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

EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

europarl.europa.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 221 posts

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#121

Post by zajio1am »

rippeltippel wrote: post #48
eigenket wrote: post #4

Despite the lobbying from American organisations (Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, Palantir and others who worked with Thorn on this [1][2]) the EU Parliament did the right thing this time. [1] https://www.thorn.org/partnerships/ [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20130420162917/http://www.wearet...

I'm still waiting for the day when we'll replace the word "lobbying" with "corruption".

Lobbying is just people or organizations making their case to politicians in a private way (e.g. meeting MP in their office) instead of a public way (e.g. putting an article to press).

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#122

Post by underseacables »

eddtries wrote: post #24
eigenket wrote: post #4

Despite the lobbying from American organisations (Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, Palantir and others who worked with Thorn on this [1][2]) the EU Parliament did the right thing this time. [1] https://www.thorn.org/partnerships/ [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20130420162917/http://www.wearet...

The thing that I find shocking about lobbying is just how cheap it is. In the FTX trial the amount they spent lobbying politicians for pro-crypto laws was released and we're talking low five figures. SBF even said lobbying was very cheap for the impact you can get. Naively I thought it would cost millions to get a politician to support you but actually it's cheap enough a FAANG engineer could individually pay enough…

In the movie, Thank You for Smoking, there is a great scene where the main actors are sitting in a restaurant, and there's a sign just behind them that says:

"Be thankful for your government, it's the best that money can buy"

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#125

Post by TacticalCoder »

orian wrote: post #2

From the source: > Chat control - one of the worst EU plans that is also being described as a surveillance monster - must be stopped. And the EU Parliament has just decided to do so! In a historic agreement on the EU Commission's Child Sexual Abuse Regulation (CSAR) the European Parliament wants to remove chat control requirements and safeguard secure encryption. The decision came after extensive backlash against the…

> ... which violate fundamental rights and stand no chance in court

Thankfully the EU still has the European Convention on Human Rights and an associated court which individuals can go to and sue their state: the European Court of Human Rights. This is unlike the European Court of Justice which cannot directly be seized by individuals.

That EU Convention on Human Rights contains the "right to privacy" (art. 8).

This may be what they meant by saying that this horrible text stood no chance in court: a deluge of individual going to to the EU Court of Human Rights invoking article 8.

Now I don't doubt that the sold outs and enemy of the EU states at the European Commission are going to come back with other horrible measures.

As a sidenote this whole "good cop (European Parliament) / bad cop (European Commission)" is a bit of a farce played on the EU people too.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#126

Post by jliptzin »

ta1243 wrote: post #14
orian wrote: post #2

From the source: > Chat control - one of the worst EU plans that is also being described as a surveillance monster - must be stopped. And the EU Parliament has just decided to do so! In a historic agreement on the EU Commission's Child Sexual Abuse Regulation (CSAR) the European Parliament wants to remove chat control requirements and safeguard secure encryption. The decision came after extensive backlash against the…

The fight is never over. That's why we have strong checks and balances, the commission (made up of appointees of the 26 EU government heads) will push things, the council (made up of those heads) have to agree, and the Parliament (made up from a popular vote) has to agree, then if all that fails the courts step in But the fight isn't as much against the government, it's the hearts and minds of the people to make them…

I don’t think the average person cares about privacy, sadly. “I have nothing to hide,” etc. The best argument I heard against this crazy policy (only heard recently during these hearings) was that many creators/sharers of this CSAM material is kids themselves! Young teens exploring their sexuality, swapping nudes with each other. So that means that if you’re scanning all messages and you come across one of these chats, instead of that conversation staying between the 2 teens (like it should), it’s getting scanned by the provider, flagged, uploaded upstream to some law enforcement center where god knows how many other people are going to be looking at it, only to realize that there was no abuse happening. And of course that comes with the risk of leaks/hacks/rogue employees spreading it even further. Completely insane!

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#127

Post by Vinnl »

rsynnott wrote: post #94
pimterry wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need some laws to swing our way; enshrine our rights to privacy in clear terms so implementing laws like chat control become a non-starter. I think those are already in place - one major point against the previously suggested approach was that it would conflict with a bunch of existing regulation, and so it would never get past the courts even if it was passed. Two convenient examples: - Article 8 of the EU conv…

> Article 8 of the EU convention of human rights Worth noting that this isn't just a regulation; since the Lisbon Treaty it is effectively part of the EU's _constitution_, and can't simply be regulated or legislated away. Though also note that it's the European convention on human rights, not the EU one. It's from the Council of Europe, a separate body, but the Lisbon Treaty effectively enshrined it in EU law. EDIT:…

And just to make sure, note that the "Council of Europe" is a different (and non-EU) body than the Council of the European Union and European Council.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#128

Post by eigenket »

drstewart wrote: post #89
eigenket wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The short answer is that we're talking about the EU. Thats a US thing. As far as I can tell looking from the outside the US system is set up so that if you aren't ridiculously wealthy yourself you pretty much need lobbyist money to fund your campaign to get elected.

>As far as I can tell looking from the outside Out of curiosity, how accurately do you feel are the opinions of outsiders with no experience living in your country who comment on your country's state of affairs?

I have previously lived in the USA, I'm not sure why you assumed I have no experience of that.

In general I would expect someone who speaks the language of the country I live in now at roughly the same level I speak English to have a pretty accurate understanding of what is going on here. It would, frankly, be quite weird to speak the language and have no idea of what is happening here. Of course America is a special case because of how the internet is dominated by US media, commentary and content.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#129

Post by Lutger »

gruez wrote: post #97
rollcat wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh it is called corruption - when you're talking second or third world countries. Same with "expats" vs "immigrants".

There's an objective difference between high corruption and low corruption countries though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index Let's not pretend that a slick lobbyist hired by vested interests to talk to representatives with no money changing hands is comparable to the stuff that goes down in high corruption countries, where there's literally briefcases full of cash given to politicians.

You are being sarcastic right?

> The CPI measures perception of corruption due to the difficulty of measuring absolute levels of corruption

So the difference consists primarily in perception, the slickness of it all as you put it? How well we can hide corruption with a facade of legality and civility. Somehow the crude briefcase full of cash feels more honest and direct.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#130

Post by antonvs »

gruez wrote: post #97
rollcat wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh it is called corruption - when you're talking second or third world countries. Same with "expats" vs "immigrants".

There's an objective difference between high corruption and low corruption countries though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index Let's not pretend that a slick lobbyist hired by vested interests to talk to representatives with no money changing hands is comparable to the stuff that goes down in high corruption countries, where there's literally briefcases full of cash given to politicians.

They used to literally walk around the House floor handing out donor checks. From https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1997/02/14/h... :

> “…it was publicly disclosed that Boehner in the last week of June 1995 walked around the House floor delivering six or more of the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. PAC checks.

> “in the same week Boehner was giving out the checks on the House floor, the House Appropriations Committee met in its room in the Rayburn House Office Building and voted down (17 to 30) an amendment that would have ended the government's price support program for tobacco. Seven Appropriations Committee members each had received a $500 check from Brown & Williamson's PAC, including one for the committee chairman, Rep. Bob Livingston (R-La.).”

This kind of activity seems to refute the “objective difference” you’re imagining.

Post reply on HN