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

The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

mullvad.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 425 posts

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#301

Post by revelio »

zirgs wrote: post #254
revelio wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They never formally joined the Eurozone to begin with, they just allow the Euro to circulate and accept it for payment. It's not even legal tender there, in theory. The integration issues are more to do with how the banking systems of formally Eurozone integrated countries are wired up to the ECB and how countries come to rely on it for "liquidity" (money printing to pay for expensive large government). Also note tha…

A leaving country could keep using the Euro while working on the transition back to their own currency. When the USSR collapsed - its former members continued to use Soviet rubles for some time until they transitioned to their own currencies. So yeah - if a country really wanted to leave - a shared currency would not stop it.

It depends on how much cooperation the EU would extend (assume zero). For example paying other companies in euros requires transactions with the central bank. If the EU don't want you to leave they can just say, well, the moment you declare you're out we cut you off from the banking system and you can't settle your government debts anymore because you can't make euro transactions. For example.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#302

Post by revelio »

gpderetta wrote: post #243
revelio wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a democratic system and would be easily recognized as such if it were implemented anywhere other than Europe. Parliament approving what the Commission does is of no use for repealing laws. The President is not elected by the Parliament. They experimented with that in the Juncker era, now it's back to being controlled (in theory) by the Council. The Parliament was given a "vote" that consisted of a list of op…

> They could literally vote for von der Leyen or not vote at all. that's how confidence votes work on most parliamentary republics.

It wasn't a confidence vote, was it?

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#303

Post by JumpCrisscross »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #282
photochemsyn wrote: post #30

Suggested alternative: The "End Political Corruption Proposal" "Given that political corruption is rife in European countries, with great detriments to the healthy function of government, all politicians in positions where they may be engaging in corrupt behavior must submit to 24-7 audio and video surveillance, which will be piped over public platforms for crowdsourcing of corruption detection. All personal communic…

This would be delightful. Being a politician should be a curse that the dedicated bear for the good of humanity, not cushy job and badge of pride.

> being a politician should be a curse that the dedicated bear for the good of humanity, not cushy job and badge of pride

Nobody I know would run for state office. They pay poorly. You have to work in the state capitol, which in most state's is awful. You lose your privacy. And for what, a marginal legislative role?

The historic benefit was pride. But with nihilism in vogue and trust in government low, that reward is non-existent. Our intelligent and ambitious don't aim for public office. (It even feels trite to call it public service.) That's a problem.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#304

Post by Spoom »

qwertox wrote: post #299
photochemsyn wrote: post #30

Suggested alternative: The "End Political Corruption Proposal" "Given that political corruption is rife in European countries, with great detriments to the healthy function of government, all politicians in positions where they may be engaging in corrupt behavior must submit to 24-7 audio and video surveillance, which will be piped over public platforms for crowdsourcing of corruption detection. All personal communic…

I have thought for some years now that any country wanting to implement some kind of restrictions or surveillance should start with politicians and authorities first. With some select authorities being exempt from this due to national security. For example, if a country wants to implement the installation of state-owned anti-harassment "spyware" on their citizens phones, then this would first apply to politicians and…

> With some select authorities being exempt from this due to national security.

I fear your carveout would quickly become an "Inner Party" situation, with those with real power declaring themselves exempt due to "national security" reasons. Imagine then that anyone in any position of authority but not real power would be subject to the surveillance as an "Outer Party" member.

I get that the intent is to show the people in charge the negative consequences of such policies, but I don't think that's the worst that could come of this.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#305

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Aunche wrote: post #289
notahacker wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've already had some experiments about "what if we select politicians based on their love for being on TV and their lack of concern about concealing their corruption" and the results aren't good...

Much earlier than Trump, politicians discovered that they could further advance their own interests by virtue signaling during Congressional sessions instead of actually make progress on legislation. Now, all meaningful negotiation happens behinds closed doors. If that also gets broadcast, then I'd be surprised if they get anything done at all.

