Live data from Hacker News

EU Council Approves New "Chat Control" Mandate Pushing Mass Surveillance

reclaimthenet.org

71–80 of 449 posts

Re: EU Council Approves New "Chat Control" Mandate Pushing Mass Surveillance

#71

Why are all politicians so shit? Launch these no-good leeches into the sun. Nobody wants this, including they themselves, which is why they specifically exempt themselves from it.

I wonder if being a certain type of politician could be considered a mental health condition

Re: EU Council Approves New "Chat Control" Mandate Pushing Mass Surveillance

#75
post #68
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because it doesn't, people are just embarrassingly ignorant of how the EU legislative process works Hmm, now whose fault is it that the EU institutions are so complicated and opaque? The citizens? The journalists? Or maybe...?

They're not complicated for anyone with above room temperature IQ. And they're almost identical to how it works in the member countries anyway And in a democracy if you don't know how your own laws are made the fault is always yours as a voter

Why do people get so defensive about obviously flawed processes? This reply reads like a 4chan comment written by a frustrated teenager

Re: EU Council Approves New "Chat Control" Mandate Pushing Mass Surveillance

#76
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK government laundering unpopular regulations through the EU and then blaming the EU for them even when the UK had proposed and often championed then was definitely a factor in Brexit passing. Somewhat relevantly, the UK already has their own version of this legislation in the Online Safety Act which lead to a bunch of small-medium UK community sites closing and the likes of Imgur, pixiv and 4chan blocking the U…

I believe 4chan is taking ofcom to court for trying to restrict their first amendment rights rather than blocking the UK, at least I'm still able to access it without a vpn.

> restrict their first amendment rights

how is this relevant in the UK

Re: EU Council Approves New "Chat Control" Mandate Pushing Mass Surveillance

#78

Why are all politicians so shit? Launch these no-good leeches into the sun. Nobody wants this, including they themselves, which is why they specifically exempt themselves from it.

Because nobody sane & level headed wants to participate in the circus that is politics

Re: EU Council Approves New "Chat Control" Mandate Pushing Mass Surveillance

#79
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lobbying. EU delegates and council members have to report their meetings with lobbyists. Palantir and Thorn lobbyists (just the most famous ones, but you can add another few dozens security and data companies) are recorded meeting many times with countless of them, including Ursula von der Leyen. It's really as simple as that, sales pitches convincing them of all the benefits of having more intelligence "to catch cri…

> Palantir and Thorn lobbyists So, US interests? Which means the NSA?

I don't want to fall in a conspiracy but to me it seems there's an entire sector interested into relaxing E2E cryptography and data access.

Even if the NSA was not involved the same data and security companies would have the same incentives imho.

Re: EU Council Approves New "Chat Control" Mandate Pushing Mass Surveillance

#80
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it doesn't, people are just embarrassingly ignorant of how the EU legislative process works so when a vote to give first approval to a text is cancelled before it takes place journalists and reddit all over pull out the mission accomplished banners and when a negotiating position is approved everyone has a surprised pikachu face The "proposal" was made something like 3 years ago, the killing never happened an…

This is of course a process, that does not lend itself to be democratic, because it is way longer than most people's attention span. People don't manage to remember things that happened in politics 4 years ago in their own country. Now they are required to follow up on dozens of shitty proposals, all probably illegal in their own country, and those don't even happen in their own country? That divides the number of pe…

>> that does not lend itself to be democratic, because it is way longer than most people's attention span

The attention span of the general public _shouldn't_ matter. That's why we elect politicians.

Post reply on HN