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

EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

patrick-breyer.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 463 posts

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#411

Post by izacus »

miohtama wrote: post #280
0x_rs wrote: post #272

People are getting real EU fatigue from both sides of the spectrum. The attacks on privacy are the most concerning, the members of the high level group pushing for ChatControl and other surveillance state measures are still anonymous, while the Commissioner's Pfizer chats are still nowhere to be found--not that they would be subjected to the same surveillance as the little people. The needs of those bureaucrats sitti…

And people are surprised of the rise of far right, especially anti EU one

The right is a massive supporter for all of these authoritarian pushes, so what exactly are you trying to say?

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#412

Post by latexr »

AAAAaccountAAAA wrote: post #70

I am getting somewhat confused about this. That website seems to be equating (semi-?)-reasonable measures with monstrosities such as banning or effectively banning e2ee.

It’s important to understand this is not just a rando on the internet. This is a former Member of the European Parliament who has been criticising and sharing developments on Chat Control for years. The post isn’t made in a vacuum, but made with the knowledge of everything which has happened up to now, including the “Chat Control 2.0”, which is different from what’s happening now. Every concern you see there has been discussed at length on other posts on the same website.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#413

Post by like_any_other »

throwawayffffas wrote: post #356
mike_hearn wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This "keep asking until they say yes" strategy is by design and has been a common tactic used by the EU power centers in the past. See the way the Treaty of Lisbon was rejected in referendums, and then people were just made to vote again. Or the way the British pro-EU faction proclaimed in 2016 that Leave/Remain was a once in a generation vote to settle the issue for all time, then immediately started agitating for a…

All the quotes are clearly talking about closer integration which no one is hiding is a stated goal of the European Union. It's right there in the original treaties `an ever closer union`. If you don't like it leave, but the rest have all committed to that a long time ago. The chat control thing has nothing to do with all of the above, it's just a bit of legislation. The whole "we will vote on it again and again unti…

> I really doubt von der Leyen or anyone in a position of actual power actually cares about this, I am certain they really think this is small time inconsequential bullshit.

And yet it just keeps showing up over and over and over again, no matter how many times it's voted down. Someone with no actual power must really not care about this at all.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#414

Post by spwa4 »

flir wrote: post #397
joe_mamba wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>All the quotes are clearly talking about closer integration Are you saying "the ends justify the means" of this "closer integration"? With that logic, Hitler's end goal was also closer integration of Europe's countries once he conquered them all. >If you don't like it leave Impossible to leave now when you joined 20+ years ago, when the EU was something completely different, which now grew beyond what you signed up…

> Impossible to leave now when you joined 20+ years ago, when the EU was something completely different, which now grew beyond what you signed up for, without fucking your economy. It's called a rug pull with a dead man's switch. Try to leave and we make sure we all blow up. Translation: the benefits of being in the EU outweigh the drawbacks. This is the crux of it. From your local parish council to the largest supra…

> Translation: the benefits of being in the EU outweigh the drawbacks.

Well, yes. But that WAS NOT what was voted upon. What was voted upon were specific proposals to change the EU and have closer integration.

The votes (there was more than one) had clear outcomes: "NO".

But in a democratic system that should be then of it! And it wasn't. But the truth is the EU has a very long history of overriding democratic votes, "for good reasons". Frankly, I even agree with the basic assessment there: that what the EU proposed was the best outcome and voters rejected it for bad reasons. But in a democracy that voters reject it is the final say.

And the problem with it is that if "rational" things can be forced through against the will of the voters ... it always ends the same way.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#415

Post by SomeUserName432 »

like_any_other wrote: post #410
moniosi wrote: post #189

The common fallacy people have regarding chat control (and should be clarified) is that it's not like internet is made of a few select providers, anyone can open an encrypted tcp connection from an ip to another, and the global traffic is too massive to be scrutinized, also the most widely available apps already comply to the single police request to access conversations from suspects. This means that this will creat…

> which is hilarious coming after the Files. Files?

Epstein

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#416

Post by marginalia_nu »

elric wrote: post #8

This is going to further increase anti-EU sentiment. This is unacceptable behaviour, but no politician is ever going to experience any negative consequences over this because they're so very far removed from the democratic process.

The EU is going to have to accept this increase in anti-EU sentiment, it will only ever increase as long as the EU has the democratic deficit that it has. It is what's both permitting this overreach, and the powerlessness to do something about it is what is breeding the anti-EU sentiment.

