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

151–160 of 221 posts

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#151

Post by 0dayz »

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".

You're throwing the baby with the water here.

Lobbying I'd argue is an essential part of democracy because it allows groups of people that have a shared concern to come together and make their case to the politicians.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#152

Post by aremat »

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...

It's not just lobbying. There are entire industries built around the revolving doors of think tanks, NGOs, boards, advisories, "research" institutes, etc.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#153

Post by victorbjorklund »

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...

Or did they just think there was too much attention and they will instead approve something else under a new name in the future?

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#154

Post by JrProgrammer »

latexr wrote: post #149
mbwgh wrote: post #144

Contrary to what this heading suggests, nothing has been "decided" here. This article is not only inaccurate, it is falsely misleading. The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) adopted a "draft Parliament position" [0] and that's that. This still needs to go through so-called "tri(a?)logue negotiations", held between the EU parliament, commission and council. [1] Still a tad early for calling…

> tri(a?)logue It’s not a trial-ogue. It’s a tri-logue because it involves three parties.

Another spelling for trilogue is trialogue*

* https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/trialogu...

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#155

Post by SiempreViernes »

yreg wrote: post #102
jacquesm wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Privacy is an excellent example. At first it was locally dealt with, and big tech would lobby the individual countries for all kinds of exceptions and ways to effectively get regulatory capture. Then, in 1995 the EU created the DPD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Directive Big tech and the advertising industry responded by sidestepping the new regulation to make deals with the individual countries to u…

Thanks. Sounds like living in one of the smaller member states is an advantage in this case, since it's probably less worth it to lobby there.

Well, the smaller states are also easier to pay off, especially if they have already adopted the strategy of being the least regulated place in the EU.

Though admittedly the example Cyprus indicates that the strategy could be to simply quietly ignore the law when it comes to foreign interests.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#156

Post by d1sxeyes »

latexr wrote: post #149
mbwgh wrote: post #144

Contrary to what this heading suggests, nothing has been "decided" here. This article is not only inaccurate, it is falsely misleading. The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) adopted a "draft Parliament position" [0] and that's that. This still needs to go through so-called "tri(a?)logue negotiations", held between the EU parliament, commission and council. [1] Still a tad early for calling…

> tri(a?)logue It’s not a trial-ogue. It’s a tri-logue because it involves three parties.

“Di” as a prefix is normally adequate when referring to two (dimension, dilemma, dichotomy, etc) and yet it acquires an “a” in “dialogue”. Possibly a similar word constructed from the “tri” prefix should also have an “a” inserted.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#157

Post by Obscurity4340 »

latexr wrote: post #149
mbwgh wrote: post #144

Contrary to what this heading suggests, nothing has been "decided" here. This article is not only inaccurate, it is falsely misleading. The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) adopted a "draft Parliament position" [0] and that's that. This still needs to go through so-called "tri(a?)logue negotiations", held between the EU parliament, commission and council. [1] Still a tad early for calling…

> tri(a?)logue It’s not a trial-ogue. It’s a tri-logue because it involves three parties.

Tripartite might also work

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#158

Post by _zoltan_ »

throwaway2990 wrote: post #114
rkangel wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation?

No citation needed. If the statement was false we wouldn’t get advertising based on conversations that happen in what’s app.

we don't? and meta refuted even planning it.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#159

Post by xkcd1963 »

0dayz wrote: post #151
rippeltippel wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You're throwing the baby with the water here. Lobbying I'd argue is an essential part of democracy because it allows groups of people that have a shared concern to come together and make their case to the politicians.

But that shouldn't come down to the money. If only the people who amassed huge amounts of money can influence there is no democracy.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#160

Post by yccs27 »

latexr wrote: post #149
mbwgh wrote: post #144

Contrary to what this heading suggests, nothing has been "decided" here. This article is not only inaccurate, it is falsely misleading. The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) adopted a "draft Parliament position" [0] and that's that. This still needs to go through so-called "tri(a?)logue negotiations", held between the EU parliament, commission and council. [1] Still a tad early for calling…

> tri(a?)logue It’s not a trial-ogue. It’s a tri-logue because it involves three parties.

It's also not a dial-ogue, but a di-a-logue because it involves two parties.
Post reply on HN