201–210 of 278 posts
They're not going to stop, are they?
Who is they? These pithy remarks don't really extend the debate or have any nuance - they just sound conspiratorial. There are plenty of reasons to "scan" communications. There are plenty of reasons to have limits on communication "scanning". What part of the spectrum do you fall on?
For context, this refers to "Chat Control 1.0", allowing facebook and other messaging providers to scan chats for harmful content (which they had been temporarily allowed to do by a recently expired law). This is still problematic, but the far more dangerous Chat Control 2.0 that would weaken end-to-end-encrypted messengers like Signal is not being discussed here. Not to diminish the gravity of the new development, b…
Thanks for clarifying this!
And the underhanded way of trying to get something as controversial as this to pass, says a lot about the politicians pushing this agenda.
Chat Control is about allowing mass surveillance and removing privacy, no should be the obvious answer here.
The central bank, council, and commission have to get thoroughly investigated. The amount of questionable decisions coming from those three in the recent (15) years is extremely unsettling. The parliament and courts are practically the only institutions preventing things from hitting the fan at this point, and struggling to do so, it seems.
I’m convinced of widespread corruption here. We need to follow the money. Who is funding and pushing this agenda to blanket spy on all Europeans? I guess my question is rhetorical.
I might not be corruption, it might be worse.
I was told by Brussels insiders a few decades ago the Commission people are not really corruptible. They are guaranteed a very comfortable life and the sanctions are harsh. That might have change, I don't know.
What I was explained is the system is designed for lobbying. The main input is by the lobbies, not the people.
Most of us assume the EU is designed like the US system or individual countries like Germany, Italy or France but it is not. The power of the Parliament is very limited, but we see here that little power has become too much of an inconvenience for the people in power.
For anyone daring to look into the boring design of that thing will come to the conclusion it is absolutely not democratic.
This would be illegal in Germany. I wonder why law enforcement is not looking into this. It is similar to having abusive husband control wife's communication - just at scale and for ideological reason. This is a violent act against whole population, applied indiscriminately. It fulfils updated definition of terrorism in Germany and it is exploiting legislative apparatus of the EU to enact this violent act. German peo…
Don't you also have it in the Constitution? In your case, it could probably construed as part of Article 1 (I may be confused). For others, it is explicit in the Articles. > these people behind it should be investigated and presumably arrested Are you talking about the eu organs? (Because it does seem linear, but paradoxical, and surely not outside a thought legal framework.)
> The position adopted by the Council today paves the way for providers of Internet services to resume their efforts to detect and report material on child sexual abuse to the police.
- Jim O’Callaghan, Irish Minister of Justice, Interior and Migration
Except that many of those providers are not European. Good job handling all of your citizens' data to foreign entities, Jim. Way to go, champ.
I don't know how to put it nicely, but some members of the Council need to cease operations, or be ceased.
Just so the cycle is easily knowable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They’re indirectly elected through national governments and parliament. That’s different from being directly elected by citizens. Being appointed by elected politicians doesn’t make someone directly accountable to voters. Citizens don’t vote for commissioners, and it’s much harder for voters to remove or reward them based on their policies.
Ao is the prime minister in any country that adopts parliamentarism. I am still to see as many people getting riled up about how those countries are not democratic.
From what I remember the head of the european commission was picked from a group of people that weren't even up for election after the official candidates that were paraded around during an EU wide election where dismissed.
Governments don’t work for people. Yet they use terms like democracy all the time. The repeated attempts at chat control are so blatantly anti civil rights but also disrespectful of democratic principles. Why do EU citizens tolerate this? Are they okay being made a fool of or is this just not an issue for them after all?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They’re indirectly elected through national governments and parliament. That’s different from being directly elected by citizens. Being appointed by elected politicians doesn’t make someone directly accountable to voters. Citizens don’t vote for commissioners, and it’s much harder for voters to remove or reward them based on their policies.
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.
Many people are confused by the fact that only States can vote for President. The most a person's vote can do is provide input into their State's votes for President.