The problem begins and ends with the fact that there is just no realistic way to hold these people accountable. I don't know what it would take for people, across the EU, to consider punishing EU politicians to be more important than selecting their national government. A genocide, maybe? Something of that severity, no doubt. Certainly not something as pesky as instating a digital Stasi.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#417

Post by vrganj »

joe_mamba wrote: post #406
vrganj wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Impossible to leave now when you joined 20+ years ago, when the EU was something completely different, which now grew beyond what you signed up for, without fucking your economy. It's called a rug pull with a dead man's switch. Try to leave and we make sure we all blow up. The EU was always designed to be an "ever closer union". It's literally in the Treaty of Rome from 1957 (!). This is explicitly what was signed…

>The EU was always designed to be an "ever closer union". Wow, isn't it convenient that such a vague all-encompassing paper from the past that you never voted for, can be used a justification for anything being done to you today? What are the boundaries for that "ever closer union"? At which point it it just close enough? Or is it open ended? Would you sign an open ended contract with the bank? That wouldn't be legal…

There's no boundaries to "ever closer union". That's what ever closer means, definitionally.

Nobody was duped into anything, countries exercised their sovereignty to come to an agreement.

The rest of your concerns is just how literally any legislation and treaty ever works. When did you sign on to your country's constitution? What about the treaty of Bern establishing the Universal Postal Union in 1874?

Key concept here is legal succession.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#418

Post by GTP »

m4nu3l wrote: post #314
skocznymroczny wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true. You are allowed to have a prioprietary/custom connector, you just have to provide USB-C option as a fallback.

> you just have to provide USB-C option as a fallback. Given you must have a USB-C port, the design would still be limited by the USB-C form factor and adding another port would even further increase the complexity, costs and weight of the design. This will still strongly limit the spread of new designs, and I'm pretty sure it's effectively equivalent to mandating just USB-C for smaller devices.

I see how this could be an issue for small devices, but this wouldn't stop a company from testing a new connector on bigger ones: laptops still have one or more USB-A ports, despite USB-C being common now. So having an additional connector other than USB-C isn't an issue.

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#419

Post by soraminazuki »

frankharv wrote: post #244
intended wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still remember conversations here on HN, around the time Facebook was launched. It was considered insanity that you would give up your privacy to a firm. I remember how that what seemed absurdly risky, meant absolutely nothing to the average person, and the astronomic value Facebook began to accumulate. I wonder if it wasn't social media that set up the death spiral of the internet. The walled gardens on content an…

I didn't see it that way. when Facebook started it was like an intimate club. Classmates.com was charging money for reunion information and Facebook was free. It was the IPO that really tipped the scales. In that one day Zuck became a Billionaire with everybody else's information. We were bamboozled. Subscription versus free but not really.

Facebook was started by a college kid who made a site for non-consensually rating the faces of his fellow female classmates. He called his initial users "dumb f*cks" for trusting him with their private information. Information, which he offered to share with his friend, also without consent. It was obvious from the start that Facebook was up to no good, but money and power [1] prevailed.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel#Facebook

Re: EU to legislate about Chat Control behind closed doors

#420

Post by joe_mamba »

vrganj wrote: post #417
joe_mamba wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The EU was always designed to be an "ever closer union". Wow, isn't it convenient that such a vague all-encompassing paper from the past that you never voted for, can be used a justification for anything being done to you today? What are the boundaries for that "ever closer union"? At which point it it just close enough? Or is it open ended? Would you sign an open ended contract with the bank? That wouldn't be legal…

There's no boundaries to "ever closer union". That's what ever closer means, definitionally. Nobody was duped into anything, countries exercised their sovereignty to come to an agreement. The rest of your concerns is just how literally any legislation and treaty ever works. When did you sign on to your country's constitution? What about the treaty of Bern establishing the Universal Postal Union in 1874? Key concept h…

>There's no boundaries to "ever closer union".

Ok, but you haven't told me what exactly the end goal of that "ever closer union" is. Aren't we already fully unified?

Nor have you disputed the vagueness of the "ever closer union" which is used to undemocratically bully countries in the union to do what unelected corrupt Brussels bureaucrats want them to do.

>Key concept here is legal succession.

Which is not set in stone.

Post reply on HN