Live data from Hacker News

EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

patrick-breyer.de

321–330 of 463 posts

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#321
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While the EU is not perfect and surely needs improvement in many areas, it is still better than not having it. This is why you see a lot of pro-EU content: many people here (myself included) are of the opinion that the EU needs to be improved, not dismantled.

Yes, you are right, the only two possible choices are to either give the government an absolute mandate to spy on every citizen, or to abolish the EU altogether, no other option is possible.

I never meant this. You should read my comment in the context of the discussion. And I'm also explicitly saying that the EU needs improvement.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#322
post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well no.. just handcuffed and left to die after being stabbed (while the perpetrators face no consequences).

> (while the perpetrators face no consequences). Bullshit! Vickrum Digwa, the perpetrator of that crime, was jailed for life with a minimum sentence review time of 21 years. What's more it's thought that sentence is unduly lenient so it's being reviewed to make is stronger. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1d2w411rgro

I meant the policemen of course. They were never tried for manslaughter or even fired(?). So at least in this case the lack of accountability is similar what is regularly happening in the US.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#323

Instead of the usual knee-jerk it would be nice to see some level-header analysis on mechanics of these things - who pays for the time of the people that decide to push this particular piece of legislation, how they manage to get into the door, who personally makes the proposal, how they gather support for it.

You won't get such analysis because the EU law making process is (a) mostly secret and (b) doesn't necessarily follow the process laid out in the treaties, making a lot of discussion purely theoretical. This has been a problem for years. The British pushed back when they were members but no longer.

Five days ago:

https://euobserver.com/223533/the-european-unions-culture-of...

The EU is increasingly hiding things from journalists, researchers and members of civil society.

Secrecy has a long tradition in the EU, but the European Commission has clearly limited the publicity of its activities during Ursula von der Leyen’s second presidency.

The commission’s new Rules of Procedure significantly limit what counts as an official document. They authorise withholding and destroying information even after a request for access has been made. The commission has, on flimsy grounds, concealed legal documents and files related to the regulation of technology giants, among other things.

It is now almost impossible to monitor how the EU uses its power, for example, in relation to large platform companies.

The EU never improves. A decade ago the same complaints were being made:

https://euobserver.com/61985/secret-eu-law-making-takes-over...

Secret EU law making reached a high in 2016 that has only been matched once before, according to figures obtained by EUobserver.

The normal process starts with a bill from the European Commission. The bill is then channelled through the European Parliament and the Council of the EU, representing member states.

If no agreement is reached at first reading, a second reading is launched. But according to figures provided by the parliament, not a single bill ended up in a second reading agreement in 2016, only the second time this has happened since EU parliament record keeping began in 2004.

“That is quite astonishing, but it is just a continuation of a trend that we have been seeing for quite a while now,” said Vicky Marissen of Pact European Affairs, a Brussels-based consultancy specialising in EU decision-making procedures.

Second readings are important because they open up the debate to the public at large. Removing this phase means the details are being agreed behind closed doors and people have to rely on insider information to understand what is happening.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is bullshit. The EU parliament is the organ that shot it down so far. Read the article. It is the national governments pushing this shit. They try to launder if through the EU because passing those legislations locally would likely be very unpopular.

That might be true, but does not contradict the parent: if the design of the EU overall allows this to happen, it is indeed very undemocratic. How does the fact that the EP rejected it (multiple times), help the population of the EU states, that never pushed for this? Even worse: your argument implies, that the EU is enabling national politicians to push through unpopolar decisions, that likely would have no chance o…

The national governments are elected.

People just tend to pay a lot less attention to how their national governments act on the EU.

The solution is not to throw the EU away, it is a massive good for all countries involved, it is to fucking hold your national governments accountable, and to demand more direct participation in the EU.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#326
post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good example of the mindset that is turning the EU into a backwater. Paraphrased you're saying there's no problem with the EU banning new technologies because the Americans can always be relied on to make progress anyway, and then Europe can just copy whatever they do. So there seems to be some confusion over premises in this thread. The people pointing out the USB-C law as a failure are reasoning from the G…

What's interesting to me is that this is a bit like how the USSR worked. They were relying on the West for high-tech tractors and even to build factories (I know Ford helped them build some factories for a part of the factory output). I also know they used to look at the allocation of goods in the US as a starting point to decide what to produce, as they were basically running blind to what people needed or wanted.

Mikhail Gorbachev: "The EU is the old Soviet Union dressed in Western clothes."

