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

271–278 of 278 posts

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#271

Post by inigyou »

inglor_cz wrote: post #263
inigyou wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are face-saving. Again, if the country didn't want this, their Council representative would have voted against it.

Sure, you are right, but that does not mean that the EU as such is totally innocent in this. Most liberal constitutions of Europe operate on the principle that their governments cannot be fully trusted in execution of their power and need a lot of oversight from the people. This is a result of hundreds of years of bad experience with politicans who had too much power. The EU is somewhat more idealistically built and…

The EU as an institution has zero enforcement power - I think that is its check or balance. It is more like the UN, than like the USA.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#272

Post by pqtyw »

surgical_fire wrote: post #251
pqtyw wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Straw man... voters in parliamentary democracies generally are fully aware of whom the prime minister is going to be if the party wins. Nobody really knows or cares who is going to be appointed to the commission since domestic issues always completely over shadow it.

The EU Council is composed of heads of government of each member state. Are you really trying to imply that voters don't know who the fuck their heads of government are? I mean, this is a rhetorical question. I don't really expect people who keep repeating misinformation about EU to be arguing in good faith.

That's not the point. Voters generally can't vote for their preferred EU policies because they come bundled with internal policies which are obviously much more important for voters.

It's a bit like with replacing senators in the US with state governors (except actually worse since US is way more centralized and local and federal parties are much more aligned).

If voters actually voted for council representatives directly they could actually influence it in meaningful ways. Now e.g. in Germany a CDU voter won't suddenly switch to AFD or Greens just because they prefer their stance on Chat Control (or whatever else).

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#273

Post by pqtyw »

rightbyte wrote: post #232
pqtyw wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you implying Denmark and other governments supporting it are pushing Chat Control as some sort of false flag operation to undermine the EU?

No that the critique of chat control is, I guess? It is quite disturbing that more and more ofent critique of policy or a political system like the EU is framed as some convinient boogey man's propaganda.

Due to lack of transparency. The way the EU is structured makes it way easier for national governments to push policies under the radar and avoid any type of responsibility by deflecting any backlash to the EU (due to fundamental flaws in how it's functioning).

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#274

Post by greensh »

sunshine-o wrote: post #204
junto wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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’m convinced of widespread corruption here. 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…

Also the democratic systems like Germany are not known for their pro people / worker law decisions, the opposite actually in the last couple of years.

This Democracy does not equal "what people want". It's a system designed to make people feel like they have the power for change. Knowing that, many people just vote to stop the far-right party from gaining power.

The EU similarly is working as designed. It's a symbiosis between State and Capital and in hard times it has to regulate peoples rights in order to maintain stability. Or in this case open the door to stop anti-state/EU propaganda.

I'm not against Democracy, just want to lay out it's limitations as it is applied.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#275

Post by mrighele »

flumpcakes wrote: post #82
neobrain wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this had been temporarily permitted until recently, and AFAIK they continue doing so illegally at the moment.

Why is it currently illegal? If I have a service that let's users communicate, why is it illegal to look through those communications? (especially after they've signed my 400 page EULA). It would make moderation impossible otherwise. Or are we saying this is being used for something specific that happens to be illegal?

In some EU countries it is not only illegal, but also unconstitutional.

For example, Art 15 of the Italian constitution [1]:

"Freedom and confidentiality of correspondence and of every other form of communication is inviolable. Limitations may only be imposed by judicial decision stating the reasons and in accordance with the guarantees provided by the law."

[1] https://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costi...

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#276

Post by sharken »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #223
sharken wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, reusing "Chat Control" and giving it a new meaning is a surefire way to cause confusion. 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.

I think you're misunderstanding something here. "Chat Control" is a term invented and popularized by privacy groups who oppose any scanning of private chats for any purpose; any confusion caused by having the same term refer to different things has to be laid at their feet, although they argue it's appropriate because any kind of scanning is abusable in basically the same ways. The people who support scanning private…

Well, of course politicians will try and hide what the law is about, so I find it necessary to clearly communicate what this legislation is about.

CSAM hides behind an acronym and seems benign at first, but taking away the citizens right to private chats is anything but that.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#277

Post by budududuroiu »

inigyou wrote: post #244
budududuroiu wrote: post #212

I used to think Varoufakis' critique of the EU being a structurally anti-democratic union was just coming from the angle of an edgy leftist that was forced by the Troika to do austerity. Day in and day out, the EU proves Varoufakis right.

The Troika is a pet name for the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. Calling it the Troika makes it sound like it's some separate thing.

> Calling it the Troika makes it sound like it's some separate thing.

It was because of the Troika that the Tsipras ignored the result of the referendum and continued with more austerity, no? So in this case, pointing at the Troika is right? Am I misunderstanding something?

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#278

Post by surgical_fire »

pqtyw wrote: post #272
surgical_fire wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU Council is composed of heads of government of each member state. Are you really trying to imply that voters don't know who the fuck their heads of government are? I mean, this is a rhetorical question. I don't really expect people who keep repeating misinformation about EU to be arguing in good faith.

That's not the point. Voters generally can't vote for their preferred EU policies because they come bundled with internal policies which are obviously much more important for voters. It's a bit like with replacing senators in the US with state governors (except actually worse since US is way more centralized and local and federal parties are much more aligned). If voters actually voted for council representatives dir…

Honestly, this is a criticism I agree with. I really would prefer if the EU councilor for my country was either voted for (or even indirectly picked by the EU parliament members for my country). At least this would ensure some sort of alignment with EU policies I care about.

The fact that the head of state is on EU council sort of sucks, because when I vote on national elections people are looking at internal issues, and EU policy is more of an afterthought.

But that doesn't align with morons claiming that those are "unelected officials" or that the EU is somehow undemocratic.

Post reply on HN