19 ms·

EU Commissioner as double agent of foreign interference

359 points by deutschepost 3y ago

atbpaca 3y ago
And this is another example of foreign interference at EU level... How can Europeans trust the EU after so many incidents like this one?
- hosteur 3y ago
  They can’t. And they shouldn’t. Massive amounts of pro EU propaganda is pumped out in each country every year though.
  - Krasnol 3y ago
    How about: less drama? There are things where you can't trust "the EU" (whatever this is supposed to be, the Parliament? The Commission? The countries?) and there are things where you can and absolutely should. Generalizations are propaganda, and this is what you do here.
    - zosima 3y ago
      EU legislation has a long history of being overly complex, unnecessary and unnecessarily detailed and perfectly hostile to both EU citizens and companies. I don't see exactly what part of it you should be trusting. I'd never trust neither the commission nor the parliament. They have so many ridiculous failures under their wings, that nobody well-informed would. The best you can hope for with new legislation is that it's so vague and incomprehensible that in practice it's going to be unenforceable. But that's only so long as the judicial stays sane, which you can only hope for. In addition EU is working hard to gain control of information flows at the moment. Censoring and cooperating with censors to block information providers in EU. All of this happens very discreetly and very silently. And I'd wager 95% of citizens are unaware that their right of free speech and information about events is being curtailed to degrees that is completely incompatible with a free society. How you can even begin to trust a creation acting like this, is beyond my imagination.
      - toyg 3y ago
        The EU also has a long history of raising standards in many, many areas across the continent. From worker rights to environmental rules to building codes to car manufacturing to passport controls to food quality standards, the EU pushes most members to raise their game every day. Yes, there are failures because nothing is perfect, but they pale in comparison to the massive amount of work that improves European lives every day.
        zosima 3y ago
        All of these things could, and usually have, as well be done by national parliaments. In fact many a time national environmental legislation has been kept back, waiting for EU legislation on the subject matter. (Which can take many, many years). The main difference between a law by most national parliaments and EU legislation is that the EU legislation is usually wildly more complex, oftentimes to the extent that nobody anywhere really can understand it. E.g. take a look at the GDPR or the EU electricity regulation. You will be getting wildly different answers to many questions, depending on who you ask. And the reason is clear: The regulation is unreadable and inconsistent. On top of that, one would be thinking that EU should be painting legislation with broad clear strokes, for the national parliaments to implement the specifics. But they don't, often the EU commission goes down to a level of detail that you'd never even see in specific national legislation. I can understand how lawyers see this monster as a great. It's an infinite source of income. But for the average citizen and cooperation, the good EU legislation would have been much better, had it been implemented by national parliaments. And much of the bad legislation would not have been possible in the national parliaments, where completely obscure nonsense usually is read by at least someone, that will call it out.
        Swenrekcah 3y ago
        >The main difference between a law by most national parliaments and EU legislation is that the EU legislation is usually wildly more complex, oftentimes to the extent that nobody anywhere really can understand it. E.g. take a look at the GDPR or the EU electricity regulation. You will be getting wildly different answers to many questions, depending on who you ask. And the reason is clear: The regulation is unreadable and inconsistent. Isn't this true of any complex law anywhere? The interpretation varies and is eventually decided upon by the courts and following that sometimes additional rectifying legislation. >On top of that, one would be thinking that EU should be painting legislation with broad clear strokes, for the national parliaments to implement the specifics. But they don't, often the EU commission goes down to a level of detail that you'd never even see in specific national legislation. I'm curious about what you mean here, do you have any specific examples? I'm from a country that would benefit immensely from EU laws in pretty much every area, but I also recognize the hazards of pushing legislative decisions too far away. But for all the criticism the EU gets on that point, it is actually much easier for individual countries to disagree and do their own thing in the EU than it is for states in the United States, it seems to me. It's not like there are "federal" EU agents running around and arresting people.
    - seydor 3y ago
      for one, the EC & EP are among the top 5 spenders in political ads on facebook in most EU countries https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/report/?source=nav-header&paipv=0&eav=AfY-MLs0axwMPAYF8SSt7x8dnsQucPt6IFwMxonTpkiRIMUgoIBXc_ZiIgRCS_AeRE0&_rdr https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/report/?source=nav-head...
      - Krasnol 3y ago
        So what? What's the problem with that? In several countries, they even put up billboards next to projects they paid for.
        seydor 3y ago
        First, what does the EU have to advertise that needs more promotion than even local politicians do? Second, this is EU taxpayer money they are spending, to american companies. Third , EU having such financial relationship with facebook is problematic, given their legal fights.
        Krasnol 3y ago
        > First, what does the EU have to advertise that needs more promotion than even local politicians do? Many things actually since most people know not enough about what, why or how they do things. See my billboard example. > Second, this is EU taxpayer money they are spending, to american companies It's not their fault that those popular companies are from the US. What's your point? > Third , EU having such financial relationship with facebook is problematic, given their legal fights. Why?
        seydor 3y ago
        If you fail to see an issue here, then the ads clearly worked
        Krasnol 3y ago
        I haven't seen a single one of them. I don't have a Facebook account and even if I had, they seem not to run them in Germany.
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    > Massive amounts of pro EU propaganda You mean when Brexit compaign was financed by dark money, broke electoral law, they were fined wopping £50,000, the parliament has asked Zukerberg to testify and he simply refused to come to uk? Or how the failure of brexit is good pro-eu propaganda?
- pornel 3y ago
  US firms buying politicians can only be called "lobbying" when it happens domestically in the US. Outside of the US, you have to call it "sparkling foreign interference". It is always a shame when governments get corrupted, but the European view is usually not "welp, the experiment failed, let's get rid of the government completely", but rather "we need to make the government stronger, to have it resist interference harder". US constitution has "We the people", but Americans don't really see their government as "We", but rather as some incompetent entity they're forced to live under. Europeans more strongly see governments as their representation. The government is seen as people banding together, through their representatives. Governments exist to resist undesirable forces, like exploitation of people by commercial entities. This is also the reason why Europeans like regulations, a thing unfathomable in the US. It's not "oh no, those dumb politicians stifle our precious job-creating businesses", but rather "we're the labor force, we're the consumers, and the businesses depend on us, so we won't let them fuck with us". So US firms fucking with us is a terrible thing, but the reaction will probably be to make more regulations to resist US tech even harder.
  - junofan 3y ago
    To be fair, the European tendency to push the government to resist undesirable forces is kinda the whole reason for the Treaty of Brussels in the first place.
  - dwheeler 3y ago
    > US constitution has "We the people", but Americans don't really see their government as "We" ... I think you misunderstand. I'm an American, so I should probably clarify a typical American perspective. Caveat: you probably can't find any statement all Americans agree on :-) ). The US Constitution does begin with the phrase "We the people", but I think you misunderstand its context. It never says the US government and its people are the same. I can quote that sentence from memory. The text follows with the goals for creating a federal government (e.g., "establish justice" and "provide for the common defense"). It ends by saying that We the People "... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America". In other words, it's clearly stated that the government is not the people. The US federal government is instead an organization established by the people under rules defined by the Constitution. So Americans would generally agree that the US government is NOT the people. The US government is instead an organization set up by the people, in order to accomplish certain goals. If we don't like how its current leadership runs things, the intent is that We the People can change the leadership via an election (as established by the Constitution). > but rather as some incompetent entity they're forced to live under. You'll find lots of claims about incompetence, especially at political rallies where someone is trying to convince everyone to vote for them. But while many people want someone or other voted in, and there are always proposals for changes, few call for the elimination of the US government. They just want "their side" voted in. > Europeans more strongly see governments as their representation. The government is seen as people banding together, through their representatives. Governments exist to resist undesirable forces, like exploitation of people by commercial entities. Americans also view their government as necessary to resist undesirable forces. Per that sentence, the government exists to "provide for the common defense" and "promote the general welfare". However, the American view is that governments can also be the source of tyranny. This is not a crazy view; see the various dictatorships around the world. Governments can be powerful entities. Therefore, there needs to be a way to ensure that they are (1) representative and (2) constrained so they don't become tyrannical. > This is also the reason why Europeans like regulations, a thing unfathomable in the US. The US has lots of regulations, so it's not that the US doesn't have any. However, Americans are generally more skeptical of regulation than Europeans. All regulations have unintended consequences; if the regulation is not carefully crafted, the regulation can be worse than the problem. For example: I would instinctively ignore the goal of any proposed law or regulation. I don't really care what its goal is. That is mostly irrelevant. What is the actual impact of the law or regulation? If it does something good, but overall makes things worse, then it should be rejected even if it has a good goal.
gustavus 3y ago
>Research published yesterday by several European media outlets has revealed that an international campaign in support of the EU’s proposed child sexual abuse regulation has been largely orchestrated and financed by a network of organisations with links to the tech industry and security services. The controversial “chat control” regulation would require providers to indiscriminately scan and automatically disclose allegedly suspicious private messages and photos. EU Parliament lawmaker Patrick Breyer (Pirate Party), negotiator for the Greens/European Free Alliance group on the proposed regulation, expresses shock: “As negotiator for my group, many of the organisations mentioned in the report, which call themselves child protection organisations or victims’ associations, also contacted me. But I had no idea that the pro-chat control campaign was being orchestrated and funded by a network of organisations linked to the tech industry and security services, drawing millions in funding from a US-led foundation and paying foreign consulting agencies to create lobbying strategies. I had previously only expected corporations to use such methods of ‘capturing legislation’. Q. Do you know what the difference is between reality and a conspiracy theory is? A. About six months P.S. And before anyone gets all angry at me, if you had told any random person on the street that the Tech and Security Industrial complex were secretly funding activists groups to try and be able to spy on all European data you would've been considered to be daft and people would look at you like your crazy. If it doesn't sound crazy to you it's only because you're familiar with how the sausage is made in this area. So what could be going on in places where you don't know how the sausage is made?
- beebeepka 3y ago
  We've reached a point where people don't even remember what conspiracy means. Let's take the very first line from Wikipedia > A conspiracy, also known as a plot, is a secret plan or agreement There. It's a secret plan. But the word has been twisted into meaning crazy.
  - kstenerud 3y ago
    Really?? You had to take it that far out of context? You couldn't even quote the rest of the sentence? "A conspiracy, also known as a plot, is a secret plan or agreement between people (called conspirers or conspirators) for an unlawful or harmful purpose, such as murder, treason, or corruption, especially with political motivation,[1] while keeping their agreement secret from the public or from other people affected by it."
gumballindie 3y ago
> orchestrated and financed by a network of organisations with links to the tech industry and security services As any dictatorship, corporate dictatorships want to understand our behaviour and manipulate it. And as any dictatorship there is a not insignificant portion of society that supports and facilitates it - see people that bootlick apple, amazon, microsoft, google and so on. When will people understand that fighting back is crucial? And it doesnt have to be violent. Low rate their services, report them whenever possible to local customer protection agencies (where you even have them), avoid using their products, advice others not to use them, spread knowledge about their doings and starve them of your skills. Time to take capitalism back. Refuse and resist corporate communism.
- manuelabeledo 3y ago
  > Time to take capitalism back. Refuse and resist corporate communism. But this is capitalism.
  - Detrytus 3y ago
    Not really, no. The root of all evil is so called "limited liability". LLCs and Corporations should be illegal, only privately held companies where there's no boundary between what belongs to the owner and what to the company should be allowed to operate. And the owner should be criminally responsible for the actions of his company.
    - manuelabeledo 3y ago
      > LLCs and Corporations should be illegal, only privately held companies where there's no boundary between what belongs to the owner and what to the company should be allowed to operate. That's seems counter to some of the very foundations of capitalism, i.e. the concepts of markets, creditors, and shareholders. In any case, it wouldn't work at the current scale.
    - pyuser583 3y ago
      That’s counter to the ideas of civilization. The first corporations were monasteries. The monks held all in common, so the property belonged to the abbey. Should that be illegal? Should reporters at the New York Times be treated as personal servants of the publisher?
wewxjfq 3y ago
There is this legend that Rupert Murdoch said he doesn't like the EU because he can walk into Downing Street and everyone listens, but he can't do that in Brussels. He was wrong, just like the EU politicians who say that big powers can't force their way on a union of 300 million people - they can, very easily, they just have to groom an EU commissioner. One person! The EU commissioners are the biggest fault with the EU and it's disheartening how no one addresses that. Even after Brexit, when every EU politician asked how they can make the EU more attractive - they mentioned everything, but a reform that makes it more democratic was out of question.
- seydor 3y ago
  It's clear that the current leadership of the EU has led it to slide away from democracy with a number of missteps that clearly don't represent the people of the EU , but the desires of a very small group of well-entrenched eurocrats. It's time to let the EU know that we need change, because times are tough. The problem is: there is no mechanism for the people of the EU to petition the commission. Only lobbying groups
  - toyg 3y ago
    But you can vote for your representative in the Parliament, and effectively hold veto on commissioner overreach. This worked fine while socialist parties held majorities in the EP; that's not the case anymore, and it shows: the Commission-Council axis has been excessively strengthened by conservative parties.
    - zosima 3y ago
      Good plan, except that there is 705 MPs and my country's vote only counts for 1-2% of those seats. In addition, there is so much legislation being passed through the parliament, that the vast majority of MPs don't have much of a chance of knowing what they're actually voting for. Much less anyone else.
    - seydor 3y ago
      in theory you have that tiny amount of accuontability, in practice nobody votes like that and candidates don't even bother campaigning on EU issues, the MEP elections follow the local politics of each country, and practically they are only referenced by their local party affiliation. Most europeans dont even know what are the parties of the EP. Again, i m not sure there s even a procedure to remove the EC president
haizhung 3y ago
Is there a list to which companies this effort is traceable? I couldn’t find it in the article.
- petre 3y ago
  > The organisation, Thorn, develops artificial intelligence tools to scan for child sexual abuse images online, and Johansson’s proposed regulation is designed to fight the spread of such content on messaging apps. > Star of That ‘70s Show and a host of Hollywood hits, 45-year-old Kutcher resigned as chairman of the Thorn board in mid-September amid uproar over a letter he wrote to a judge in support of convicted rapist and fellow That ‘70s Show actor Danny Masterson, prior to his sentencing.
blueflow 3y ago
Post names of involved persons and organisations. Or link to them if they have their stuff public. This needs to be backup'd with more information.
js8 3y ago