> now, all meaningful negotiation happens behinds closed doors

This is fundamental to loss aversion and compromise. There was never a "before." Open "negotiations" reward posturing, not compromise.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#306

Post by uoaei »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #303
CuriouslyC wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would be delightful. Being a politician should be a curse that the dedicated bear for the good of humanity, not cushy job and badge of pride.

> being a politician should be a curse that the dedicated bear for the good of humanity, not cushy job and badge of pride Nobody I know would run for state office. They pay poorly. You have to work in the state capitol, which in most state's is awful. You lose your privacy. And for what, a marginal legislative role? The historic benefit was pride. But with nihilism in vogue and trust in government low, that reward is…

I don't know you but I'd say no one you know is a committed public steward. However plenty of those exist outside of your bubble.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#307

Post by nottorp »

crashmat wrote: post #130
germandiago wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public position = gate to corruption, license and regulation = gate to corruption. Do not expect the ones who make the laws to make them against themselves. That is idealist thinking. If history teqches something is that the more of those, the more corruption and handing of favors and "legal corruption" pops up. It is not by chance. It is just bc of how incentives are aligned. Those incentives, IMHO, can only be dest…

problem is deregulation and privatisation doesn't work either, because then instead of corrupt politicians who make decisions based on greed despite being told not to, you get CEOs and big corporations who make decisions based on profit (essentially greed) because that is their entire purpose

> you get CEOs and big corporations who make decisions based on profit (essentially greed) because that is their entire purpose

That would be fine if you had hundreds of CEOs competing in a market. Unfortunately they tend to merge and create monopolies. And some people salute this because of the growth at all costs mindset.

What else in nature grows at all costs? Oh right, cancer.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#308

Post by stametseater »

0xy wrote: post #65
maxilevi wrote: post #7

Why every 12 months the European Commission comes up with a total dumb and authoritarian proposal and we have to actively fight it? It’s just tiring

Because EU residents allowed them to continue to legislate themselves into irrelevancy. Nobody spoke against GDPR, which is an utterly toothless annoyance. GDPR achieved nothing notable for data security and privacy, except by spamming cookie prompts and training users to accept anything. The EU is an incompetent, lumbering, bureaucratic hellscape. It expanded FAR beyond its original remit of a customs union, and in…

Only techbros in the mass surveillance industry get bent out of shape over GDPR. I have never once heard a single person outside this description complain about it. It's a pet peeve for peeping programmers.

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#309

Post by SiempreViernes »

mardifoufs wrote: post #297
gpderetta wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They could literally vote for von der Leyen or not vote at all. that's how confidence votes work on most parliamentary republics.

I think a key difference is that in parliamentary republics, we usually now how the candidate (that the parliement votes on) has been chosen: it's usually by winning the elections as the head of the party with the most parliement seats. In this case, the process is completely opaque. I would say that it would be pretty weird if people say, here in Canada, voted for their MPs (good!) but then said MPs could only choos…

In systems where you don't get single party majorities, do you _really_ how and what the coalition members traded to reach a deal?

Re: The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic societies

#310

Post by germandiago »

crashmat wrote: post #130
germandiago wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public position = gate to corruption, license and regulation = gate to corruption. Do not expect the ones who make the laws to make them against themselves. That is idealist thinking. If history teqches something is that the more of those, the more corruption and handing of favors and "legal corruption" pops up. It is not by chance. It is just bc of how incentives are aligned. Those incentives, IMHO, can only be dest…

problem is deregulation and privatisation doesn't work either, because then instead of corrupt politicians who make decisions based on greed despite being told not to, you get CEOs and big corporations who make decisions based on profit (essentially greed) because that is their entire purpose

Profit is not greed when you serve people with products and services. Or if it is greed, regulation and corruption is not another kind of greed even worse? No service, no product, no benefit for anyone.

If there is benefit in a regulation, the person imposing it is not the person paying the negative outcomes of it. Never. So no, CEOs competing cannot get more than what they generate unless they distort the market in some way.

Post reply on HN