5 ms·

I don't have a nice name for people in EU parliament that write these things, they don't really understand what encryption is. It's not a technology. You can't

I don't have a nice name for people in EU parliament that write these things, they don't really understand what encryption is. It's not a technology. You can't ban encryption. Terrorists can just use unencrypted chat and either use their own encryption or they can use predefined words and sentences that actually have a totally different meaning.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tom_mellior 6y ago
This is not from the Parliament. This is from the Council of Ministers. All shitty ideas in the EU come from there or from the Commission. These bodies are not elected and have very little, and very indirect, democratic legitimation.
- intricatedetail 6y ago
  It is also eye opening to watch how MEP vote. This is a farce and has nothing to do with democracy. They just want to enslave and control all Europeans.
  - tom_mellior 6y ago
    You might want to provide more intricate detail about what you mean.
    - iso947 6y ago
      They push a button on a screen, which is publicly recorded as a vote for, against, abstain or not present. Nowhere near superior systems like the U.K. where members leave te room, spend a couple of hours queuing to go into one of two rooms, and then see the result later in the day.
      - dane-pgp 6y ago
        I assume you are being sarcastic and actually think that the UK's "analogue" system of voting is worse because it is slower. Let me assure you that making Westminster votes quicker is not the metric we should be optimising for. https://boingboing.net/2019/03/26/jfc-fml-jfc.html https://boingboing.net/2019/03/26/jfc-fml-jfc.html > But actually, a group of Swedish MEPs have revealed that they pressed the wrong button, and have asked to have the record corrected. They have issued a statement saying they'd intended to open a debate on amendments to the Directive so they could help vote down Articles 11 and 13. > We lost on a technicality, and there is no recourse.
        iso947 6y ago
        Hilarious that people actually think “I pressed the wrong button” is a valid defence. How thick are our representatives?
        learnstats2 6y ago
        Counter-example in the UK: where the method of voting is walking into a room with your chums, MPs sometimes have to say that they "accidentally" walked into the wrong room: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-16746389 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-16746389 It's clear your example that they (Swedish MEPs) were all agreed to vote in this direction, since they each press their own button. It's most likely that they didn't understand the significance of the vote and thought better of it afterwards. It's their one job, to vote.
        dane-pgp 6y ago
        I'm not sure if that UK counter-example is as strong as you suggest: > A spokesman for Mr Stunell, MP for Hazel Grove, said he had voted against the Labour amendment "as he was supposed to" and had gone to get a drink of water for a fellow minister when he found that lobby doors had been "locked". > "He was temporarily on the wrong side but sanity prevailed and they let him out," he said. A funny story, but not a legally significant outcome.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- iso947 6y ago
  They aren’t directly elected, but the minister is from the government of each country, which is elected (at least as most understand the term) Parliament is directly elected
  - tom_mellior 6y ago
    > They aren’t directly elected, but the minister is from the government of each country, which is elected (at least as most understand the term) Many ministers are initially elected to posts in their national parliament and then promoted into a government job. But this is not a real requirement, and many aren't. And even those that we elected, we elected for national jobs, not for the EU, and I do think that that makes a difference. This is what I mean by indirect legitimation. > Parliament is directly elected Yes. And that leaves the Commission, which is mostly former-ministers-who-need-a-job and are appointed based on negotiations between the governments.
    - iso947 6y ago
      Unless your country has joined the EU since your last election then you know you know you are electing a government head. Technically you tend to vote for a local representative who then elect the head of governemt but that’s not how people see it, just like they think they vote for Trump or Biden, but they actually vote for electors who could vote for anyone. Generally we don’t have a directly elected ministers in Europe, just like the US don’t elect the Secretary of State, they are selected by the head of government. Unlike the US they tend to be elected people.
      - tom_mellior 6y ago
        > Unless your country has joined the EU since your last election then you know you know you are electing a government head. [...] Generally we don’t have a directly elected ministers in Europe, [...] they are selected by the head of government. This is all mostly true. But also very indirect, yes? I remember the discussions about the EU constitution project and the treaty of Lisbon, and this system with national government representatives was sold to us as a necessary democratic counterweight to the "dominance" of the most populous states (especially Germany) in Parliament. I acknowledge the need for some kind of balancing between pure population majority one the one hand and the needs of smaller states on the other hand. A proper elected "upper house" similar to the US Senate, with a fixed number (more than two!) of members from each member state, would be vastly superior to the current system. (Also, when the corrupt Austrian government collapsed last year, it was replaced for half a year with an "expert cabinet", with a chancellor and ministers who were all very capable and all, but not politicians, and never elected for any position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bierlein_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bierlein_government They did refrain from big EU-level moves, but nothing would have stopped them.)
ajsnigrutin 6y ago
It's not about listening to terrorists (there were many terrorist attacks, where the police was informed about the terrrists in advance, and still didn't do anything). It's about listening to the masses of their own people.
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  Yes, isn't it strange how governments keep asking us to sacrifice essential liberties for temporary safety, but never turn around after an attack and say "I guess we were wrong, we shouldn't have sacrificed those liberties". Instead the refrain is always "Well, we obviously didn't take enough liberties".
petra 6y ago
Yes they can, but this makes the barrier to entry much higher.
romanoderoma 6y ago
I bet nobody read the proposal... EU commission chose signal as official chat app and has been pushing E2E encryption for everybody for a long time. A law proposal has been presented to enforce mandatory E2E encryption in 2017 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/procedure/EN/2017_3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/procedure/EN/2017_3 UK particularly opposed to it. Also Germany. This is another proposal, and that's just what it is, a proposal, it has no other value than that.
notjes 6y ago
It is for your own good.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

tom_mellior 6y ago

This is not from the Parliament. This is from the Council of Ministers. All shitty ideas in the EU come from there or from the Commission. These bodies are not elected and have very little, and very indirect, democratic legitimation.