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#328
post #256
post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I understand what you are saying, let me reply with an example in which I think 'privacy' is harmful. Lets say military intelligence has multiple NATO hospitals compromised, and have assets in these hospitals which are being used for various black operations (including non-medical neurosurgery on literal children). In this scenario, maybe total societal surveillance, including radical transparency, would have…

OK, setting aside the possibility this is some sort of joke/sarcasm I can't quite get, and the absolute wtf of this "scenario" which doesn't exist and all the ways it cannot exist with nothing to with privacy, and taking it sorta seriously, your argument completely falls down here amongst other places: >Lets say military intelligence has multiple NATO hospitals compromised, and have assets in these hospitals which ar…

>this "scenario" which doesn't exist

Where do you get your information from, exactly? In criminal and intelligence circles, this is not exactly uncommon knowledge. I hope you never experience the horror of finding out that even in federal protective custody, that military intelligence is already there waiting for you.

>ways it cannot exist with nothing to with privacy,

In the Soviet Union, for example, all medical records were accessible by the state security services, and this served legitimate national security purposes. You have no idea what it's like to be targeted by an entity like the CIA.

>Why the heck would you think that the first job of a hostile military intelligence wouldn't be TO COMPROMISE THE TOTAL SOCIETAL SURVEILLANCE NETWORK!?!?

It would be a legitimate target, tbh there might not even be much of a point in terms of practical affect. Do you have any idea how many "crimes" have been reported to the international community, only to be ignored completely by all relevant propaganda outlets?

> insert actual agents into a hospital for illegal child surgery and escape notice.

Our propaganda outlets have literally reported on, swathes of, evidence of the CIA doing exactly this. Your country was not immune to this spookery.

I have some bad news for you. This is a real scenario, likely happening within a 1000km radius of you. Military usage of brain-computer interfaces go back over a century, the experience of being an intelligence asset is nothing like you assume. Many of the assets aren't even perceptual of their human experience in a manner expected naturally. The individuals who are aware of their status, at this point, learn to be silent very quickly.

Surgery based neurological compromise is only one example of the various operations currently running rampant in NATO countries.

>Counter intelligence and trying to get inside the other agency's decision loops has rich history probably for as long as spying has been done.

And your intelligence agencies won't tell you shit, they will slap a "CLASSIFIED" label on it, and continue to enjoy their cushy positions while their people continue to be exploited.

>Why do you think you can secure this incredibly invasive theoretical network

I'm just one individual who has had the great misfortune of having to deal with this spookery first-hand. You can propose the design of this system if you wish.

> all evidence from our entire history to the contrary

I'm genuinely not trying to be rude, but this line is absolutely hilarious. Depending on the country you reside in, your intelligence agencies likely are well aware of the state of neurological (again, this is just one category) compromise in your country, and aren't telling you shit.

> This is such schizobabble that makes no sense

There's a reason HIPPA has exemptions for national security purposes, to the extent in which law matters when dealing with spookery (it does not, nobody follows the fucking "law" in these operations).

Just wait until you learn about how deeply compromised the CDC is.

It would be nice to at least have the illusion of transparency in regards to, very relevant data, such as what is happening to your citizens in public hospitals. Instead the US went the opposite direction, this is not a coincidence.

> that I don't know what else to do beyond urging you to seek some alternatives to wherever you got this from.

I have been imprisoned extra-judicially, threatened with torture (I complied quickly), and served rotten food on US soil. You don't have to believe me, and I sincerely hope you never experience the horror of realizing your jailers are already compromised, nor the experience of realizing that reporting any of this is literally fucking pointless because the entire national security reporting apparatus for civilians and much of the military is deeply compromised and utterly pointless.

The US is so deeply compromised that it's a joke. Your media is failing you spectacularly in this regard.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#329
post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (while the perpetrators face no consequences). Bullshit! Vickrum Digwa, the perpetrator of that crime, was jailed for life with a minimum sentence review time of 21 years. What's more it's thought that sentence is unduly lenient so it's being reviewed to make is stronger. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1d2w411rgro

I meant the policemen of course. They were never tried for manslaughter or even fired(?). So at least in this case the lack of accountability is similar what is regularly happening in the US.

The IOPC is still investigating the police officers involved.

They won't release their findings until September, so it's too early to say that there's no accountability.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still, this is mostly pushed by particular countries (e.g. Denmark), the commission and aggressively pursued by lobbyist. The most democratic body in the EU (the EP) has so far always rejected Chat Control. Without the EU, this would have been introduced in some member countries much earlier (see also UK).

Let it not be forgotten that when Denmark was president of the Council of EU and tried to push this forward, one of the former colleagues/friends of the justice minister was charged with child abuse in 2025. Just search Henrik Sass Larssen and Peter Humeelgaard. We should start digging into the lives of those pushing for mandated age verification, chat control, and other privacy killing measures to show the world the…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN