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

EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament

techradar.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 163 posts

Re: EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament

#21

Post by saubeidl »

aestetix wrote: post #17
saubeidl wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The EU was created as an economic and trade institution. How has it morphed into a wierd political institution, which NATO was already supposed to be? That is not the case. The 1957 Treaty Establishing the European Community contained the objective of “ever closer union” in the following words in the Preamble. In English this is: “Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe…

That treaty was established just over a decade after Hitler surrendered, when there were two Germanys, an Iron curtain across Europe, and a lot of other things which changed significantly after the Wall fell. Surely you would agree that those words meant something quite different then than they do now? I don't think my framing was sensationalist at all. Chat Control is using the threat of child porn to make people fo…

Not only are you moving your goalposts from "this wasn't the original purpose" (it was - it's part of the founding document!), but it has been reaffirmed and strengthened over and over again since: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...

Don't get me wrong - I, too, care about privacy and think Chat Control is a horrible idea, that thankfully seems to be getting shut down. That doesn't mean the EU is somehow not legitimate as a governing body.

Re: EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament

#23

Post by hshdhdhj4444 »

aestetix wrote: post #14

Honest question. The EU was created as an economic and trade institution. How has it morphed into a wierd political institution, which NATO was already supposed to be? The root question: how did an organization that ushered in things like the Euro become a body that decides whether Europeans are allowed to have personal privacy?

The EU almost certainly has protected privacy for most European nations than it has hurt it.

You simply need to look at the precipitous decline in privacy in the UK after it left the EU to see some of the most stark examples of this.

Re: EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament

#24

Post by surgical_fire »

aestetix wrote: post #14

Honest question. The EU was created as an economic and trade institution. How has it morphed into a wierd political institution, which NATO was already supposed to be? The root question: how did an organization that ushered in things like the Euro become a body that decides whether Europeans are allowed to have personal privacy?

You speak as if the EU is somehow divorced from the national governments, and is imposing its will to the helpless states that compose it.

The commissioners that propose laws are appointed by each national government. The national governments of each member state is all in on this.

NATO is not a political institution. It is a defense treaty (this one completely outside the realm of democracy).

Re: EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament

#25

Post by aestetix »

saubeidl wrote: post #21
aestetix wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That treaty was established just over a decade after Hitler surrendered, when there were two Germanys, an Iron curtain across Europe, and a lot of other things which changed significantly after the Wall fell. Surely you would agree that those words meant something quite different then than they do now? I don't think my framing was sensationalist at all. Chat Control is using the threat of child porn to make people fo…

Not only are you moving your goalposts from "this wasn't the original purpose" (it was - it's part of the founding document!), but it has been reaffirmed and strengthened over and over again since: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-... Don't get me wrong - I, too, care about privacy and think Chat Control is a horrible idea, that thankfully seems to be getting shut down. That doesn't mean th…

I was not moving goalposts. I was saying that the way we interpret the words has changed over time, and therefore we are taking words that meant one thing in 1957 and reinterpreting them to fit assumptions for today. Thus the semantic drift creates a shift.

To address the other point, I think we're missing a question of scope. Is the EU a legitimate governing body for negotiating trade deals and employment regulations between countries? Absolutely. I question however whether in recent years EU has begun to either scope-drift or expand their scope beyond what might be considered reasonable.

I think this is a natural tendency within human nature, especially when a governing body is given some power. Over time new opportunities arise which allow the body to gain more power, and then they reinterpret founding documents to include some of the new powers they want. I think it is pretty clear this is happening with the EU. Look at the rise of nationalist parties in Germany and France, etc.

Re: EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament

#26

Post by inglor_cz »

saubeidl wrote: post #16
aestetix wrote: post #14

Honest question. The EU was created as an economic and trade institution. How has it morphed into a wierd political institution, which NATO was already supposed to be? The root question: how did an organization that ushered in things like the Euro become a body that decides whether Europeans are allowed to have personal privacy?

> The EU was created as an economic and trade institution. How has it morphed into a wierd political institution, which NATO was already supposed to be? That is not the case. The 1957 Treaty Establishing the European Community contained the objective of “ever closer union” in the following words in the Preamble. In English this is: “Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe…

"contained the objective of “ever closer union” "

Such words in any Preamble are usually meant as a lofty declaration of some ideal, not a concrete political goal.

After all, "ever closer" does not even mean federation, it means a unitary state, which is "closer" than a federation or a confederation.

If you believe that a single sentence in a 1957 treaty can be used as a ramrod to push European federalization from above, you will be surprised by the backlash. European nations aren't mostly interested in becoming provinces of a future superstate, potential referenda in this direction will almost certainly fail, and given the growth of the far right all over the continent, I don't expect the governments to agree to any further voluntary transfer of powers to Brussels.

Also, the European Commission is not a government and is not meant to act as a government that can decide "everything".

The countries that formed the EU have only agreed to transfer some powers to Brussels. Not give it an unlimited hand over everything. And Chat Control is a major infringement of constitutional rights in many countries, where inviolability of communication except for concrete warrants has been written into law for decades.

Imagine a situation if the German Constitutional Court says "this is illegal by the German Grundgesetz, and German law enforcement may not execute such laws". Do you believe that German authorities will defer to Brussels instead of its own Constitutional Court? Nope. Same with Poland etc. Local constitutional institutions have more legitimacy among the people than the bunch of bureaucrats in Brussels.

Re: EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament

#27

Post by barbazoo »

general1465 wrote: post #22

Is there still a loophole for politicians not to be tracked? Because if so, some people will make a lot of money by creating a political party and turning citizens into politicians for yearly fee and thus bypassing this whole law.

Elected officials of if I recall correctly. Not just people belonging to a political party.

Re: EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament

#28

Post by debugnik »

giuliomagnifico wrote: post #4

In a nutshell, there will be no more intrusions into chats, but only obligations for the companies to provide preferential channels for victims of these crimes.

And companies considered high-risk will have to "contribute to the development of technologies to mitigate the risks relating to their services." Which sooner or later will involve another attempt at client-side scanning.

Re: EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament

#29

Post by saubeidl »

inglor_cz wrote: post #26
saubeidl wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The EU was created as an economic and trade institution. How has it morphed into a wierd political institution, which NATO was already supposed to be? That is not the case. The 1957 Treaty Establishing the European Community contained the objective of “ever closer union” in the following words in the Preamble. In English this is: “Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe…

"contained the objective of “ever closer union” " Such words in any Preamble are usually meant as a lofty declaration of some ideal, not a concrete political goal. After all, "ever closer" does not even mean federation, it means a unitary state, which is "closer" than a federation or a confederation. If you believe that a single sentence in a 1957 treaty can be used as a ramrod to push European federalization from ab…

I don't think a mere Federalization should happen. I think a unitary state is - as you said! - what we all signed up for and what we should get.

There's a reason the "ever closer" phrasing has been repeated over and over again - in the 1983 Solemn Declaration, the 1997 Maastricht Treaty, the 2009 Lisbon treaty etc etc.

Look at China's rise and our fall - a direct consequence of centralization and the lack thereof.

Post reply on HN