[deleted]
EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament
51–60 of 163 posts
Re: EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament
#52Why follow the EU's press release instead of stating what's happening? The EU parliament voted - many times. They voted AGAINST having this law at all. The EU council is now threatening to fully override parliament, but "gives parliament another chance" to agree, in hopes this makes the member states more likely to cooperate.
More correct would be to state the in power EU governments have decided to use the EU council power to override the will of both the EU parliament and the member states' own parliaments - for now, by threatening parliament with the override.
Re: EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament
#53They're are merely extending the current policy, it was set to expired early next year.
Re: EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament
#54They could have subpoenaed the unencrypted Gmail accounts of Maxwell, Epstein and Barak like two decades ago. They can still subpoena Barak's Gmail and other accounts, especially after Giuffre's allegations about "a well known prime minister".
I have the feeling this will not happen.
Re: EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
"contained the objective of “ever closer union” " Such words in any Preamble are usually meant as a lofty declaration of some ideal, not a concrete political goal. After all, "ever closer" does not even mean federation, it means a unitary state, which is "closer" than a federation or a confederation. If you believe that a single sentence in a 1957 treaty can be used as a ramrod to push European federalization from ab…
I don't think a mere Federalization should happen. I think a unitary state is - as you said! - what we all signed up for and what we should get. There's a reason the "ever closer" phrasing has been repeated over and over again - in the 1983 Solemn Declaration, the 1997 Maastricht Treaty, the 2009 Lisbon treaty etc etc. Look at China's rise and our fall - a direct consequence of centralization and the lack thereof.
> what we all signed up for
No, we didn't. The EU ignored the French and Dutch people's votes.
Re: EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament
#56Honest question. The EU was created as an economic and trade institution. How has it morphed into a wierd political institution, which NATO was already supposed to be? The root question: how did an organization that ushered in things like the Euro become a body that decides whether Europeans are allowed to have personal privacy?
The answer is pretty simple. This decision isn't "the EU".
The European Commission has fewer employees than the Luxembourg government (and keep in mind, they're "running" a continent).
This decision was the Council, i.e. simply the national member governments. Don't let anyone blame "the EU" for this, the national governments are the ones that proposed this, pushed it through EU institutions, and might now try to override the EU parliament about it. Just because national (elected) governments are pushing it through EU institutions doesn't mean you should blame "the EU". It wasn't the "Eurocrats".
Re: EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament
#57>At the beginning of the month, the Danish Presidency decided to change its approach with a new compromise text that makes the chat scanning voluntary, instead. Hmm, so this will probably make the life for those who don't scan quite hard and if they experience a high profile scandal getting out of it will not be easy I assume. I'm not sure what to think of it, not being mandatory and requiring risk assessment sounds…
I assume this is a delay to get a foot in the door. After some time, the scanning will be made no longer voluntary. One has to take rights away slowly, otherwise the frog jumps before you can boil it.
"voluntary" can also be pretty meaningless depending on the context. In the UK, if the police suspects you of shenanigans, they'll politely invite you for an "voluntary interview".
Of course you can decide to not go, it's voluntary, right? Yes, you can. Your choice. And when you reject their kind offer they'll come and arrest you so you can attend the interview.
Re: EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament
#58They could have subpoenaed the unencrypted Gmail accounts of Maxwell, Epstein and Barak like two decades ago. They can still subpoena Barak's Gmail and other accounts, especially after Giuffre's allegations about "a well known prime minister". I have the feeling this will not happen.
Oh but those people would be exempt from scanning anyways.
Re: EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament
#59>At the beginning of the month, the Danish Presidency decided to change its approach with a new compromise text that makes the chat scanning voluntary, instead. Hmm, so this will probably make the life for those who don't scan quite hard and if they experience a high profile scandal getting out of it will not be easy I assume. I'm not sure what to think of it, not being mandatory and requiring risk assessment sounds…
I assume this is a delay to get a foot in the door. After some time, the scanning will be made no longer voluntary. One has to take rights away slowly, otherwise the frog jumps before you can boil it.
While I fully agree with your sentiment, I'd like to take the opportunity to share a favorite fun-fact of mine: the frogs in the not-jumping-out experiment had their brains removed beforehand. Which might make the analogy more apt, actually, considering how much under siege our attention is these days.
Re: EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament
#60Taking the reasons at face value (for the sake of argument) I guess what I'm confused about is why this would be necessary. I would think there were already laws/regulations/liability reasons/etc requiring companies to make efforts to ensure they're not hosting CP and other such things? Am I wrong?