So I followed the link: https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/25/who-benefits-inside-the-eus-fight-over-scanning-for-child-sex-content/ https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/25/who-benefits-inside-the... There is a picture titled "The Action Day promoted by Brave Movement in front of the EP". You know how one can immediately tell whether a demonstration is a genuine effort that comes from people, or is organized by some shady institution? Look at the signs they have. Genuine demonstrations have home-made signs on pieces of carton, all looking different. Astroturfing operations have signs that all look the same and are professionally printed. Also, when somebody says "think of the children", I think of billionaires, it's usually closer to the intended meaning. :-)
- wolverine876 3y ago
  Is that true? Maybe someone provided signs to people who showed up genuinely. Maybe someone provided a template online.
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    maybe some of the protestors accidentally found $1,000 in cash each at the ralley
  - orwin 3y ago
    Yes, it's true. Source:I've participated to 12 demonstration this year (I missed two :/).
  - dan-robertson 3y ago
    You should expect to see a mix at large demonstrations. Some people will make their own, others will be attending with a local special interest or political group who may be more organised and print matching signs. For a small demonstration, it may well be attended by members of the same organisation that organised the demonstration. All the matching signs prove is that only one organisation is significantly involved. If strikers on a picket line have matching signs made by their union, does that mean it’s organised by a shady institution and not a genuine effort by people. It seems strange to me to require small demonstrations to pretend to not be organised. I think better heuristics should be found.
yieldcrv 3y ago
It is annoying that American enterprisers have to capture two continents now, but I never saw anything unique about the EU structure that would make it less susceptible aside from being new, and only a matter of time
kristjank 3y ago
These revelations make me continuously lose trust in the integrity of Brussels. I my eyes, they are too far away, too diverse, and too big to be trusted. Elections are nearing, however, and perhaps we might effect a change. Keep in mind, people voting for your chains have names and parties promoting those very names...
- skummetmaelk 3y ago
  It would indeed be much better if the EU didn't exist. It's way harder for an alliance of US tech companies to influence small countries than a big block. That's your point, right?
  - zosima 3y ago
    EU has started a general fight with all tech. US and European alike. Most countries would generally avoid that, in order to not kill its own tech sector. EU on the other hand seems to have no such qualms. But sure, the EU commission has gotten quite a lot of money out of fighting privacy intrusion by big US tech, but as is apparent from the suggested proposal, clearly not for the benefit of the EU citizens. On the other hand it's clear that many large US and European corporations has a huge amount of influence in specific legislation being passed. Forbidding certain types of goods (like e.g. incandescent light bulbs and plastic straws and much, much more) and forcing the use of certain alternatives. This type of random acts of lobby legislation is seen a lot less often in national legislation around the world.
  - andrekandre 3y ago
    > It's way harder for an alliance of US tech companies to influence small countries than a big block intuitively it seems true, but is there any evidence for that?
    - justinclift 3y ago
      To me, that intuitively seems very untrue rather than true. Small countries have less resources to combat misinformation, bribery, and corruption of other forms.
wolverine876 3y ago
Perhaps the link should be to the investigative article, not a blog post about it: https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/25/who-benefits-inside-the-eus-fight-over-scanning-for-child-sex-content/ https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/25/who-benefits-inside-the...
- tormeh 3y ago
  > Johansson, however, has not blinked. “The privacy advocates sound very loud,” the commissioner said in a speech in November 2021. “But someone must also speak for the children.” This is too on-the-nose. Incredible.
wolverine876 3y ago
The cited investigative report is published by Balkin Insight. Does anyone know much about them? Here is their About page, but of course that is their self-published statement: https://balkaninsight.com/about-birn/ https://balkaninsight.com/about-birn/
kposehn 3y ago
What does "tech industry" mean in this context? There is an additional referenced article (https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/25/who-benefits-inside-the-eus-fight-over-scanning-for-child-sex-content/ https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/25/who-benefits-inside-the...) that goes into more detail, but I still don't see any actual "big tech" companies (at least the ones that term is commonly associated with). To my knowledge, Apple, Google, Facebook and others absolutely do not want breaking encryption to happen and lobby strongly against it, so who is "tech" really referring to here?
- lawlessone 3y ago
  It also excludes companies that sell decryption services. They would bury themselves supporting this.
- pimpampum 3y ago
  You can see who are behind Thorn, now they hid it, but the wayback machine shows Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Palantir, etc. They could easily include secret instructions in the model to mark as malicious content that isn't or use it to build profiles (but respecting your privacy of course). Sky is the limit. https://web.archive.org/web/20130420162917/http://www.wearethorn.org/aboutus/#techTaskForceExpanded https://web.archive.org/web/20130420162917/http://www.wearet...
  - rdm_blackhole 3y ago
    Don't forget Ashton Kutcher who had to step down from his own organization after he actually asked a a judge to be lenient towards one of his friends being accused of sexual misconduct. Rules for thee not for me.
    - belter 3y ago
      It was way worst than that.
      - tomcam 3y ago
darkclouds 3y ago
[dead]
0dayz 3y ago
What is the most disgusting element of this beyond the law proposal, is to me the fact that companies wants to earn money fighting csam. What if they become big enough (and own multiple companies in many industries) to lobby hard for draconian laws forcing seemingly innocuous competitors to buy their services or who knows get fined/arrested because arent "thinking of the children". I'm all for fighting csam, but do it right and proper in a liberal democracy, not with authoritarian means.

