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

171–180 of 221 posts

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#171

Post by gruez »

Lutger wrote: post #129
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.

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.

"a facade of legality and civility" is literally the point of rule of law. It's why if you detain someone it's a crime, but if the police do it it's normal law enforcement.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#172

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#173

Post by skowalak »

sixhobbits wrote: post #86

What's the closest thing to EFF for these kinds of things in Europe? I always feel like there's a huge difference in quality of reporting where EFF produces some of the best content I've ever read on any topic, and stuff about EU privacy is often a lot harder to follow. I know about statewatch and some individuals I follow who do a pretty good job, but feels like there is a gap for an organization to step and replica…

Maybe EDRi, which also acts as an umbrella for smaller and local orgs.

https://edri.org/about-us/who-we-are/

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#174

Post by lock-the-spock »

nehal3m wrote: post #73
eigenket wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU parliament did its job pretty much 100% correctly in my opinion. Their job is to consider the laws the EU commission suggests and thats what they did. They correctly determined it was a shitty law and voted it down. In my opinion you should be upset at the EU commission, and especially commissioner Ylva Johansson from Sweden who seems to be the one pushing this stupid stuff.

I have to admit I'm not very knowledgeable about the process, so I thank you for correcting me. :-)

The previous commenter is not correct. Parliament votes for its own position on this law, which is then negotiated with the Council ( the 27 national government representatives) which itself has already developed a position. The two institutions negotiate a compromise (wir support from the commission as broker) which then both institutions must vote on in order for it to become EU law. So they can still vote something down later, but generally if it comes to a vote on the final text it is already a position parliament agrees with. In the EU processes laws that are unlikely to be agreed usually don't even get to a vote, rather the commission withdraws it's proposal and provides a new one.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#175

Post by stephen_g »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #148
xxs wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Commission to table a specific law though Just for the folks on the West side of the Pond, pretty much means to drop the bill. "To table" is so weird.

No, "to table" in terms of (EU) parliamentary procedure means to begin the consideration, it's the US that uses "to table" to mean dismiss[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_(parliamentary_procedure...

Very strange, the US usage seems to be like what we would use “to shelve” for (as in take it off the table and put it on the shelf to forget about), at least in Australia and the UK.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#176

Post by guerrilla »

michaelteter wrote: post #87
rippeltippel wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The better word is "informing". Lobbyists inform policymakers about perspectives of certain groups (those employing the lobbyists). It just happens that most lobbyists are paid by groups who are seeking to enrich themselves at the cost of everyone else. However, there are some lobbyists who work for organizations that attempt to guide policy that helps under-represented groups (like nature, animal welfare, human welf…

No, this is just more doublespeak that ignores what's actuallygoing on. Corruption is the correct word.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#177

Post by jacquesm »

robertlagrant wrote: post #99
jacquesm wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, that is exactly what it is. It's a huge stain on democracy and in many ways subverts it. Companies don't have the right to vote and should not be able to do an end-run around the electoral process with their money.

> Companies don't have the right to vote and should not be able to do an end-run around the electoral process with their money. There's no difference between companies and people here; no one, spending their company's money or their own, should be able to influence solely through money. They only can because of corrupt state employees, who should be replaced.

> There's no difference between companies and people here; no one, spending their company's money or their own, should be able to influence solely through money.

There is because individuals are not normally the clients of lobbyists, nor do they - normally - approach politicians directly with money in hand except for some countries where campaign donations are a thing. They shouldn't be because they are effectively corruption but unsurprisingly countries where this practice is established never get around to abolishing it because it put the people who are in power in power in the first place.

> They only can because of corrupt state employees, who should be replaced.

If the state employees receive that money off the books then yes, but if it is structural it is not the employees that should be replaced but the system that should be replaced. And that is a much harder task. Because you could replace employees until the cows come home, if the system remains the same nothing will really change.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#178

Post by conception »

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…

I think there is a theme in this thread that misses a key aspect that I think Noam put well here -

https://youtu.be/1nBx-37c3c8?si=vA0IIew7ripABUTD

I think the idea that if an opposing idea went to an NRA friend and offered more money, in almost all cases they would refuse because the lobbying dollars aren’t to convince but to support someone who asked believes what you do.

In some cases, probably like crypto laws, a politician might think “sure I don’t care or have an opinion, you bought some donations and I don’t hate your opinion so I’ll help out”, but that is a lot different than “you pay me x and I vote y.”

I think taking the agency out of the politicians hands, in most cases, is the wrong perspective.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#179

Post by readyplayernull »

aziaziazi wrote: post #167
readyplayernull wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ?

"di" is the part that means "two" or "cut in two", while "a" is negation.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#180

Post by nonrandomstring »

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…

> The fight is never over.

Checks and balances are working this time hopefully. Regardless our (good) multi-stage processes and multi-chamber structure and even, regardless matters of lobbying and money - in the moment of quiet while smoke is still on the wind - look for the shooter. "Who wants this?" and "What are their fears?" leads to a better leverage point closer to values than parameters.

There are a lot of people in the world right now anxious about the digital future. The EU Commission seem to hear too much from Chicken-Licken's gang of sky-repellant gizmo salesmen and not from calmer humane optimists.

Post reply on HN