5 ms·

I am always curious when I see these kinds of movement. It seems abundantly clear that the options on any vote in any legislature for a proposed bill are always

I am always curious when I see these kinds of movement. It seems abundantly clear that the options on any vote in any legislature for a proposed bill are always “yes” and “ask me later”. So when I see things like Fight Chat Control, it feels like the call is “we must tell our legislators to press the ask later button!” Why? Why has your approach not been toward passing active legislation that protects these rights going forward? Genuinely curious. I understand that finding and pressing the “don’t ask again” button is always harder, but I don’t understand why “we punted on this decision!” is a celebratory moment.

hsbauauvhabzb 7mo ago
Also curious, as much as the American amendments are problematic, they do at lease create a hard position on things. We are devolving into a space where I’m genuinely scared that the future will become entirely controlled by big money, and it will be too late to change it.
- verisimi 7mo ago
  The future you fear is already here, sorry.
- buzer 7mo ago
  From my understanding Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is somewhat similar to US Constitution & amendments. Both do still allow government to restrict the freedoms granted by those in some situations though I do think the US Constitution does tend to set higher bar on the interference. There have been EU laws which get struck down because they violated the Charter (e.g. Data Retention Directive).
  - qwytw 7mo ago
    Hopefully even if the worst comes to pass and the EU ends up enacting this law there are still the courts on the EU level and then the national governments and courts in countries where this type of surveillance is illegal can still decide to do whatever the want (i.e. national constitutions general take precedence over EU treaty obligations)
sillysaurusx 7mo ago
Because we can barely stop new legislation we don't like, let alone pass new ones we do. You're out-monied by lobbyists at all levels. Maybe a movement could match a lobbyist in terms of money. I hope so.
- thaumasiotes 7mo ago
  > we can barely stop new legislation we don't like, let alone pass new ones we do These are literally the same process.
  - GCUMstlyHarmls 7mo ago
    Is it? Stopping is a matter of ground swell support contacting representatives and saying "please don't". Enough people do it to enough receptive reps and they'll vote no. Passing new ones that "you like" requires lawyers to write laws, get those laws in front of reps, get them to agree to try and pass it, stake some of their reputation on pushing it, get the ground swell to support it -- which might be difficult when the current law is "dont scan messages", you can easily say "hey dont scan anything! support that!" vs "hey scan somethings sometimes", cause many people will call that a slippery slope. I don't see how they are at all the same process.
    - thaumasiotes 7mo ago
      Stopping legislation means organizing a sufficient number of no votes. Passing it means organizing a sufficient number of yes votes. They are the same process and they require exactly the same work. They take place at the exact same moment in time and space, although they are mutually exclusive. You're free to describe things however you want, but your descriptions won't change the underlying reality.
      - debugnik 7mo ago
        > Passing it means organizing a sufficient number of yes votes. EU Parliament can't propose legislation, only vote on proposals from the Commission. We'd have to convince the Commission to propose a law to prevent themselves from trying to pass this bullshit over and over.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
DeathArrow 7mo ago
>Why has your approach not been toward passing active legislation that protects these rights going forward? Maybe because the Commission holds the true power and the commissioners aren't directly elected by the people so you don't have any leverage against the commissioners. You can't just say "behave nicely or we won't support you at the next elections".
- qwytw 7mo ago
  You kind of can, but you get to only vote for the full package i.e. the party which wins the national elections will get to appoint its own commissioner. Most people obviously only care about the domestic issues and likely will not change their vote regardless of what the appointed commissioner thinks or does.
- munksbeer 7mo ago
  That's not true. The commission do the bidding of the Council or other elected national ministers. Re-posting my comment: --- They're just like the civil service in the UK, or any other country. They do the bidding of our nationally elected governments. Nearly all proposals coming from the commission originate from the national governments. So a law: Starts with member states directly elected ministers pushing and agenda or the council (again elected) agreeing to push an agenda -> Commissioners take this agenda and work with it to propose law (using EU civil service like any other country does) -> The law then gets voted on by the EU directly elected ministers, who are meant to (and do) represent the people of the states more directly. Everything in that step is as democratic as any other nation (or nearly). Most people really don't understand the EU - and yes, it is confusing. This unfortunately makes it easy for certain interests to weaponise this misunderstanding. I've spent years (and years) explaining these concepts, but ultimately like any other argument, this is not a debate from logic, everyone has already made up their minds on emotion or ideology and nothing will make a difference.
  - Yizahi 7mo ago
    It is true though. He said "directly elected by the people" and they are obviously not. If we are being honest, the system where privileged few select other privileged few among themselves is called oligarchy.
qwytw 7mo ago
> toward passing active legislation that protects these rights going forward? That's not something the "legislators" in the EU parliament can do. It's effectively a consultative body which can either approve or send back the legislation provided to them so the council and commision can find sufficient workarounds... What would actually help is if a government of a country where this type of Stasi/KGB style surveillance is constitutionally illegal like Germany to speak out and tell the EU (and Denmark which keeps pushing this) that they can go fuck themselves and that they will prosecute any company which is trying to comply with these regulations. (which would be perfectly legal since constitution/basic laws still supersede any type of EU treaty obligations in most countries.
andrepd 7mo ago
The European """Parliament""" can only reject laws, but not propose new ones.
PunchyHamster 7mo ago
Passing legislation is harder. It should absolutely be the goal but it can't be passed if there is already legislation allowing the abuse.

