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

141–150 of 154 posts

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

#141

Post by dragonwriter »

zoobab wrote: post #140
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 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.

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

What if Montesquieu was just wrong and systems with fused or subordinated executive and legislative powers actually just work better in pretty much every way that separation-of-powers systems?

Yeah, the US unusually strongly applies Montesquieu in its Constitutional design, but the US isn't particularly well-governed among modern democracies. (Personally, I think the dominance of poor electoral methods and the resulting partisan duopoly is a bigger effect than separation of powers here, but...)

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

#142

Post by DoughnutHole »

throwaway60722 wrote: post #132
orwin wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your ministers are appointed, no?

No, they are members of the parliament.

But they are not directly elected to ministerial positions.

In a parliamentary system (ie most countries in the EU) members of parliament are elected. Parliament appoints a premier. Premier appoints ministers with parliamentary approval.

EU commissioners are nominated by the member states subject to their own laws. Typically that means they are chosen by your elected government.

If you want a directly elected commissioner that’s a matter of national politics. Your country is free to change its laws to select a commission nominee via a national vote.

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

#143

Post by throwaway60722 »

DoughnutHole wrote: post #142
throwaway60722 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they are members of the parliament.

But they are not directly elected to ministerial positions. In a parliamentary system (ie most countries in the EU) members of parliament are elected. Parliament appoints a premier. Premier appoints ministers with parliamentary approval. EU commissioners are nominated by the member states subject to their own laws. Typically that means they are chosen by your elected government. If you want a directly elected commiss…

I don't want "a" directly elected commissioner.

I want a directly elected Commission. The same system would suffice - chosen by the elected parliament among its members.

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

#145

Post by orwin »

throwaway60722 wrote: post #143
DoughnutHole wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they are not directly elected to ministerial positions. In a parliamentary system (ie most countries in the EU) members of parliament are elected. Parliament appoints a premier. Premier appoints ministers with parliamentary approval. EU commissioners are nominated by the member states subject to their own laws. Typically that means they are chosen by your elected government. If you want a directly elected commiss…

I don't want "a" directly elected commissioner. I want a directly elected Commission. The same system would suffice - chosen by the elected parliament among its members.

That would actually be a great idea, because then political parties and voting citizens would have a bigger reason to try to win European elections. Probably would make the parliament less liberal-conservative too.

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

#146

Post by melesian »

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…

It appears you don't understand the role of the directly elected EU parliament.

It can and has fired the entire Commission in the past, and it must approve EU legislation.

Much more fun to subscribe to a conspiracy theory about all-powerful people behind the curtain though.

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

#147

Post by melesian »

DocTomoe wrote: post #103
Xelbair wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Arrant nonsense. The Irish rejected the Lisbon Treaty. It was then amended to address Irish objections and then approved, not just by the Irish electorate (whose approval is constitutionally required for all constitutionally significant legislation) and then by 27 other EU member state parliaments.

Clearly, you have have no idea whatever what you're talking about, and subscribe to conspiracy theory BS without bothering to do any homework because it fits your prejudices

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

#148

Post by hcfman »

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 “…

If the governments vote laws that are aggressive towards the people, then the software developers need to make licenses for their software disallow government use until they start to be more citizen friendly.

There are a lot of software developers in this forum.

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

#149

Post by hcfman »

hcfman wrote: post #148
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 “…

If the governments vote laws that are aggressive towards the people, then the software developers need to make licenses for their software disallow government use until they start to be more citizen friendly. There are a lot of software developers in this forum.

At a certain point you have to say enough is enough. The same for the cyber resilience act that spits in the face of millions of open source developers who collectively are the only reason governments have all their nice toys to play with.

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

#150

Post by krfsm »

Arnt wrote: post #83
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.

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…

Note that she left the Left Party in 1992, and instead joined the Social Democrats. So she's been a member of the national parliament as a representative of the Social Democrats.

This is relevant as the Social Democrats are pro chat control, while the Left Party is against chat control.

Post reply on HN