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

EU member states still cannot agree about end-to-end encryption

cyberlaw.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 154 posts

Re: EU member states still cannot agree about end-to-end encryption

#71

Post by mrtksn »

rdm_blackhole wrote: post #65
mrtksn wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It freaks me out to the point that I rather have my country leave the EU. What makes you think that your country’s politicians don’t want that but some people in Brussels are forcing it? Those people in Brussels are just people from all the countries, including yours. You also vote them in. The desire of governments controlling the population is universal.

The EC members who currently are sponsoring this bill (Chat Control 2.0) are not elected, they are appointed. They do not answer to anyone and they collude with lobby organizations to push an agenda. This is the far from being a democratic process.

They are appointed by the elected(the governments of the countries and the European Parliament, which are all elected).

When you say it like "they are not elected but appointed", you make it sound like some 3rd party is appointing them and you have no power on it but those who appoint the members of EC are the members of EP(elected every 5 years) and the national governments(elected accordingly to the local laws).

If you you want to make it sound undemocratic, you can say that the US president is elected by the electoral college and citizens of the USA have no way to vote for their president.

Re: EU member states still cannot agree about end-to-end encryption

#73

Post by js8 »

rollulus wrote: post #11

Initiatives like Chat Control makes me pessimistic. They keep on coming in all sort of variations and we defend. Given enough of such iterations, at some point though they’ll eventually be lucky and god knows how long it will take to revert things. And what I don’t get is that this sort of proposed legislation is more than Stasi could've ever wished. And yet it’s openly discussed as if it’s good idea. And note that “…

I would suggest support more direct democracy movements in Europe, such as DiEM25.

Re: EU member states still cannot agree about end-to-end encryption

#74

Post by robertlagrant »

devjab wrote: post #36
robertlagrant wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking as a Remain voter, I think that 2023 would look the almost the same post-Covid and Russia invading Ukraine. Brexit is a distant third in terms of damage done.

Brexit didn’t really help in terms of privacy though, the UK being one of the leading western anti-encryption countries politically. At least within the EU you have the chance of having at least one member state be an adult about it and realise that mass surveillance won’t work out the way they hope.

Well, the UK government could still introduce a law of their own anyway. Unless you're saying the EU would've created an EU-wide law that mandated that member states couldn't do it, but that seems very unlikely based on what we know of the EU.

Re: EU member states still cannot agree about end-to-end encryption

#75

Post by rdm_blackhole »

mrtksn wrote: post #71
rdm_blackhole wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EC members who currently are sponsoring this bill (Chat Control 2.0) are not elected, they are appointed. They do not answer to anyone and they collude with lobby organizations to push an agenda. This is the far from being a democratic process.

They are appointed by the elected(the governments of the countries and the European Parliament, which are all elected). When you say it like "they are not elected but appointed", you make it sound like some 3rd party is appointing them and you have no power on it but those who appoint the members of EC are the members of EP(elected every 5 years) and the national governments(elected accordingly to the local laws). If…

So they are not elected? Right? Therefore they are not accountable to the public.

Re: EU member states still cannot agree about end-to-end encryption

#76

Post by mrtksn »

rdm_blackhole wrote: post #75
mrtksn wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are appointed by the elected(the governments of the countries and the European Parliament, which are all elected). When you say it like "they are not elected but appointed", you make it sound like some 3rd party is appointing them and you have no power on it but those who appoint the members of EC are the members of EP(elected every 5 years) and the national governments(elected accordingly to the local laws). If…

So they are not elected? Right? Therefore they are not accountable to the public.

Fun fact, the American president and the British prime ministers are also not elected.

If you like to argue over technicalities, we can do that.

Re: EU member states still cannot agree about end-to-end encryption

#77

Post by ajsnigrutin »

mrtksn wrote: post #39
rollulus wrote: post #11

Initiatives like Chat Control makes me pessimistic. They keep on coming in all sort of variations and we defend. Given enough of such iterations, at some point though they’ll eventually be lucky and god knows how long it will take to revert things. And what I don’t get is that this sort of proposed legislation is more than Stasi could've ever wished. And yet it’s openly discussed as if it’s good idea. And note that “…

>It freaks me out to the point that I rather have my country leave the EU. What makes you think that your country’s politicians don’t want that but some people in Brussels are forcing it? Those people in Brussels are just people from all the countries, including yours. You also vote them in. The desire of governments controlling the population is universal.

I didn't vote for Ursula, and if the shit gets really really bad, our government is a few kilometers away from where I'm now, and modern pitchfork analogs are easy to find.

Re: EU member states still cannot agree about end-to-end encryption

#78

Post by throwaway60722 »

mrtksn wrote: post #76
rdm_blackhole wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So they are not elected? Right? Therefore they are not accountable to the public.

Fun fact, the American president and the British prime ministers are also not elected. If you like to argue over technicalities, we can do that.

Who cares? I don't live in UK or USA. They can have whatever disfunctional system they want, doesn't mean I will tolerate it at my home because of that.

There are dictators elsewhere, should I have one at home too?

Re: EU member states still cannot agree about end-to-end encryption

#79

Post by jeltz »

rollulus wrote: post #11

Initiatives like Chat Control makes me pessimistic. They keep on coming in all sort of variations and we defend. Given enough of such iterations, at some point though they’ll eventually be lucky and god knows how long it will take to revert things. And what I don’t get is that this sort of proposed legislation is more than Stasi could've ever wished. And yet it’s openly discussed as if it’s good idea. And note that “…

My country, Sweden, is one of the ones pushing for this to be implemented so I am very happy to have the EU block it. What is the position of politicians in your country?

Re: EU member states still cannot agree about end-to-end encryption

#80

Post by throwaway60722 »

jeltz wrote: post #79
rollulus wrote: post #11

Initiatives like Chat Control makes me pessimistic. They keep on coming in all sort of variations and we defend. Given enough of such iterations, at some point though they’ll eventually be lucky and god knows how long it will take to revert things. And what I don’t get is that this sort of proposed legislation is more than Stasi could've ever wished. And yet it’s openly discussed as if it’s good idea. And note that “…

My country, Sweden, is one of the ones pushing for this to be implemented so I am very happy to have the EU block it. What is the position of politicians in your country?

My country is one of the ones pushing for this to not be implemented, so I am very unhappy to have the EU force it.
Post reply on HN