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

EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

patrick-breyer.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

911–920 of 947 posts

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#911

Post by NikolaNovak »

hollerith wrote: post #889
NikolaNovak wrote: post #863

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think parallel comment has a much better answer than I could provide - EU is a set of heterogeneous political units which each have multiple nested political units within. Given complexity of USA states rights and legislative bodies, vs municipal and county governments, and then vs the federal judicial executive and legislative branches, including a complete house and a complete Senate, all permeated at all level b…

In the US, the state government has absolute power over the municipal and county governments in its borders, which is a very simple legal structure. For example, the NY state legislature can override any law made by the NY city government and can even replace the NY city government with whatever entity it wishes.

There's the internal reality and external perception.

As an outsider, it feels all levels of USA government are constantly fighting and going back and forth and back and forth over big topics like minority rights, marriages, religion in schools and public matters, funding, environmental concerns, police approach, rights and freedoms, spying, choices of utilities, etc.

Same for EU externally I imagine.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#912

Post by WhyNotHugo »

Fnoord wrote: post #844
ktosobcy wrote: post #835

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are mixing it with Council ;) Yeah, EU setup is absurdly convoluted but it's simply a result of the consensus that tires to balance difference sources of power (the people and the countries). Ideally the whole EU population should just vote for MEPs in EU parliment, which the would form the government. But that would completely sidestep member states government which they won't ever agree to. And any even mention…

Yup, classic, mixed EP with EC. Makes you wonder if he explained it correctly to his wife (American lawyer), or if she verified. I don't like the way US presidents are elected either, ignoring popular vote, and including gerrymandering. I also don't like how the US president is allowed to bypass Congress.

> the US president is allowed to bypass Congress.

This is the key difference between presidential system and parliamentary system. In a parliamentary system, the head of state answers to the parliament. In a presidential system, the presidents answers to no-one (technically they answer to the people, but in practice that's inconsequential).

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#913

Post by krapp »

WhyNotHugo wrote: post #912
Fnoord wrote: post #844

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, classic, mixed EP with EC. Makes you wonder if he explained it correctly to his wife (American lawyer), or if she verified. I don't like the way US presidents are elected either, ignoring popular vote, and including gerrymandering. I also don't like how the US president is allowed to bypass Congress.

> the US president is allowed to bypass Congress. This is the key difference between presidential system and parliamentary system. In a parliamentary system, the head of state answers to the parliament. In a presidential system, the presidents answers to no-one (technically they answer to the people, but in practice that's inconsequential).

Strictly speaking, in the US system the President isn't allowed to bypass Congress. Congress makes the laws and sets the budget and the President is suppose to execute on what Congress decides, which is ostensibly supposed to reflect the will of the people. Even executive orders can't override existing law or the Constitution. The President isn't supposed to be able to go to war without Congressional approval. The three branches of government are supposed to be equal and mutually oppositional in their power.

The (im)balance of power we have now is very much not what was originally intended, but it can only persist because Congress and the Supreme Court are complicit in granting the Executive near absolute authority, which is only being kept in check at the moment by lower courts.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#914

Post by IanCal »

flumpcakes wrote: post #750
IanCal wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren’t allowed to do whatever they want with your data, there’s strict restrictions on requiring consent for things you want to do with user data.

I assume those 400-page EULAs blast away any 'strict restrictions'.

No, GDPR spells out in much more detail what consent means - and burying things in a EULA doesn’t work.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#915

Post by danielmeskin »

flossly wrote: post #730
fosk wrote: post #719

The EU is a farce, an undemocratic virtue signaling organization, and this is why: - The Parliament voted against the first reading of this proposal twice in 2026, the first time they only supported limited cases for it, while the second time they actually defeated it fully. - The Commission didn't care, and kept the proposal on the table by refusing to withdraw it. - Once the Commission does that, the proposal goes…

It's worse than a farce. It's actually evil. The way "they" are pushing chat control, and how Ursula is avoiding justice (she has a huge corruption case hanging over her head but manages continuously cancel court dates); this makes a all too clear. The only way to fix this is EU member states become more critical: but for politicians in those states an EU position is the best promotion they can make. So almost nobody…

Who exactly are "they"?

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#916

Post by ktosobcy »

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #891
ktosobcy wrote: post #836

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's mindbogling how ignorant people are when it comes to how the EU is structured and how it works ;(

It's not. The EU for us Europeans is a vague institution, very far from our everyday lives.

[citation needed] ;)

Same could be said for . Quite often people are just generally clueless how things are administered/goverened ;)

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#917

Post by BrandoElFollito »

ktosobcy wrote: post #916
BrandoElFollito wrote: post #891

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not. The EU for us Europeans is a vague institution, very far from our everyday lives.

[citation needed] ;) Same could be said for . Quite often people are just generally clueless how things are administered/goverened ;)

No because we know that we have (in France) a president, a prime minister and ministers.

We know what they are in charge of (for the basic ministries), everyone knows who the president is, a lot who the PM is, and nobody knows the current ministers. But we know their jobs. They also refer to stuff which impacts us on a daiky basis.

The EU as a governing body is a mystery. Not only there are pieces that has almost the same name but are different things, they function in a remote world that does not interfere with ours. Like the UN.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#918

Post by BrandoElFollito »

sampo wrote: post #903
BrandoElFollito wrote: post #890

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a great analogy even for someone from Europe. In (4), though, I do not get the French exception. There are many countries in Europe with a president and a prime minister

> There are many countries in Europe with a president and a prime minister In most of those countries, the role of the president is mostly ceremonial and/or has to do with foreign policy outside of EU.

Out of my head: Poland, Checkia, Cyprus, Portugal, Romania -- all these have real presidents.

Germany and Italy are exceptions, not the rule

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#919

Post by sampo »

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #918
sampo wrote: post #903

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are many countries in Europe with a president and a prime minister In most of those countries, the role of the president is mostly ceremonial and/or has to do with foreign policy outside of EU.

Out of my head: Poland, Checkia, Cyprus, Portugal, Romania -- all these have real presidents. Germany and Italy are exceptions, not the rule

You are correct that Czechia, Cyprus and Romania (and France, and Lithuania) send their president to the European Council. But Poland and Portugal, and all other countries, send their prime minister.

22 countries: Prime minister

5 countries: President

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Council#Members

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#920

Post by BrandoElFollito »

sampo wrote: post #919
BrandoElFollito wrote: post #918

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of my head: Poland, Checkia, Cyprus, Portugal, Romania -- all these have real presidents. Germany and Italy are exceptions, not the rule

You are correct that Czechia, Cyprus and Romania (and France, and Lithuania) send their president to the European Council. But Poland and Portugal, and all other countries, send their prime minister. 22 countries: Prime minister 5 countries: President https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Council#Members

> But Poland and Portugal, and all other countries, send their prime minister

Yes, but what does it have to do with the original point about countries with real power presidents?

Post reply on HN