359 points by deutschepost 3y ago

And this is another example of foreign interference at EU level... How can Europeans trust the EU after so many incidents like this one?

hosteur 3y ago
They can’t. And they shouldn’t. Massive amounts of pro EU propaganda is pumped out in each country every year though.
- Krasnol 3y ago
  How about: less drama? There are things where you can't trust "the EU" (whatever this is supposed to be, the Parliament? The Commission? The countries?) and there are things where you can and absolutely should. Generalizations are propaganda, and this is what you do here.
  - zosima 3y ago
    EU legislation has a long history of being overly complex, unnecessary and unnecessarily detailed and perfectly hostile to both EU citizens and companies. I don't see exactly what part of it you should be trusting. I'd never trust neither the commission nor the parliament. They have so many ridiculous failures under their wings, that nobody well-informed would. The best you can hope for with new legislation is that it's so vague and incomprehensible that in practice it's going to be unenforceable. But that's only so long as the judicial stays sane, which you can only hope for. In addition EU is working hard to gain control of information flows at the moment. Censoring and cooperating with censors to block information providers in EU. All of this happens very discreetly and very silently. And I'd wager 95% of citizens are unaware that their right of free speech and information about events is being curtailed to degrees that is completely incompatible with a free society. How you can even begin to trust a creation acting like this, is beyond my imagination.
    - toyg 3y ago
      The EU also has a long history of raising standards in many, many areas across the continent. From worker rights to environmental rules to building codes to car manufacturing to passport controls to food quality standards, the EU pushes most members to raise their game every day. Yes, there are failures because nothing is perfect, but they pale in comparison to the massive amount of work that improves European lives every day.
      - zosima 3y ago
        All of these things could, and usually have, as well be done by national parliaments. In fact many a time national environmental legislation has been kept back, waiting for EU legislation on the subject matter. (Which can take many, many years). The main difference between a law by most national parliaments and EU legislation is that the EU legislation is usually wildly more complex, oftentimes to the extent that nobody anywhere really can understand it. E.g. take a look at the GDPR or the EU electricity regulation. You will be getting wildly different answers to many questions, depending on who you ask. And the reason is clear: The regulation is unreadable and inconsistent. On top of that, one would be thinking that EU should be painting legislation with broad clear strokes, for the national parliaments to implement the specifics. But they don't, often the EU commission goes down to a level of detail that you'd never even see in specific national legislation. I can understand how lawyers see this monster as a great. It's an infinite source of income. But for the average citizen and cooperation, the good EU legislation would have been much better, had it been implemented by national parliaments. And much of the bad legislation would not have been possible in the national parliaments, where completely obscure nonsense usually is read by at least someone, that will call it out.
        Swenrekcah 3y ago
        >The main difference between a law by most national parliaments and EU legislation is that the EU legislation is usually wildly more complex, oftentimes to the extent that nobody anywhere really can understand it. E.g. take a look at the GDPR or the EU electricity regulation. You will be getting wildly different answers to many questions, depending on who you ask. And the reason is clear: The regulation is unreadable and inconsistent. Isn't this true of any complex law anywhere? The interpretation varies and is eventually decided upon by the courts and following that sometimes additional rectifying legislation. >On top of that, one would be thinking that EU should be painting legislation with broad clear strokes, for the national parliaments to implement the specifics. But they don't, often the EU commission goes down to a level of detail that you'd never even see in specific national legislation. I'm curious about what you mean here, do you have any specific examples? I'm from a country that would benefit immensely from EU laws in pretty much every area, but I also recognize the hazards of pushing legislative decisions too far away. But for all the criticism the EU gets on that point, it is actually much easier for individual countries to disagree and do their own thing in the EU than it is for states in the United States, it seems to me. It's not like there are "federal" EU agents running around and arresting people.
  - seydor 3y ago
    for one, the EC & EP are among the top 5 spenders in political ads on facebook in most EU countries https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/report/?source=nav-header&paipv=0&eav=AfY-MLs0axwMPAYF8SSt7x8dnsQucPt6IFwMxonTpkiRIMUgoIBXc_ZiIgRCS_AeRE0&_rdr https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/report/?source=nav-head...
    - Krasnol 3y ago
      So what? What's the problem with that? In several countries, they even put up billboards next to projects they paid for.
      - seydor 3y ago
        First, what does the EU have to advertise that needs more promotion than even local politicians do? Second, this is EU taxpayer money they are spending, to american companies. Third , EU having such financial relationship with facebook is problematic, given their legal fights.
        Krasnol 3y ago
        > First, what does the EU have to advertise that needs more promotion than even local politicians do? Many things actually since most people know not enough about what, why or how they do things. See my billboard example. > Second, this is EU taxpayer money they are spending, to american companies It's not their fault that those popular companies are from the US. What's your point? > Third , EU having such financial relationship with facebook is problematic, given their legal fights. Why?
        seydor 3y ago
        If you fail to see an issue here, then the ads clearly worked
        Krasnol 3y ago
        I haven't seen a single one of them. I don't have a Facebook account and even if I had, they seem not to run them in Germany.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  > Massive amounts of pro EU propaganda You mean when Brexit compaign was financed by dark money, broke electoral law, they were fined wopping £50,000, the parliament has asked Zukerberg to testify and he simply refused to come to uk? Or how the failure of brexit is good pro-eu propaganda?
pornel 3y ago
US firms buying politicians can only be called "lobbying" when it happens domestically in the US. Outside of the US, you have to call it "sparkling foreign interference". It is always a shame when governments get corrupted, but the European view is usually not "welp, the experiment failed, let's get rid of the government completely", but rather "we need to make the government stronger, to have it resist interference harder". US constitution has "We the people", but Americans don't really see their government as "We", but rather as some incompetent entity they're forced to live under. Europeans more strongly see governments as their representation. The government is seen as people banding together, through their representatives. Governments exist to resist undesirable forces, like exploitation of people by commercial entities. This is also the reason why Europeans like regulations, a thing unfathomable in the US. It's not "oh no, those dumb politicians stifle our precious job-creating businesses", but rather "we're the labor force, we're the consumers, and the businesses depend on us, so we won't let them fuck with us". So US firms fucking with us is a terrible thing, but the reaction will probably be to make more regulations to resist US tech even harder.
- junofan 3y ago
  To be fair, the European tendency to push the government to resist undesirable forces is kinda the whole reason for the Treaty of Brussels in the first place.
- dwheeler 3y ago
  > US constitution has "We the people", but Americans don't really see their government as "We" ... I think you misunderstand. I'm an American, so I should probably clarify a typical American perspective. Caveat: you probably can't find any statement all Americans agree on :-) ). The US Constitution does begin with the phrase "We the people", but I think you misunderstand its context. It never says the US government and its people are the same. I can quote that sentence from memory. The text follows with the goals for creating a federal government (e.g., "establish justice" and "provide for the common defense"). It ends by saying that We the People "... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America". In other words, it's clearly stated that the government is not the people. The US federal government is instead an organization established by the people under rules defined by the Constitution. So Americans would generally agree that the US government is NOT the people. The US government is instead an organization set up by the people, in order to accomplish certain goals. If we don't like how its current leadership runs things, the intent is that We the People can change the leadership via an election (as established by the Constitution). > but rather as some incompetent entity they're forced to live under. You'll find lots of claims about incompetence, especially at political rallies where someone is trying to convince everyone to vote for them. But while many people want someone or other voted in, and there are always proposals for changes, few call for the elimination of the US government. They just want "their side" voted in. > Europeans more strongly see governments as their representation. The government is seen as people banding together, through their representatives. Governments exist to resist undesirable forces, like exploitation of people by commercial entities. Americans also view their government as necessary to resist undesirable forces. Per that sentence, the government exists to "provide for the common defense" and "promote the general welfare". However, the American view is that governments can also be the source of tyranny. This is not a crazy view; see the various dictatorships around the world. Governments can be powerful entities. Therefore, there needs to be a way to ensure that they are (1) representative and (2) constrained so they don't become tyrannical. > This is also the reason why Europeans like regulations, a thing unfathomable in the US. The US has lots of regulations, so it's not that the US doesn't have any. However, Americans are generally more skeptical of regulation than Europeans. All regulations have unintended consequences; if the regulation is not carefully crafted, the regulation can be worse than the problem. For example: I would instinctively ignore the goal of any proposed law or regulation. I don't really care what its goal is. That is mostly irrelevant. What is the actual impact of the law or regulation? If it does something good, but overall makes things worse, then it should be rejected even if it has a good goal.

