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

111–120 of 154 posts

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

#111

Post by zigzag312 »

fer wrote: post #10
roenxi wrote: post #2

> “Ideally, in our view,” they say, “it would be desirable to legislatively prevent EU-based service providers from implementing end-to-end encryption.” - Spain It is hard to even comment on in idea that extreme. The rest of us are lucky the EU has failed so comprehensively at establishing a global tech presence.

Spain has been traditionally and particularly idiotic about tech legislation. Some examples: - There was (and is) a fee on every CD-R, DVD-R, BR-R, hard drive, SSD, printer... as a "just in case it happens to store/copy copyright-protected material at some point ever" fee [0]. - They forced link aggregators to pay newspapers/sites for linking to their content, even just using their tags. [1]. So such insane statement…

What would you say about a yearly fee per every employee, if company owns a multifunctional printer? Also in EU.

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

#112

Post by mariusor »

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?

Every legislative body has the option to try again on things they want to pass as we've seen in the US in the past year. At least the council doesn't have the capability to pass the laws without the cooperation of the EU parliament.

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

#113

Post by throwaway60722 »

sakjur wrote: post #98
rdm_blackhole wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Is there any country that directly elects their government and its ministers? The commission is appointed by the European council (i.e. prime ministers and presidents of the member states) and approved by the parliament (your directly elected representatives). They _should_ absolutely be held accountable in the same way we hold ministers accountable in the member states.

Yes, most EU countries directly elect the parliament and the government is formed from the parliament members - usually the winning party/coalition, but not always. In some it's a tradition that the winning party leader gets the first shot at getting their cabinet approved by the parliament, then a second shot, and if they can't do it the president appoints somebody else.

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

#114

Post by mrmanner »

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…

> and not have to defend it

The commission has to defend their suggestions or they won't make it through council and parliament. And if an individual commissioner is only delivering suggestions that get voted down, they're not likely to get reappointed.

Is there room for improvement? Sure. Is this specific suggestion a complete piece of trash? Sure. Will that be different if we have some kind of presidential election on the EU level? Not so sure.

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

#115

Post by hellojesus »

rdm_blackhole wrote: post #81
varispeed wrote: post #68

What EU is afraid of if they think they need Stasi level of surveillance? Many Europeans still remember the dark times before 1989. Why there is a need to come back to it?

Because people don't care and governments can't help themselves wanting more power. It's sad state of affair. Like you say this is the Stasi's wet dream coming to fruition. Soon , they'll expand it to wrong-think and who knows maybe disable your device if you dare criticize the EU or someone in power. I mean why stop at CSAM right? Any other reason will work. It's the ultimate power in the hands of politicians. This…

Wrong think already exists in many European countries.

Norwegian actress Tonje Gjevjon faces up to 3 years in prison for saying men cannot be lesbians https://nypost.com/2022/12/15/tonje-gjevjon-faces-up-to-3-ye...

Swiss LGBTQ+ rights groups hail 60-day sentence for polemicist who called journalist a ‘fat lesbian’ https://apnews.com/article/lgbtq-discrimination-switzerland-...

Woman’s conviction in Austria for calling the Prophet Mohammed a paedophile did not breach her right to free speech, European Court of Human Rights rules https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6316567/Woman-corre...

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

#116

Post by danaris »

mrtksn wrote: post #76
rdm_blackhole wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So they are not elected? Right? Therefore they are not accountable to the public.

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.

While this is true in a practical sense for the British PM, it is only true in the most technical legal sense for the US President.

Yes; it is true that the Constitution provides for the election of electors, who will then choose the President.

But in fact, while the Electoral College makes the precise mechanism of election slightly indirect and the methods of weighting the votes byzantine, in any practical sense there's no question that the US president is elected, and not appointed.

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

#117

Post by tankenmate »

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.

This is a false equivalency argument.

It would be just as false as saying "rdm_blackhole supports decriminalising incitement because he supports free speech".

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

#118

Post by tankenmate »

mannerheim wrote: post #57
ko27 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should be glad EU exists not wishing to leave it. More than half of countries support this kind of control, and yet it probably won't pass because of a minority of countries. Seems like EU will actually end up preventing this from spreading across the continent.

Does the law require unanimity, or just a majority? This page[0] seems to suggest only a majority is necessary, but I can't find anything else to back that up; but I suppose we'll find out in a week or two. [0]: https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/chat-control-2-0-eu-governm...

The law will first have to pass the EU parliament which is a simple majority of the plenary (i.e. all MEPs). Then it needs to pass the Council which in this case would probably require qualified majority at the least and unanimity at the most.

Qualified majority would be at the least 55% of Council countries and Council representation from at least 65% of the population.

Unanimity is obvious; all EU Council members would have to agree.

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

#119

Post by ajsnigrutin »

mrtksn wrote: post #105
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This doesn't really help me with anything, and I still can't replace her in any way. Replacing local MPs is hard too, since (at least my country) doesn't have a legal basis for a referendum to remove the current government and hold new elections, but locally we at least have pressure tactics in the form of posters, grafitti, protests, granite road tiles and guillotines.

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

#120

Post by chopin »

mrtksn wrote: post #108
SenAnder wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I wished that was true...
Post reply on HN