Live data from Hacker News

EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

europarl.europa.eu

41–50 of 221 posts

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#41
post #7

Hopefully, this settles it once and for all in the EU, similar to the Net Neutrality regulation from 2015.

Unlikely. What will happen is that instead of one big push to the EU they will try again on the local level. That's how companies abuse the EU all the time. First try to lobby the EU itself for a one-stop-shop approach, and if that fails they go after the member states.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#42
post #4

Despite the lobbying from American organisations (Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, Palantir and others who worked with Thorn on this [1][2]) the EU Parliament did the right thing this time. [1] https://www.thorn.org/partnerships/ [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20130420162917/http://www.wearet...

The thing that I find shocking about lobbying is just how cheap it is. In the FTX trial the amount they spent lobbying politicians for pro-crypto laws was released and we're talking low five figures. SBF even said lobbying was very cheap for the impact you can get. Naively I thought it would cost millions to get a politician to support you but actually it's cheap enough a FAANG engineer could individually pay enough…

I think we're partially mistaken about the true value and reason for lobbying existing as a concept. It's a cover that muddies the waters in discussion about laws, a coping mechanism for "The Other Side" and at the same time an endless stream of content for potential reporting by reporters/media.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#43
post #13

I was upset at the parliament for even considering this and extremely relieved that they chose not to pursue this draconic instrument. That said, we as citizens will have to remain vigilant and let our voices be heard because the onslaught on our privacy is constant from both commercial interests, spy agencies and state actors. These parties have no issue keeping pressure up over decades whereas we the citizens can b…

The European Parliament has no saying in what laws it votes. The European Commission draft those, and the Parliament can at best rectify or reject them.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#44
post #7

Hopefully, this settles it once and for all in the EU, similar to the Net Neutrality regulation from 2015.

Unlikely. What will happen is that instead of one big push to the EU they will try again on the local level. That's how companies abuse the EU all the time. First try to lobby the EU itself for a one-stop-shop approach, and if that fails they go after the member states.

Do you have examples? Ideally related to digital things or privacy.

(Thanks)

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#45
post #4

Despite the lobbying from American organisations (Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, Palantir and others who worked with Thorn on this [1][2]) the EU Parliament did the right thing this time. [1] https://www.thorn.org/partnerships/ [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20130420162917/http://www.wearet...

The thing that I find shocking about lobbying is just how cheap it is. In the FTX trial the amount they spent lobbying politicians for pro-crypto laws was released and we're talking low five figures. SBF even said lobbying was very cheap for the impact you can get. Naively I thought it would cost millions to get a politician to support you but actually it's cheap enough a FAANG engineer could individually pay enough…

That money is just to employ lobbyists and their associated expenses.

I'm sure there is additional money for lobbying that is not on the books. Holidays, houses, good bullion, crypto, free memberships to exclusive clubs and the like that is gifted to politician's and their spouses by big industry.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#46
post #8

Isn't this is already a solved problem? This feels like a huge loss for player like Signal that actually ensure privacy by design

It's not that simple. If the country introduces a legislation, every company operating in it's border must comply. If EU would introduce such legislation, it could potentially make software doing end2end encryption illegal. In such case, google would be removing it from EU Play Stores, and this would be more/less end of such messaging apps unless they comply. :-) This is why it's important to have a reasonable legisl…

It'd give people all the more incentive to sideload and get off Google Play Store. That's a win win in my book. And Signal is a non-for-profit. I don't see why they'd care. Designing system that subvert authoritarian regimes.. what's more punk than that

If you have to ask governments for permission then that's a bad design and your system will be taken away from you when the next think-of-the-children populists are elected

If you work on the assumption all governments are eternally nice and well interventioned .. then E2E chat systems aren't all that necessary in the first place

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The short answer is that we're talking about the EU. Thats a US thing. As far as I can tell looking from the outside the US system is set up so that if you aren't ridiculously wealthy yourself you pretty much need lobbyist money to fund your campaign to get elected.

That's probably true, there is lobbying in the UK so I assume countries within Europe have similar issues but I don't truly know.

Generally political advertisements, campaign spending and especially donations are strongly limited. E.g. where I am a only private individuals can only donate and only up to 10k per year. The downside of that is that most funding parties receive comes from the state and it's based on their previous election performance (which is problematic due to very obvious reasons...).

Also if everyone can give/spend as much as they want legally it at least stays semi transparent so in theory voters can base their decisions on that. Illegal bribes, kickbacks etc. are a bit harder to track.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#48
post #4

Despite the lobbying from American organisations (Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, Palantir and others who worked with Thorn on this [1][2]) the EU Parliament did the right thing this time. [1] https://www.thorn.org/partnerships/ [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20130420162917/http://www.wearet...

I'm still waiting for the day when we'll replace the word "lobbying" with "corruption".

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contrary to popular opinion, lobbying isn't as simple as "pay for expensive restaurant, get votes". If legislators feel strongly ideologically about an issue, no amount of lobbying will make them vote the other way.

How do you explain big Pharma lobbying to stop reducing drug prices? For example, Democrats who held up drug pricing reforms were the largest beneficiaries of lobbyist money. https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...

That's a US problem. The prices of all medicines in for example Denmark are publicly available. The medicine is purchased by a single entity(and there are proposals to combine the entities within the Nordic countries to form a single large purchaser), so to sell medicine in Denmark you'll have to play ball. The prices are therefore quite reasonable. Insulin which is a commonly used example of overpriced medicine in the US is around 40-50 USD in Denmark. That is the brand version from Novo Nordisk.

The prices are available at https://www.medicinpriser.dk/?lng=2

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#50

Next step would be OS maintainers to make APIs for providing e2e encryption functionality and then app stores requiring these apis to be used for private messaging.

Because you trust closeed-source from Microsoft, Google and Apple? Seriously? Open standards, open-source code. That's really the only option for code people are supposed to trust.

All security is built on trust. If your threat model is trust nothing, then the solution is do nothing. What I’m talking about is called anchoring, where you force a critical flow through a single anchor by design, and thus reduce the places that you have to audit. It’s the same reason they say that all security should be baked in the keys (strength, mgmt, exchange, etc…).

Do I trust Apple and Microsoft? I think sort of.

I don’t trust them to be perfect, but if your prior is to say that you don’t trust them at all, then it means you basically can’t use them at all bc no amount of security will get around an untrustworthy OS.

They control what gets displayed on screen, they control how memory is laid out and accessed for a program. There are already so many more important things we entrust to them. So, yeah, I prefer OS’s (all vendors) to provide APIs, and for app stores to enforce their use. I especially would trust this more than EU laws, and I certainly would trust that more than everyone doing their own thing, regardless if it’s open source.

If for no other better reason I trust the OS more, since all of these open solutions will still run on those supposedly untrustworthy os vendors.

You basically have to trust your OS, Don’t you think? Otherwise, the answer is you do nothing.

Post reply on HN