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

181–190 of 221 posts

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#181

Post by sofixa »

guerrilla wrote: post #176
michaelteter wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In the EU, lobbyists need to get registered.

Here's a few examples of registered organisations that lobby the EU:

* the Electronic Frontier Foundation https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultatio...

* the Mozilla Foundation https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultatio...

Do you think it's corruption when they inform the EU of the risks of legislation (like eIDAS) and fight against potential loopholes (successfully in the case of eIDAS)?

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#182

Post by justin66 »

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…

> Contrary to what this heading suggests, nothing has been "decided" here. This article is not only inaccurate, it is falsely misleading.

The heading indicates a committee adopted a position, and that's true.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#183

Post by sofixa »

eigenket wrote: post #27
eddtries wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you explain big Pharma lobbying to stop reducing drug prices? For example, Democrats who held up drug pricing reforms were the largest beneficiaries of lobbyist money. https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...

The short answer is that we're talking about the EU. Thats a US thing. As far as I can tell looking from the outside the US system is set up so that if you aren't ridiculously wealthy yourself you pretty much need lobbyist money to fund your campaign to get elected.

> As far as I can tell looking from the outside the US system is set up so that if you aren't ridiculously wealthy yourself you pretty much need lobbyist money to fund your campaign to get elected.

Considering their whole country started as a place where only wealthy male landowners could vote, and they literally deify some of those wealthy male land and slave owners, as well as their written works, it's no surprise really.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#184

Post by ajb »

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…

It's a downpayment, though. Political careers are often short; subsequently the politician will get a high paying 'job' at one of the firms funding the lobbying. That's the real payoff.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#185

Post by sofixa »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #108

Private messages won't be scanned for now, but what about the certificates in web browsers that could be swapped at will by any certificate in the control of some EU apparel so that "encrypted" web traffic could be sniffed and MITMed? Which moreover came with a fineprint specifying that it'd be illegal for browsers to warn users about certificate being swapped? Is that out of the window for now too?

> Private messages won't be scanned for now, but what about the certificates in web browsers that could be swapped at will by any certificate in the control of some EU apparel so that "encrypted" web traffic could be sniffed and MITMed?

That was a (probably) unintended consequence of the eIDAS legislation, where specific Certificate Authorities must be trusted by browsers to enable digital certificates and signing to work EU-wide. This has since been corrected and the legislation explicitly states that those CAs and the regular CAs can and should be kept separate, thus MITM won't be possible unless the browser chooses to mix things.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#186

Post by jacquesm »

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.

The DSA is another one that I totally expect to get this treatment.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#187

Post by sofixa »

pelorat wrote: post #132
AlecSchueler wrote: post #68

The EU needs to stop it with all this heavy handed regulation. At the end of the day it only hurts businesses. Businesses rely on the data contained within these communications in order to improve their services. This is why US tech companies are growing while EU equivalents are not. It's all well and good to consider user privacy and user safety but not when it stifles the market. [Please note that this is a satiric…

Those comments are not entirely wrong. Regulation does hurt, but the main issue is that even though the EU is a single market in theory, it's made up of nations that each have their own market and speak their own language. Not a lot of new tech companies target the entire EU, they mostly target their domestic market and certainly not the USA. In the USA it's easy for a new tech company to put out a commercial to targ…

And? I fail to see how having a big EU-wide tech company is more important than good regulations that protect EU citizens and give them rights big tech companies don't want them to have (e.g. privacy, data portability, right to be forgotten, etc.)

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#188

Post by rkangel »

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.

I've heard this claim many times, and have yet to see anything to substantiate it.

I'm not saying I don't believe it - I have zero trust in Meta, and use Matrix and Signal with everyone that I can. But I would like evidence of foul play before making specific claims.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#189

Post by mrmanner »

Lutger wrote: post #131
zajio1am wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lobbying is just people or organizations making their case to politicians in a private way (e.g. meeting MP in their office) instead of a public way (e.g. putting an article to press).

That is what it is supposed to be. Offering a perspective someone said. In a michelin star restaurant, private resort full of prostitutes or after having donated substantial amounts of cash to their campaign ensuring their hold on power. Somehow it seems different when 'presenting the case' is accompanied by gifts and money.

> after having donated substantial amounts of cash to their campaign ensuring their hold on power

This is the main problem, and there is a solution. If campaigns are financed by enough public money, donations have less power and can be regulated more heavily.

Similarly, if individual politicians get enough from the state to feel secure even if voted out, we take away the power of the promise of a next job and can enforce a grace period before working on anything related.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#190

Post by Run_DOS_Run »

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...

Thorn and all its supporters should be branded for what they are: Enemies of the free world. Enemies of democracy and fighters for oppression and dystopian police states.

If you look at the developments in Hungary and Poland (or the polls in Austria), any form of surveillance will be just used as another vehicle to keep autocrats and would-be dictators in power.

I doubt that the election in Poland in 2023 would have turned out like this if the PiS had seamless protocols of the opposition's communication.

Post reply on HN