gustavus 3y ago

>Research published yesterday by several European media outlets has revealed that an international campaign in support of the EU’s proposed child sexual abuse regulation has been largely orchestrated and financed by a network of organisations with links to the tech industry and security services. The controversial “chat control” regulation would require providers to indiscriminately scan and automatically disclose allegedly suspicious private messages and photos. EU Parliament lawmaker Patrick Breyer (Pirate Party), negotiator for the Greens/European Free Alliance group on the proposed regulation, expresses shock: “As negotiator for my group, many of the organisations mentioned in the report, which call themselves child protection organisations or victims’ associations, also contacted me. But I had no idea that the pro-chat control campaign was being orchestrated and funded by a network of organisations linked to the tech industry and security services, drawing millions in funding from a US-led foundation and paying foreign consulting agencies to create lobbying strategies. I had previously only expected corporations to use such methods of ‘capturing legislation’. Q. Do you know what the difference is between reality and a conspiracy theory is? A. About six months P.S. And before anyone gets all angry at me, if you had told any random person on the street that the Tech and Security Industrial complex were secretly funding activists groups to try and be able to spy on all European data you would've been considered to be daft and people would look at you like your crazy. If it doesn't sound crazy to you it's only because you're familiar with how the sausage is made in this area. So what could be going on in places where you don't know how the sausage is made?