intricatedetail 6y ago
It is also eye opening to watch how MEP vote. This is a farce and has nothing to do with democracy. They just want to enslave and control all Europeans.
- tom_mellior 6y ago
  You might want to provide more intricate detail about what you mean.
  - iso947 6y ago
    They push a button on a screen, which is publicly recorded as a vote for, against, abstain or not present. Nowhere near superior systems like the U.K. where members leave te room, spend a couple of hours queuing to go into one of two rooms, and then see the result later in the day.
    - dane-pgp 6y ago
      I assume you are being sarcastic and actually think that the UK's "analogue" system of voting is worse because it is slower. Let me assure you that making Westminster votes quicker is not the metric we should be optimising for. https://boingboing.net/2019/03/26/jfc-fml-jfc.html https://boingboing.net/2019/03/26/jfc-fml-jfc.html > But actually, a group of Swedish MEPs have revealed that they pressed the wrong button, and have asked to have the record corrected. They have issued a statement saying they'd intended to open a debate on amendments to the Directive so they could help vote down Articles 11 and 13. > We lost on a technicality, and there is no recourse.
      - iso947 6y ago
        Hilarious that people actually think “I pressed the wrong button” is a valid defence. How thick are our representatives?
      - learnstats2 6y ago
        Counter-example in the UK: where the method of voting is walking into a room with your chums, MPs sometimes have to say that they "accidentally" walked into the wrong room: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-16746389 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-16746389 It's clear your example that they (Swedish MEPs) were all agreed to vote in this direction, since they each press their own button. It's most likely that they didn't understand the significance of the vote and thought better of it afterwards. It's their one job, to vote.
        dane-pgp 6y ago
        I'm not sure if that UK counter-example is as strong as you suggest: > A spokesman for Mr Stunell, MP for Hazel Grove, said he had voted against the Labour amendment "as he was supposed to" and had gone to get a drink of water for a fellow minister when he found that lobby doors had been "locked". > "He was temporarily on the wrong side but sanity prevailed and they let him out," he said. A funny story, but not a legally significant outcome.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
iso947 6y ago
They aren’t directly elected, but the minister is from the government of each country, which is elected (at least as most understand the term) Parliament is directly elected
- tom_mellior 6y ago
  > They aren’t directly elected, but the minister is from the government of each country, which is elected (at least as most understand the term) Many ministers are initially elected to posts in their national parliament and then promoted into a government job. But this is not a real requirement, and many aren't. And even those that we elected, we elected for national jobs, not for the EU, and I do think that that makes a difference. This is what I mean by indirect legitimation. > Parliament is directly elected Yes. And that leaves the Commission, which is mostly former-ministers-who-need-a-job and are appointed based on negotiations between the governments.
  - iso947 6y ago
    Unless your country has joined the EU since your last election then you know you know you are electing a government head. Technically you tend to vote for a local representative who then elect the head of governemt but that’s not how people see it, just like they think they vote for Trump or Biden, but they actually vote for electors who could vote for anyone. Generally we don’t have a directly elected ministers in Europe, just like the US don’t elect the Secretary of State, they are selected by the head of government. Unlike the US they tend to be elected people.
    - tom_mellior 6y ago
      > Unless your country has joined the EU since your last election then you know you know you are electing a government head. [...] Generally we don’t have a directly elected ministers in Europe, [...] they are selected by the head of government. This is all mostly true. But also very indirect, yes? I remember the discussions about the EU constitution project and the treaty of Lisbon, and this system with national government representatives was sold to us as a necessary democratic counterweight to the "dominance" of the most populous states (especially Germany) in Parliament. I acknowledge the need for some kind of balancing between pure population majority one the one hand and the needs of smaller states on the other hand. A proper elected "upper house" similar to the US Senate, with a fixed number (more than two!) of members from each member state, would be vastly superior to the current system. (Also, when the corrupt Austrian government collapsed last year, it was replaced for half a year with an "expert cabinet", with a chancellor and ministers who were all very capable and all, but not politicians, and never elected for any position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bierlein_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bierlein_government They did refrain from big EU-level moves, but nothing would have stopped them.)

ajsnigrutin 6y ago

It's not about listening to terrorists (there were many terrorist attacks, where the police was informed about the terrrists in advance, and still didn't do anything). It's about listening to the masses of their own people.

dane-pgp 6y ago
Yes, isn't it strange how governments keep asking us to sacrifice essential liberties for temporary safety, but never turn around after an attack and say "I guess we were wrong, we shouldn't have sacrificed those liberties". Instead the refrain is always "Well, we obviously didn't take enough liberties".

petra 6y ago

Yes they can, but this makes the barrier to entry much higher.

romanoderoma 6y ago

I bet nobody read the proposal... EU commission chose signal as official chat app and has been pushing E2E encryption for everybody for a long time. A law proposal has been presented to enforce mandatory E2E encryption in 2017 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/procedure/EN/2017_3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/procedure/EN/2017_3 UK particularly opposed to it. Also Germany. This is another proposal, and that's just what it is, a proposal, it has no other value than that.

notjes 6y ago

It is for your own good.