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

161–170 of 221 posts

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#161

Post by readyplayernull »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #156
latexr wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

But "a"/"an" is also used to negate so it can't be placed at will.

Could //di-a-logos// mean dividing (like in dissecting) something that ISN'T understood?

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#162

Post by squarefoot »

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.

> ... groups of people that have a shared concern to come together and make their case to the politicians.

That would be solved by referenda, with their results and number of people affected being presented to the politicians so that they must deal with the problem. Lobbying as it is now in many countries (possibly all of them) has nothing to do with that and to me is just legalized corruption.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#163

Post by gruez »

antonvs wrote: post #130
gruez wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Appropriat…

1. You realize this thread is about EU?

2. 500, even in 1995, is a token amount of money to the representatives. I highly doubt they changed their vote for that little money.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#164

Post by greatgib »

What really blow my mind is that now we need so much energy and be that thankful to the EU for something that should be so basic and obvious.

When you compare how scandalous and impossibly excessive was looking the story of "1984" a few dozen years ago and that now it is the new normal. In a lot of countries, even democratic ones, we are already far worse than what was described in the book. But very little persons are shocked about that...

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#165

Post by rsynnott »

arlort wrote: post #141
rsynnott wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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:…

> but the Lisbon Treaty effectively enshrined it in EU law Actually no, ECHR rulings and the ECHR itself are considered guiding principles when the ECJ decides related questions but the EU is not technically bound by the ECHR This is made moot by the fact that the EU doesn't have independent enforcement so all EU law is enforced by the member states and all member states are members of the CoE and the ECHR has alread…

Oh, fair, yep. Ugh, the terminology is a mess.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#166

Post by CPLX »

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…

1) You’re right it’s cheaper than people think.

2) You aren’t going to move the needle much with 5 figures for anything at a national level.

The real work comes when you hire the congressman’s favorite PR firm for X and their cousins polling firm for Y and their former chief of staff for $15k a month retainer and so on. The vast majority of this gets done via “consulting” agreements and public relations firms and law firms, where the nominal work is irrelevant and the relationships and introductions are the product.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#167

Post by aziaziazi »

readyplayernull wrote: post #161
d1sxeyes wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.

But "a"/"an" is also used to negate so it can't be placed at will. Could //di-a-logos// mean dividing (like in dissecting) something that ISN'T understood?

Analogs systems aren’t about dividing, are they ?

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#169

Post by omgmajk »

zaxomi wrote: post #123

Wow, EU Parliament did the right thing this time. When I heard an interview with a Swedish EU politician, I thought it was a lost cause. She was completely blinded by the possibilities and saw no downside whatsoever.

I guess you are talking about Ylva Johansson, who is the spearhead of this. Every time she opens her mouth on this subject any person with knowledge on this subject breaks on the inside a little more, she has no idea what she is trying to do. Or maybe she does and it's all a smokescreen, I don't really know.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#170

Post by PoignardAzur »

nottheengineer wrote: post #76
PoignardAzur wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contrary to popular opinion, lobbying isn't as simple as "pay for expensive restaurant, get votes". If legislators feel strongly ideologically about an issue, no amount of lobbying will make them vote the other way.

It's a numbers game. You can't convince everyone, but lobbyists are generally good at their job and know how to find people with malleable opinions. I don't think there's a topic where lobbying doesn't work to at least some degree. Or do you have an example?

> I don't think there's a topic where lobbying doesn't work to at least some degree.

I wasn't saying lobbying doesn't work at all.

Post reply on HN