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

91–100 of 221 posts

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#91

Post by zabzonk »

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…

> while EU equivalents are not.

doh, ARM?

edit: please add "edit" when you edit

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#92

Post by rsynnott »

moffkalast wrote: post #83
contrarian1234 wrote: post #6

Isn't this is already a solved problem? This feels like a huge loss for player like Signal that actually ensure privacy by design

If this were to pass, Signal would become illegal and banned in the EU.

Well, that's possibly simplistic, because it's unlikely this would have held up in the ECJ in any case.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#93

Post by schmudde »

sixhobbits wrote: post #86

What's the closest thing to EFF for these kinds of things in Europe? I always feel like there's a huge difference in quality of reporting where EFF produces some of the best content I've ever read on any topic, and stuff about EU privacy is often a lot harder to follow. I know about statewatch and some individuals I follow who do a pretty good job, but feels like there is a gap for an organization to step and replica…

You might try Brave New Europe? They don't look at tech specifically like EFF, but tech touches their stories on economics, regulation, and the media: https://braveneweurope.com/?s=tech

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#94

Post by rsynnott »

pimterry wrote: post #74
nehal3m wrote: post #13

I was upset at the parliament for even considering this and extremely relieved that they chose not to pursue this draconic instrument. That said, we as citizens will have to remain vigilant and let our voices be heard because the onslaught on our privacy is constant from both commercial interests, spy agencies and state actors. These parties have no issue keeping pressure up over decades whereas we the citizens can b…

> We need some laws to swing our way; enshrine our rights to privacy in clear terms so implementing laws like chat control become a non-starter. I think those are already in place - one major point against the previously suggested approach was that it would conflict with a bunch of existing regulation, and so it would never get past the courts even if it was passed. Two convenient examples: - Article 8 of the EU conv…

> Article 8 of the EU convention of human rights

Worth noting that this isn't just a regulation; since the Lisbon Treaty it is effectively part of the EU's _constitution_, and can't simply be regulated or legislated away.

Though also note that it's the European convention on human rights, not the EU one. It's from the Council of Europe, a separate body, but the Lisbon Treaty effectively enshrined it in EU law.

EDIT: Nope, see comment below. The terminology is a bit of a mess...

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#95

Post by schmudde »

Prefect combination with Article 45 (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/11/article-45-will-roll-b...). You can roam around EU versions of websites that rely on government own certificate authorities and allow you to log in with your eIDAS id - which will be a requirement for all "very large online platforms."

The EU Parliament giveth and taketh away.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#96

Post by jojobas »

rsynnott wrote: post #80
eddtries wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing that I find shocking about lobbying is just how cheap it is. In the FTX trial the amount they spent lobbying politicians for pro-crypto laws was released and we're talking low five figures. SBF even said lobbying was very cheap for the impact you can get. Naively I thought it would cost millions to get a politician to support you but actually it's cheap enough a FAANG engineer could individually pay enough…

> organise a lobbying group greater than the NRA ($2.93M in 2022) This is... a little misleading. They also have at least two PACs (here's the big one: https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs... ) Now, you could claim, though not particularly credibly, that money spent on PACs is not lobbying money.

So, 10-30 million all up per election cycle, chump change for many venture investors for example.

>Now, you could claim, though not particularly credibly, that money spent on PACs is not lobbying money.

There are PACs and then there's AIPAC with a 70M/year budget.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#97

Post by gruez »

rollcat wrote: post #90
rippeltippel wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still waiting for the day when we'll replace the word "lobbying" with "corruption".

Oh it is called corruption - when you're talking second or third world countries. Same with "expats" vs "immigrants".

There's an objective difference between high corruption and low corruption countries though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

Let's not pretend that a slick lobbyist hired by vested interests to talk to representatives with no money changing hands is comparable to the stuff that goes down in high corruption countries, where there's literally briefcases full of cash given to politicians.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#98

Post by rsynnott »

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/...

Lobbying is likely easier in a polarised two-party system where you really only have to swing a few people on the edges to deadlock things. The European Parliament has 6 large parties (>50 seats), and they're not particularly cohesive, so cases where the pre-ordained decision can be swayed by getting to this six people would be much rarer.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#99

Post by robertlagrant »

jacquesm wrote: post #61
rippeltippel wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

There's no difference between companies and people here; no one, spending their company's money or their own, should be able to influence solely through money. They only can because of corrupt state employees, who should be replaced.

Re: EU Parliament Civil Liberties Committee adopts position on CSAR

#100

Post by codeptualize »

This is exactly as I expected it would end. We'll see this happen again, and again, and again.

Some politician gets the genius idea to have backdoors in encryption, initial support, then reality sets in and the plans are abandoned.

There is just no sensible way to implement this, therefore it's not going to happen.

This iteration did go a bit further than usual.

Post reply on HN