beebeepka 3y ago
We've reached a point where people don't even remember what conspiracy means. Let's take the very first line from Wikipedia > A conspiracy, also known as a plot, is a secret plan or agreement There. It's a secret plan. But the word has been twisted into meaning crazy.
- kstenerud 3y ago
  Really?? You had to take it that far out of context? You couldn't even quote the rest of the sentence? "A conspiracy, also known as a plot, is a secret plan or agreement between people (called conspirers or conspirators) for an unlawful or harmful purpose, such as murder, treason, or corruption, especially with political motivation,[1] while keeping their agreement secret from the public or from other people affected by it."

gumballindie 3y ago

> orchestrated and financed by a network of organisations with links to the tech industry and security services As any dictatorship, corporate dictatorships want to understand our behaviour and manipulate it. And as any dictatorship there is a not insignificant portion of society that supports and facilitates it - see people that bootlick apple, amazon, microsoft, google and so on. When will people understand that fighting back is crucial? And it doesnt have to be violent. Low rate their services, report them whenever possible to local customer protection agencies (where you even have them), avoid using their products, advice others not to use them, spread knowledge about their doings and starve them of your skills. Time to take capitalism back. Refuse and resist corporate communism.

manuelabeledo 3y ago
> Time to take capitalism back. Refuse and resist corporate communism. But this is capitalism.
- Detrytus 3y ago
  Not really, no. The root of all evil is so called "limited liability". LLCs and Corporations should be illegal, only privately held companies where there's no boundary between what belongs to the owner and what to the company should be allowed to operate. And the owner should be criminally responsible for the actions of his company.
  - manuelabeledo 3y ago
    > LLCs and Corporations should be illegal, only privately held companies where there's no boundary between what belongs to the owner and what to the company should be allowed to operate. That's seems counter to some of the very foundations of capitalism, i.e. the concepts of markets, creditors, and shareholders. In any case, it wouldn't work at the current scale.
  - pyuser583 3y ago
    That’s counter to the ideas of civilization. The first corporations were monasteries. The monks held all in common, so the property belonged to the abbey. Should that be illegal? Should reporters at the New York Times be treated as personal servants of the publisher?

wewxjfq 3y ago

There is this legend that Rupert Murdoch said he doesn't like the EU because he can walk into Downing Street and everyone listens, but he can't do that in Brussels. He was wrong, just like the EU politicians who say that big powers can't force their way on a union of 300 million people - they can, very easily, they just have to groom an EU commissioner. One person! The EU commissioners are the biggest fault with the EU and it's disheartening how no one addresses that. Even after Brexit, when every EU politician asked how they can make the EU more attractive - they mentioned everything, but a reform that makes it more democratic was out of question.

seydor 3y ago
It's clear that the current leadership of the EU has led it to slide away from democracy with a number of missteps that clearly don't represent the people of the EU , but the desires of a very small group of well-entrenched eurocrats. It's time to let the EU know that we need change, because times are tough. The problem is: there is no mechanism for the people of the EU to petition the commission. Only lobbying groups
- toyg 3y ago
  But you can vote for your representative in the Parliament, and effectively hold veto on commissioner overreach. This worked fine while socialist parties held majorities in the EP; that's not the case anymore, and it shows: the Commission-Council axis has been excessively strengthened by conservative parties.
  - zosima 3y ago
    Good plan, except that there is 705 MPs and my country's vote only counts for 1-2% of those seats. In addition, there is so much legislation being passed through the parliament, that the vast majority of MPs don't have much of a chance of knowing what they're actually voting for. Much less anyone else.
  - seydor 3y ago
    in theory you have that tiny amount of accuontability, in practice nobody votes like that and candidates don't even bother campaigning on EU issues, the MEP elections follow the local politics of each country, and practically they are only referenced by their local party affiliation. Most europeans dont even know what are the parties of the EP. Again, i m not sure there s even a procedure to remove the EC president

haizhung 3y ago

Is there a list to which companies this effort is traceable? I couldn’t find it in the article.

petre 3y ago
> The organisation, Thorn, develops artificial intelligence tools to scan for child sexual abuse images online, and Johansson’s proposed regulation is designed to fight the spread of such content on messaging apps. > Star of That ‘70s Show and a host of Hollywood hits, 45-year-old Kutcher resigned as chairman of the Thorn board in mid-September amid uproar over a letter he wrote to a judge in support of convicted rapist and fellow That ‘70s Show actor Danny Masterson, prior to his sentencing.

blueflow 3y ago

Post names of involved persons and organisations. Or link to them if they have their stuff public. This needs to be backup'd with more information.