hsbauauvhabzb 7mo ago

Also curious, as much as the American amendments are problematic, they do at lease create a hard position on things. We are devolving into a space where I’m genuinely scared that the future will become entirely controlled by big money, and it will be too late to change it.

verisimi 7mo ago
The future you fear is already here, sorry.
buzer 7mo ago
From my understanding Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is somewhat similar to US Constitution & amendments. Both do still allow government to restrict the freedoms granted by those in some situations though I do think the US Constitution does tend to set higher bar on the interference. There have been EU laws which get struck down because they violated the Charter (e.g. Data Retention Directive).
- qwytw 7mo ago
  Hopefully even if the worst comes to pass and the EU ends up enacting this law there are still the courts on the EU level and then the national governments and courts in countries where this type of surveillance is illegal can still decide to do whatever the want (i.e. national constitutions general take precedence over EU treaty obligations)

sillysaurusx 7mo ago

Because we can barely stop new legislation we don't like, let alone pass new ones we do. You're out-monied by lobbyists at all levels. Maybe a movement could match a lobbyist in terms of money. I hope so.

thaumasiotes 7mo ago
> we can barely stop new legislation we don't like, let alone pass new ones we do These are literally the same process.
- GCUMstlyHarmls 7mo ago
  Is it? Stopping is a matter of ground swell support contacting representatives and saying "please don't". Enough people do it to enough receptive reps and they'll vote no. Passing new ones that "you like" requires lawyers to write laws, get those laws in front of reps, get them to agree to try and pass it, stake some of their reputation on pushing it, get the ground swell to support it -- which might be difficult when the current law is "dont scan messages", you can easily say "hey dont scan anything! support that!" vs "hey scan somethings sometimes", cause many people will call that a slippery slope. I don't see how they are at all the same process.
  - thaumasiotes 7mo ago
    Stopping legislation means organizing a sufficient number of no votes. Passing it means organizing a sufficient number of yes votes. They are the same process and they require exactly the same work. They take place at the exact same moment in time and space, although they are mutually exclusive. You're free to describe things however you want, but your descriptions won't change the underlying reality.
    - debugnik 7mo ago
      > Passing it means organizing a sufficient number of yes votes. EU Parliament can't propose legislation, only vote on proposals from the Commission. We'd have to convince the Commission to propose a law to prevent themselves from trying to pass this bullshit over and over.

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

DeathArrow 7mo ago

>Why has your approach not been toward passing active legislation that protects these rights going forward? Maybe because the Commission holds the true power and the commissioners aren't directly elected by the people so you don't have any leverage against the commissioners. You can't just say "behave nicely or we won't support you at the next elections".

qwytw 7mo ago
You kind of can, but you get to only vote for the full package i.e. the party which wins the national elections will get to appoint its own commissioner. Most people obviously only care about the domestic issues and likely will not change their vote regardless of what the appointed commissioner thinks or does.
munksbeer 7mo ago
That's not true. The commission do the bidding of the Council or other elected national ministers. Re-posting my comment: --- They're just like the civil service in the UK, or any other country. They do the bidding of our nationally elected governments. Nearly all proposals coming from the commission originate from the national governments. So a law: Starts with member states directly elected ministers pushing and agenda or the council (again elected) agreeing to push an agenda -> Commissioners take this agenda and work with it to propose law (using EU civil service like any other country does) -> The law then gets voted on by the EU directly elected ministers, who are meant to (and do) represent the people of the states more directly. Everything in that step is as democratic as any other nation (or nearly). Most people really don't understand the EU - and yes, it is confusing. This unfortunately makes it easy for certain interests to weaponise this misunderstanding. I've spent years (and years) explaining these concepts, but ultimately like any other argument, this is not a debate from logic, everyone has already made up their minds on emotion or ideology and nothing will make a difference.
- Yizahi 7mo ago
  It is true though. He said "directly elected by the people" and they are obviously not. If we are being honest, the system where privileged few select other privileged few among themselves is called oligarchy.

qwytw 7mo ago

> toward passing active legislation that protects these rights going forward? That's not something the "legislators" in the EU parliament can do. It's effectively a consultative body which can either approve or send back the legislation provided to them so the council and commision can find sufficient workarounds... What would actually help is if a government of a country where this type of Stasi/KGB style surveillance is constitutionally illegal like Germany to speak out and tell the EU (and Denmark which keeps pushing this) that they can go fuck themselves and that they will prosecute any company which is trying to comply with these regulations. (which would be perfectly legal since constitution/basic laws still supersede any type of EU treaty obligations in most countries.

andrepd 7mo ago

The European """Parliament""" can only reject laws, but not propose new ones.

PunchyHamster 7mo ago

Passing legislation is harder. It should absolutely be the goal but it can't be passed if there is already legislation allowing the abuse.