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

91–100 of 154 posts

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

#91

Post by Arnt »

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.

Lots of important jobs aren't elected. But got the job by being elected repeatedly for other things.

Many important EU figures have been elected repeatedly for national parliaments, as national ministers or for leadership positions in major national political parties, and only after that got an EU job.

I think it's by design: The jobs are put together as a nationally/politically balanced team, picked from from a large set of candidates who have generally been accepted by national voters over a period of time.

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

#92

Post by SenAnder »

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…

> They are appointed by the elected

The more indirect the method is, the more control shifts from voters to lobbyists and insiders versed in the system.

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

#93

Post by mrtksn »

rdm_blackhole wrote: post #86
mrtksn wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am not a citizen of the UK nor from the US, if this system is enough for you, then by all means feel free to disagree. In my book an elected official is someone who was voted in office. If you are not elected then you are appointed. If you are appointed you do not need to be accountable because the people cannot revoke your mandate nor can they vote you out. To me it seems inconceivable that someone who was appoint…

As I said, EC members are appointed by the elected governments and EP and the EP members are directly elected. If you don't like it you can start or join a political movement to change it or political movement to exit the EU.

However it's not O.K. to go around claim that those people are appointees of 3rd parties and are agents of companies and rule with impunity and the EU citizens can't do anything about it. It's a misrepresentation of the reality.

It's like claiming that British PM and the US president are not elected. While technically true, it misrepresent the democratic system.

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

#94

Post by eterps »

rdm_blackhole wrote: post #89
eterps wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can continue to use encryption just fine: https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.sufficientlysecure.keych... The problem would be with the messaging/media services that have EtoE encryption integrated in the same app. I am not sure how buying a dumb phone solves anything.

Well,a dumb phone without any app capabilities would not have the client-side scanning software running unless I am mistaken.

> without any app capabilities

So you'd use e-mail and SMS?

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

#95

Post by roenxi »

mnw21cam wrote: post #54
hcks wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish euros could explain to me why they speak of "their data" as if that was their souls

I have one answer for that if the asker is based in the US: I see Americans going on and on about denying warrantless searches of their house and car. It's everywhere. Assert your rights, don't consent to a search, remain silent, don't talk to the police. That position is logically inconsistent with then letting every random company you ever have any vague dealings with (like loading their web page) deeply investigat…

I agree 80%, but it isn't logically inconsistent. Google can't arrest you, the odds of Google employees shooting anyone in their day-to-day work is extremely low, and Google (all capitalist enterprises, really) managers are heavily incentivised to ignore any beliefs I hold that aren't strictly impacting their ability to do business.

Any data that Google has is available to law enforcement, and that is a major problem, but in the abstract someone can object to government invasion of privacy without objecting to Google's dragnet.

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

#96

Post by [deleted] »

hef19898 wrote: post #15
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 “…

Because leaving the EU worked out so well last time someone tried.

[deleted]

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

#97

Post by rdm_blackhole »

Arnt wrote: post #83
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.

A quick glance at Wikipedia suggests that the main sponsor is Ylva Johansson, who is not presently an elected politician, because she stepped down in 2019 after being a member of the swedish parliament for 13 continuous years, for this party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Party_(Sweden) I have the impression that this is often the case: EC members are recruited from members of national parliament, ministers and…

Small reminder that the left party described in your comment is actually formerly known as the communist party in Sweden and that they supported during WW2 the invading soviet forces vs Finland.

That may explain why she is interested in bringing this legislation forward. I think privacy is not at the forefront of preoccupations for communists.

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

#98

Post by sakjur »

rdm_blackhole wrote: post #86
mrtksn wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am not a citizen of the UK nor from the US, if this system is enough for you, then by all means feel free to disagree. In my book an elected official is someone who was voted in office. If you are not elected then you are appointed. If you are appointed you do not need to be accountable because the people cannot revoke your mandate nor can they vote you out. To me it seems inconceivable that someone who was appoint…

Is there any country that directly elects their government and its ministers?

The commission is appointed by the European council (i.e. prime ministers and presidents of the member states) and approved by the parliament (your directly elected representatives).

They _should_ absolutely be held accountable in the same way we hold ministers accountable in the member states.

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

#99

Post by mannerheim »

mrtksn wrote: post #87
mannerheim wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can the EU sanction countries for not complying?

It's complex, they can be sued or funding can get cut but EU is not like the USA. It's more like a club where the countries come together to decide how to do things and then they implement local laws to do it. They are not hostile countries brought together by force, the hostilities are usually between neighbours and EU acts as a way to resolve them. For example, countries close to the borders see large refugee influ…

If they can be sued for it, I wouldn't say it's accurate to say they can continue opposing it. Even cut funding, if they still have to contribute funds to the EU, would be coercive.

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

#100

Post by PhilipRoman »

rdm_blackhole wrote: post #41
agilob wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It won't pass >this time<

It will pass this time. The Swedish politician is in the pocket of big tech corporations.

IMO this has nothing to do with big tech. End to end encryption does not prevent big tech from reading your messages if you use their provided client.

The importance of money in politics is greatly overstated, this is just government wanting more control.

Post reply on HN