js8 3y ago

So I followed the link: https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/25/who-benefits-inside-the-eus-fight-over-scanning-for-child-sex-content/ https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/25/who-benefits-inside-the... There is a picture titled "The Action Day promoted by Brave Movement in front of the EP". You know how one can immediately tell whether a demonstration is a genuine effort that comes from people, or is organized by some shady institution? Look at the signs they have. Genuine demonstrations have home-made signs on pieces of carton, all looking different. Astroturfing operations have signs that all look the same and are professionally printed. Also, when somebody says "think of the children", I think of billionaires, it's usually closer to the intended meaning. :-)

wolverine876 3y ago
Is that true? Maybe someone provided signs to people who showed up genuinely. Maybe someone provided a template online.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  maybe some of the protestors accidentally found $1,000 in cash each at the ralley
- orwin 3y ago
  Yes, it's true. Source:I've participated to 12 demonstration this year (I missed two :/).
- dan-robertson 3y ago
  You should expect to see a mix at large demonstrations. Some people will make their own, others will be attending with a local special interest or political group who may be more organised and print matching signs. For a small demonstration, it may well be attended by members of the same organisation that organised the demonstration. All the matching signs prove is that only one organisation is significantly involved. If strikers on a picket line have matching signs made by their union, does that mean it’s organised by a shady institution and not a genuine effort by people. It seems strange to me to require small demonstrations to pretend to not be organised. I think better heuristics should be found.

yieldcrv 3y ago

It is annoying that American enterprisers have to capture two continents now, but I never saw anything unique about the EU structure that would make it less susceptible aside from being new, and only a matter of time

kristjank 3y ago

These revelations make me continuously lose trust in the integrity of Brussels. I my eyes, they are too far away, too diverse, and too big to be trusted. Elections are nearing, however, and perhaps we might effect a change. Keep in mind, people voting for your chains have names and parties promoting those very names...

skummetmaelk 3y ago
It would indeed be much better if the EU didn't exist. It's way harder for an alliance of US tech companies to influence small countries than a big block. That's your point, right?
- zosima 3y ago
  EU has started a general fight with all tech. US and European alike. Most countries would generally avoid that, in order to not kill its own tech sector. EU on the other hand seems to have no such qualms. But sure, the EU commission has gotten quite a lot of money out of fighting privacy intrusion by big US tech, but as is apparent from the suggested proposal, clearly not for the benefit of the EU citizens. On the other hand it's clear that many large US and European corporations has a huge amount of influence in specific legislation being passed. Forbidding certain types of goods (like e.g. incandescent light bulbs and plastic straws and much, much more) and forcing the use of certain alternatives. This type of random acts of lobby legislation is seen a lot less often in national legislation around the world.
- andrekandre 3y ago
  > It's way harder for an alliance of US tech companies to influence small countries than a big block intuitively it seems true, but is there any evidence for that?
  - justinclift 3y ago
    To me, that intuitively seems very untrue rather than true. Small countries have less resources to combat misinformation, bribery, and corruption of other forms.

wolverine876 3y ago

Perhaps the link should be to the investigative article, not a blog post about it: https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/25/who-benefits-inside-the-eus-fight-over-scanning-for-child-sex-content/ https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/25/who-benefits-inside-the...

tormeh 3y ago
> Johansson, however, has not blinked. “The privacy advocates sound very loud,” the commissioner said in a speech in November 2021. “But someone must also speak for the children.” This is too on-the-nose. Incredible.

wolverine876 3y ago

The cited investigative report is published by Balkin Insight. Does anyone know much about them? Here is their About page, but of course that is their self-published statement: https://balkaninsight.com/about-birn/ https://balkaninsight.com/about-birn/

kposehn 3y ago

What does "tech industry" mean in this context? There is an additional referenced article (https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/25/who-benefits-inside-the-eus-fight-over-scanning-for-child-sex-content/ https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/25/who-benefits-inside-the...) that goes into more detail, but I still don't see any actual "big tech" companies (at least the ones that term is commonly associated with). To my knowledge, Apple, Google, Facebook and others absolutely do not want breaking encryption to happen and lobby strongly against it, so who is "tech" really referring to here?

lawlessone 3y ago
It also excludes companies that sell decryption services. They would bury themselves supporting this.
pimpampum 3y ago
You can see who are behind Thorn, now they hid it, but the wayback machine shows Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Palantir, etc. They could easily include secret instructions in the model to mark as malicious content that isn't or use it to build profiles (but respecting your privacy of course). Sky is the limit. https://web.archive.org/web/20130420162917/http://www.wearethorn.org/aboutus/#techTaskForceExpanded https://web.archive.org/web/20130420162917/http://www.wearet...
- rdm_blackhole 3y ago
  Don't forget Ashton Kutcher who had to step down from his own organization after he actually asked a a judge to be lenient towards one of his friends being accused of sexual misconduct. Rules for thee not for me.
  - belter 3y ago
    It was way worst than that.
    - tomcam 3y ago

darkclouds 3y ago

[dead]

0dayz 3y ago

What is the most disgusting element of this beyond the law proposal, is to me the fact that companies wants to earn money fighting csam. What if they become big enough (and own multiple companies in many industries) to lobby hard for draconian laws forcing seemingly innocuous competitors to buy their services or who knows get fined/arrested because arent "thinking of the children". I'm all for fighting csam, but do it right and proper in a liberal democracy, not with authoritarian means.