing this until they get lucky. And once in place repealing it will be tremendously difficult. How does society resolve this kind of abuse of the democratic process? It is a dynamic that is repeated in many areas.

>How does society resolve this kind of abuse of the democratic process? Swiss style democracy with public referendums?

"Think of the children" buys a lot of votes of common people.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#105

Post by iso1631 »

blibble wrote: post #79
andybak wrote: post #35

This is an asymmetric conflict. The factions who want this to pass have more resources, time and background influence and can keep pushing this until they get lucky. And once in place repealing it will be tremendously difficult. How does society resolve this kind of abuse of the democratic process? It is a dynamic that is repeated in many areas.

> And once in place repealing it will be tremendously difficult. as in: not possible the EU parliament can't legislate to remove it, at least not without permission from the two organs (commission, council) that keep pushing this EU parliament is the only legislature in the world that needs permission to legislate

On paper the UK house of commons can pass a bill. In reality bills are driven by the executive. The same executive that (until brexit) drove the bills via appointing the EU commissioner and being the EU council.

The reason that EU Parliament can't pass bills is because constituent governments don't want to lose power to parliament.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#106

Post by thewebguyd »

impossiblefork wrote: post #77
frogperson wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We stop allowing the rich to become so rich. Billionares are not compatible with democracy or the greater good.

It's too bad we can't withdraw our votes for a politician continuously, with the politician having to leave office if the vote changes enough. I'm not sure it can be solved without everybody writing down their vote, but this would be one way that would make pushing through unpopular policies, whether because of changing opinions, mismatches where politicians misrepresent their plans or corruption, much more difficult…

If not continuously, there needs to be mechanisms to recall a politician (or an entire government), and re-hold elections for both failing to govern and failing to represent the interests of the people over the interest of billionaires.

To use the recent US shutdown as an example. Passing a budget is like one of the basic requirements of governing. If the current government cannot accomplish that, it should immediately dissolve and elections be held. Every single position in power at the time, gone, the whole thing gets re-elected because they have proven that the current group cannot adequately govern.

The ability to recall needs to work similarly. Vote should be able to be initiated by the people at anytime, and a successful vote means the government dissolves and new elections are held.

We could also have a "cooling off" period after a piece of legislation (like chat control) fails. It failed the first time, it should not be able to be immediately reintroduced whether in the same or a different form. There should be some sort of cooling off period where that piece of legislation (or its goals) cannot be reintroduced for x number of years.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#107

Post by hn_acc1 »

lazide wrote: post #83
eptcyka wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Billionaires inherently get political power. When they’re more socially adept than Musk, they can even have the power without having the plebs notice.

Yup, going full autist in public is a good way to get the public angry at you and try to find a way to make your life more difficult.

You mean, going full asshole. Not all autists are assholes.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#108

Post by karhuton »

pcrh wrote: post #53

The right to privacy is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, article 8 [0]. It escapes me how politicians can repeatedly attempt to violate this. [0] https://fra.europa.eu/en/law-reference/european-convention-h...

”2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right EXCEPT such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

Are we reading the same thing?

This linked statement clearly authorizes invasion of privacy by public authorities, in the name of any of the very vaguely listed reasons – as long as there’s some law to allow it.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#109

Post by egorfine »

alex1138 wrote: post #60
andybak wrote: post #35

This is an asymmetric conflict. The factions who want this to pass have more resources, time and background influence and can keep pushing this until they get lucky. And once in place repealing it will be tremendously difficult. How does society resolve this kind of abuse of the democratic process? It is a dynamic that is repeated in many areas.

This is true and yet we managed to kick SOPA to the curb (one of Aaron Swartz's finest hours)

Did you notice that SOPA reappears every couple of years since then?

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#110

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

dns_snek wrote: post #70
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How does society resolve this kind of abuse of the democratic process? It is a dynamic that is repeated in many areas. A lot of society wants this. A lot of parents are asking for this.

Please quantify "a lot". What percentage of the population wants all private communication between adults to be monitored and censored by a government agency? Can we put it to a vote - right after publicly discussing (debunking) all of the false beliefs that its proponents have?

The question that is at the core is “police can wire tap calls but they cannot wire tap chats. Should this change?” The details are not all that important to people.
Post reply on HN