Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

heise.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 278 posts

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#171

Post by wartywhoa23 »

Grollicus wrote: post #117

The main argument for this seems to be that they catch many pedos by using image recognition tech on facebook etc. Thus, discontinuing the permit to use these techniques did have enforcement numbers of those crimes found drop significantly. I'm wondering if they've given up real policing of these crimes completely?! Spreading pedo content on Facebook, those people have to be the dumbest of the dumb? Everyone spending…

These pro-surveillance narratives don't even attempt to look plausible, they are aimed at the average Joe/Mohammed/whoever with attention span of 10ms and IQ of a guppy.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#172

Post by quikoa »

abroszka33 wrote: post #45

There is no way to stop these so just lets get going. The sooner we have age and ID verification on every single website and app the sooner we will have a working decentralised internet that avoids it.

> There is no way to stop these so just lets get going.

Except for the times they've tried before and public outrage stopped it. So this defeatist attitude works against us.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#173

Post by mdp2021 »

sampo wrote: post #169
vrganj wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is the US president (Electoral College), the UK PM (Parliament) etc etc, yet you never hear complaints here from the same types. Their opposition is ideological, democracy is just an excuse because their true views would be too unsavory to say out loud.

> So is the US president (Electoral College) It has never happened, but if there once would be enough faithless electors to swing the election (choosing a different president than what people voted for) it would be a huge scandal and it would be widely condemned as undemocratic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

(Did this not happen in 2016? I understood the absolute aggregate count in the popular vote and the majority of the electoral college differed.)

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#174

Post by throw-the-towel »

vrganj wrote: post #74
surgical_fire wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those narratives pop up from users that have a clear anti-EU bias (and I suspect they might not even be from the EU considering how ignorant they seem to be about how it works, its function ans structure, etc.

Call it what it is: Propaganda designed to stir anti-EU sentiment from groups that would benefit from being able to divide and conquer Europe.

Even if it is foreign propaganda, the problems it exploits are real. Either you're solving the problems, or you're pushing people into the arms of said propaganda.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#175

Post by 8note »

mattrighetti wrote: post #94
vrganj wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is the US president (Electoral College), the UK PM (Parliament) etc etc, yet you never hear complaints here from the same types. Their opposition is ideological, democracy is just an excuse because their true views would be too unsavory to say out loud.

The criticism is about accountability, not whether the system is democratic. The UK pm and the POTUS are both ultimately accountable through elections. In the UK, a general election can change the government. In the US, people vote specifically for presidential electors, even if it’s through the Electoral College. The EU commission is different. People don’t vote for commissioners or the president, and they can’t vot…

Im having a hard time following what is making the US presidental system different from the EU commission?

the US president is appointed by politicians who are elected, and the only accountability mechanism for president is impeachment, which is again, indirect via elected politicians.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#176

Post by sampo »

mdp2021 wrote: post #173
sampo wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So is the US president (Electoral College) It has never happened, but if there once would be enough faithless electors to swing the election (choosing a different president than what people voted for) it would be a huge scandal and it would be widely condemned as undemocratic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

(Did this not happen in 2016? I understood the absolute aggregate count in the popular vote and the majority of the electoral college differed.)

I mean, if the electoral college would have enough faithless electors to swing the result away from the president whom the majority of the electors had pledged to vote for.

There has been so far 5 elections where the electoral vote chose a different president than what the popular vote count would have chosen. But this is a different thing than what I was talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#177

Post by abroszka33 »

vlian2088 wrote: post #170
abroszka33 wrote: post #45

There is no way to stop these so just lets get going. The sooner we have age and ID verification on every single website and app the sooner we will have a working decentralised internet that avoids it.

governments can (and will) shut down or fine the detractors.

I doubt that. They cannot stop me from downloading movies and series. They cannot stop me from betting or using crypto. It's kinda hard to find a single thing they are able to stop me from doing online and I'm not even trying that hard.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#178

Post by constantius »

inglor_cz wrote: post #119
vrganj wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, another key fact to bring up here once again: The institution that forced this through is the EU Council, the body that represents national governments and is composed of heads of government . The reason they have to force it through and couldn't do 2.0 is because the EU Parliament stopped them. In other words, it's the nation states that want this and the EU institutions that are blocking it, not the other way…

"If not for the EU, a much worse version of this would already be law in the nation states." In some, in some not. Not everyone is the UK. Many nations which had a totalitarian government in the 20th century are more wary about this sort of sweeping surveillance power. The "charm" of pushing this through the circuitous path via Brussels is that few people and even few media outlets are paying attention to what happen…

Exactly. As demonstrated by several countries pronouncing themselves against it every time this comes up.

If the government of Denmark really wants to implement this, let them, but the idea that a tiny country's officials, elected by a population of 6M that their media managed to convince of the utopia to come when privacy doesn't exist, manages to make another 450M in 26 countries comply to their will (not to call it delusion) is frightening.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#179

Post by blackqueeriroh »

everyone wrote: post #107
cryo32 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not suggesting that at all. I am simply suggesting that bureaucracies have their own specific failure models. I am very pro regulation.

Ok, theres defo a lot of idiots on HN and in USA who disagree with you. Still, kinda weird to complain about bureaucracy and regulations in this context cus its the only solution to these problems of egality and corruption which humanity has been struggling with ever since the dawn of civilisation. Tho, It's kind of a solved problem too. We should all just try to be like Denmark, they at the top or near the top of pr…

Denmark has half the population of just the Los Angeles Metropolitan area and is 85% white. Most countries cannot be like Denmark.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#180

Post by int_19h »

vrganj wrote: post #161
vintermann wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a completely backward way of seeing it. "Nations" want nothing. The EU council is obviously an EU institution, the institution least accountable to the people of the EU. They want it and force it through as best they can. The parliament, the EU institution most accountable to the people of the EU (not that it's saying much) tried to stop it.

Of course Nations want this. Who is in the Council? You are saying "nuh-uh", but not addressing any of the substance of my comment.

The Council represents state governments, not nations. A nation consists of all the people in it, not just those who appointed themselves to speak on its behalf.
Post reply on HN