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

131–140 of 154 posts

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

#131

Post by verinus »

chopin wrote: post #120
mrtksn wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

much rather: he had to spend significantly more for them to do so...

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

#132

Post by throwaway60722 »

orwin wrote: post #106
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…

Your ministers are appointed, no?

No, they are members of the parliament.

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

#133

Post by happymellon »

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.

The British Prime Minister needs to be an elected MP. She would need to be elected and then "promoted" for it to be an analogy.

They are not just "appointed", all the elected MPs get together and have a popularity contest as to who is going to represent them. That's all the PM does, they are not the head of state.

She is closer to the House of Lords, where people can suggest bills, and no one votes for them and even if they decide to be evil, it's virtually impossible for the people to remove them.

The House of Lords is also a terrible institution that is designed to remove power from those who vote.

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

#134

Post by c7THEC2DDFVV2V »

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.

british prime minsters are chosen as the head of the party, by members of the party. This thread seems to not understand that members of the british public can vote for the leader of the party they wish to vote for.

We do not vote on individuals, but on a group at election time. That group is democratically elected, and within that group the leader is democratically elected by its party members (whoever wishes to join).

The EU by definition is anti-democractic (any centralization of power without accountability results in loss of democractic influence). The most important thing to understand is that the public do not have the same level of influence on the direction of the EU that say the public has in in the UK. With that said, the position of the UK and its dealings is irrelevant to the matter at hand. If we are are discussing an anti-democractic group we don't make it democractic by finding someone equally or more so anti-democratic.

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

#135

Post by throwaway60722 »

maccard wrote: post #62
clarionbell wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well encrypted data is practically useless to the collector. They could just as well be a random noise. Metadata may be worth something, but not nearly as much.

The solution there is political, not technical.

The political solution is way too fragile.

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

#136

Post by Arnt »

zosima wrote: post #127
tankenmate wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a false equivalency argument. It would be just as false as saying "rdm_blackhole supports decriminalising incitement because he supports free speech".

She joined the the so-called Vänsterpartiet when their full name was: Vänsterpartiet - kommunisterna (VPK) aka The left party - communists. At that time the party had ties to eastern germany and the Soviet Union. She was elected to parliament as representative for vänsterpartiet - kommunisterna. There is no false equivalency whatsoever here.

It sounded as if GP meant to imply the Swedish communist party's attitude to privacy was equivalent to something, without stating what. The Soviet communist party's attitude, perhaps?

The Soviet one spied on everyone. The Swedish one was spied upon. That's not equivalent.

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

#137

Post by derelicta »

hellojesus wrote: post #115
rdm_blackhole wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 callin…

The "polemicist" you mention is a literal jew-hating national-socialist.

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

#138

Post by afiori »

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…

> people cannot revoke your mandate

Most elected position have an unrevokable mandate, unelected positions are typically easier to revoke.

> If you are appointed you do not need to be accountable

They need to be accountable to who can revoke their position, which is generally elected officials.

I am not defending the EU here, I am not well informed enough in that regard; I am just criticizing the false dycothomy of elected/appointed when electoral systems create a much bigger variance of effects.

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

#139

Post by zoobab »

rollulus wrote: post #11

Initiatives like Chat Control makes me pessimistic. They keep on coming in all sort of variations and we defend. Given enough of such iterations, at some point though they’ll eventually be lucky and god knows how long it will take to revert things. And what I don’t get is that this sort of proposed legislation is more than Stasi could've ever wished. And yet it’s openly discussed as if it’s good idea. And note that “…

"And note that 'they' are supposed to represent 'us'."

'They' in the Council of Ministers do not represent us, they are not elected by 'us', and their names sometimes are not even on polls.

They also have a conflict of interests, as Minister of Interior wants more power for himself and his services.

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

#140

Post by zoobab »

mrtksn wrote: post #71
rdm_blackhole wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EC members who currently are sponsoring this bill (Chat Control 2.0) are not elected, they are appointed. They do not answer to anyone and they collude with lobby organizations to push an agenda. This is the far from being a democratic process.

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 governments of the countries and the European Parliament, which are all elected)."

The executive (governments) should not become legislators, under the principle of seperation of powers of Montesquieu.

Post reply on HN