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

EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

europarl.europa.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 221 posts

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#61

Post by jacquesm »

rippeltippel wrote: post #48
eigenket wrote: 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".

Agreed, that is exactly what it is. It's a huge stain on democracy and in many ways subverts it. Companies don't have the right to vote and should not be able to do an end-run around the electoral process with their money.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#62

Post by qwytw »

jacquesm wrote: post #41
yreg wrote: 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.

> will try again on the local level

That will be a lot harder though cause way more people actually pay attention to what their governates are doing compared to the EU (assuming of course a significant proportion of the population actually cares and opposes stuff like this).

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#63

Post by nonameiguess »

eddtries wrote: post #18
PoignardAzur wrote: post #9

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/...

I think the explanation is these legislators are not the ones who feel ideologically strong about cutting drug prices. Of the three people listed in this article, Kyrsten Sinema is no longer a Democrat and Bob Menendez is currently under indicment on federal corruption charges, which is now the second time for him.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#64

Post by gmerc »

orian wrote: post #2

From the source: > Chat control - one of the worst EU plans that is also being described as a surveillance monster - must be stopped. And the EU Parliament has just decided to do so! In a historic agreement on the EU Commission's Child Sexual Abuse Regulation (CSAR) the European Parliament wants to remove chat control requirements and safeguard secure encryption. The decision came after extensive backlash against the…

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance wasn’t a platitude

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#65

Post by eigenket »

Ekaros wrote: post #40

Makes lot of sense. In some EU countries like Finland the privacy of communication is a CONSTITUTIONAL right. So you need good reason to break it. And I don't think generic muh terrorism passes the bar.

Even more than that, its article 7 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights so its baked into the foundation of the EU itself via the Treaty of Lisbon (which is why its unsurprising this law failed to pass the EU parliament). Even if somehow this law did get passed the parliament the EU's courts should have struck it down.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#66

Post by qwytw »

bradley13 wrote: post #38
asimpletune wrote: post #23

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.

Why wouldn't you trust them? To some extent at least?

I mean if they are claiming their messaging system is E2E and it turns out it isn't the cost to them (not only financial) would be much higher than whatever they earn from having access to your data.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#67

Post by jacquesm »

qwytw wrote: post #62
jacquesm wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> will try again on the local level That will be a lot harder though cause way more people actually pay attention to what their governates are doing compared to the EU (assuming of course a significant proportion of the population actually cares and opposes stuff like this).

Yes, true, it is harder and will cost more and it will take more time. But I'm pretty sure that they'll try. You can expect the same for the DSA, which is a major thorn in the side of the advertising industry.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#68

Post by AlecSchueler »

The EU needs to stop it with all this heavy handed regulation. At the end of the day it only hurts businesses. Businesses rely on the data contained within these communications in order to improve their services. This is why US tech companies are growing while EU equivalents are not.

It's all well and good to consider user privacy and user safety but not when it stifles the market.

[Please note that this is a satirical comment based on some of the arguments I've seen here in the past]

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#69

Post by verisimi »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #53
zakary wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone has a price, and drug companies can usually find a way to meet it for even the most steadfast

> Everyone has a price Some people really do have principles they won't violate. We just don't get enough people in politics who don't have a price.

Not politicians. Not many normal people either. And that presumes that most people even know what 'principles' are - which they do not.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#70

Post by matt_j »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #68

The EU needs to stop it with all this heavy handed regulation. At the end of the day it only hurts businesses. Businesses rely on the data contained within these communications in order to improve their services. This is why US tech companies are growing while EU equivalents are not. It's all well and good to consider user privacy and user safety but not when it stifles the market. [Please note that this is a satiric…

Sure, Satan.
Post reply on HN