241–250 of 324 posts
> We decide something, then put it in the room and wait some time to see what happens. If there is no big shouting and no uprisings, because most do not understand what it is about, then we continue - step by step until there is no turning back. – Jean Claude Juncker, then President of the EU Commission
They will try this again. And again. And again. They will never stop.
They are not your friends.
I am having a deja vu. Groundhog Day.
The above should be adjusted. This is not an end; it will continue in another form. Another name. Another proposal. The lobbyists behind this will not give up. They are paid to not give up.
I don't think any of those few should have ANY power of us, The People. That includes both EU commission as well as EU parliament. Yes, I know the EU parliament is heralded now as "our heroes". I don't trust any of them at any moment in time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_corruption_scandal_at_th.... And that's just one known issue. How many more unknown issues are there?
Also, Leyen should go. She is too suspiciously close to a few companies, always promoting things. She did so before her time in the EU too.
Here is the EPP's plea to get this passed earlier. They even used a teddy bear image. https://www.eppgroup.eu/newsroom/epp-urges-support-for-last-... "Protecting children is not optional," said Lena Düpont MEP, EPP Group spokeswoman on Legal and Home Affairs. "We call on the S&D Group to stop hiding behind excuses and finally take responsibility. We cannot afford a safe haven for child abusers online. Every delay lea…
The age verification also has nothing to do with children.
They are using rhetorical tricks to confuse voters who are clueless. I have seen how this works on elderly people in particular, and mothers who are not tech-savvy.
> Despite today’s victory, further procedural steps by EU governments cannot be completely ruled out. Most of all, the trilogue negotiations on a permanent child protection regulation (Chat Control 2.0) are continuing under severe time pressure. There, too, EU governments continue to insist on their demand for “voluntary” indiscriminate Chat Control. > Furthermore, the next massive threat to digital civil liberties i…
> further procedural steps by EU governments cannot be completely ruled out In a democracy, we don't kill our opposition. If they hold views we don't like, e.g. that security trumps privacy, they're going to litigate them. Probably their whole lives. That means they'll keep bringing up the same ideas. And you'll have to keep defeating them. But there are two corollaries. One: Passing legislation takes as much work as…
It’s a double-edge sword though: if something you dislike gets votes, it’s never going away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the problem with modern democracies (it happens in the USA too). They only have to win once and it's law. We have to win every time.
> They only have to win once and it's law. We have to win every time. Passing legislation takes about as much effort as repealing. (The exception being if the legislation spawns a massive bureaucracy.) Chat Control 1.0 was de facto passed. It's now being unpassed. We don't have to win every time. Just more.
While true, those trying to pass this legislation get paid to do so, while those against it have work hard and pay taxes to fund the former.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They only have to win once and it's law. We have to win every time. Passing legislation takes about as much effort as repealing. (The exception being if the legislation spawns a massive bureaucracy.) Chat Control 1.0 was de facto passed. It's now being unpassed. We don't have to win every time. Just more.
> Passing legislation takes about as much effort as repealing. While true, those trying to pass this legislation get paid to do so, while those against it have work hard and pay taxes to fund the former.
Chat Control has paid lobbyists on both sides. Also, paying lobbyists is still sinking resources. And the people taking their meetings are still sinking political capital into a fight that has–to date–yielded zilch.
> while those against it have work hard and pay taxes to fund the former
The principal moneyed interests in this fight are the tech companies. Your taxes aren't funding their fight. The police lobby is less effective if filtered through paid lobbyists versus having a police chief personally pitch lawmakers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> further procedural steps by EU governments cannot be completely ruled out In a democracy, we don't kill our opposition. If they hold views we don't like, e.g. that security trumps privacy, they're going to litigate them. Probably their whole lives. That means they'll keep bringing up the same ideas. And you'll have to keep defeating them. But there are two corollaries. One: Passing legislation takes as much work as…
Great comment, thank you. I know that I could simply upvote, but this deserved more.
Thex will try again. And again. It's for the children, don't you know? The only way to really stop this would be to pass legislation that permanently strengthens privacy rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the problem with modern democracies (it happens in the USA too). They only have to win once and it's law. We have to win every time.
Need to amend constitutional rights to privacy then these laws can be struck down in courts.
ARTICLE 8
Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
You have the right to privacy, just no actual privacy. Just like in Life of Brian, where Stan/Loretta has the right to have children, but can't actually have children.