4 ms·

It seems like an almost never ending hamster wheel of chat control being introduced, voted down, then introduced again in the next session.

ryandrake 7mo ago
That's the problem with modern democracies (it happens in the USA too). They only have to win once and it's law. We have to win every time.
- __loam 7mo ago
  Need to amend constitutional rights to privacy then these laws can be struck down in courts.
  - bigyabai 7mo ago
    I feel like that would end with the same surveillance loopholes that Google, Microsoft and Apple exploit today. Users need the ability to choose operating systems and software that is not exclusively green-lit by a first-party vendor. It's not glamorous, but pretending that software isn't a competitive market is what put us into this surveillance monopoly in the first place. "trust" distributed among a handful of businesses isn't going to cut it in a post-2030s threat environment.
  - chihuahua 7mo ago
    It's already there, in the European Convention on Human Rights [1], Article 8: ARTICLE 8 Right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. You have the right to privacy, just no actual privacy. Just like in Life of Brian, where Stan/Loretta has the right to have children, but can't actually have children. 1: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Convention_ENG https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Convention_ENG
- moffkalast 7mo ago
  It's a problem when the parliament can't propose the laws it has to vote on and the commission isn't elected and continues to be presided by the most corrupt person in the EU. She is blatantly EPP and just keeps proposing the shit they want. For Americans, imagine if only Republicans ever got to propose legislation and only Democrats could vote on it. That's more or less it.
  - tpm 7mo ago
    You are mostly right except vdl is very, very far from the most corrupt person. It can be much worse.
  - petre 7mo ago
    At least the Commision can't conduct war for 100 days without Congress approval. I thought Juncker was an idiot but VdL is corrupt to Hillary levels and worse than the disastruous Merker/Juncker duo in every way. I'd like to see her replaced with someone like Macron. That's the type of leadership that the EU needs right now.
  - toyg 7mo ago
    > She is blatantly EPP Well, that's because she was nominated by European governments, which happen to be largely run by right-wing parties right now. There have been socialist personalities in her place in the past. That has nothing to do with democracy.
  - orwin 7mo ago
    I honestly like the system as long as its reach is limited and it's stay this way (i.e EU regulations set goals, and states do what they want to reach it). The money lobbyists throw is huge, for very, very little progress.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > They only have to win once and it's law. We have to win every time. Passing legislation takes about as much effort as repealing. (The exception being if the legislation spawns a massive bureaucracy.) Chat Control 1.0 was de facto passed. It's now being unpassed. We don't have to win every time. Just more.
  - WhyNotHugo 7mo ago
    > Passing legislation takes about as much effort as repealing. While true, those trying to pass this legislation get paid to do so, while those against it have work hard and pay taxes to fund the former.
    - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
      > those trying to pass this legislation get paid to do so Chat Control has paid lobbyists on both sides. Also, paying lobbyists is still sinking resources. And the people taking their meetings are still sinking political capital into a fight that has–to date–yielded zilch. > while those against it have work hard and pay taxes to fund the former The principal moneyed interests in this fight are the tech companies. Your taxes aren't funding their fight. The police lobby is less effective if filtered through paid lobbyists versus having a police chief personally pitch lawmakers.
  - gzread 7mo ago
    See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive Your ISP had to spy on you. This was the law for 8 years until it was ruled unconstitutional.
  - wolvoleo 7mo ago
    Considering it's a sensitive topic there'll be very little interest in repealing it. Especially if they drag up a few token cases and go like "see it's working!". Look at all the crazy secret surveillance powers in the US. How much of that got repealed after snowden? No, people just got used to it because no politician wants to be called a tattooist terrorist friend.
- Valakas_ 7mo ago
  The best defense is often an offense. If we start going on the offensive, and pushing laws that promote privacy, then they also need to start winning every time not to get those pushed. Let's get our act together.
cess11 7mo ago
The US really, really wants it implemented, and several national police institutions in the EU does too. Plus the politicians that start to drool a little at the prospect.
- moffkalast 7mo ago
  Given the current US-EU relations I'm more surprised we're not telling them to go fuck themselves on this.
  - cess11 7mo ago
    Not sure what you mean. The current EU leadership is extremely stuck in the Cold War, the US can be a bit inconvenient at most but at least they're not the islamocommies, hence they're the freedom side of history. They're not going to do anything directly against the US, instead opting for subservience and wishful thinking, e.g. that trade agreements with South America, India and Australia will somehow make a future for Europe even if the US stays inconvenient.
dmitrygr 7mo ago
We need a double-jeopardy-like constitutional amendment for legislation. Legislation once-tried and failed cannot be tried again.
- krapp 7mo ago
  That would be antithetical to democracy. The people must be allowed to introduce any legislation they want, as often as they want. Otherwise it would be trivial for a government to intentionally fail to pass anything they disagree with, and thus act as a de facto dictatorship.
  - jagged-chisel 7mo ago
    Not to mention how would one even define "the same legislation"?
  - dmitrygr 7mo ago
    When have "the people" been last consulted on this? Do you really think Chat Control has high public support? Given how most "democracies" work in our world today (which is to say with no consultation of the people), i think limiting their ability to do further harm might be worth it.
    - krapp 7mo ago
      This wouldn't limit the ability of governments to do harm, it would limit the ability of the people to mitigate that harm by giving them only one chance to ever do so. I don't think "democracy is flawed therefore we need less of it" is a good idea.
    - moffkalast 7mo ago
      The MEPs represent the people. They've just been consulted. They said no. Looking at what each of my MEPs voted they seemed to pretty accurately represent their own party lines, the right and far right voted for, left and center left voted against. I'm shocked! Shocked! Well not that shocked.
    - 7mo ago
xeonmc 7mo ago
I think the more fitting imagery would be https://en.meming.world/images/en/4/4a/Moe_Tossing_Barney_From_Moe%27s.jpg https://en.meming.world/images/en/4/4a/Moe_Tossing_Barney_Fr...
hkpack 7mo ago
The alternative is a dictatorship.

ryandrake 7mo ago

That's the problem with modern democracies (it happens in the USA too). They only have to win once and it's law. We have to win every time.

__loam 7mo ago
Need to amend constitutional rights to privacy then these laws can be struck down in courts.
- bigyabai 7mo ago
  I feel like that would end with the same surveillance loopholes that Google, Microsoft and Apple exploit today. Users need the ability to choose operating systems and software that is not exclusively green-lit by a first-party vendor. It's not glamorous, but pretending that software isn't a competitive market is what put us into this surveillance monopoly in the first place. "trust" distributed among a handful of businesses isn't going to cut it in a post-2030s threat environment.
- chihuahua 7mo ago
  It's already there, in the European Convention on Human Rights [1], Article 8: ARTICLE 8 Right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. You have the right to privacy, just no actual privacy. Just like in Life of Brian, where Stan/Loretta has the right to have children, but can't actually have children. 1: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Convention_ENG https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Convention_ENG
moffkalast 7mo ago
It's a problem when the parliament can't propose the laws it has to vote on and the commission isn't elected and continues to be presided by the most corrupt person in the EU. She is blatantly EPP and just keeps proposing the shit they want. For Americans, imagine if only Republicans ever got to propose legislation and only Democrats could vote on it. That's more or less it.
- tpm 7mo ago
  You are mostly right except vdl is very, very far from the most corrupt person. It can be much worse.
- petre 7mo ago
  At least the Commision can't conduct war for 100 days without Congress approval. I thought Juncker was an idiot but VdL is corrupt to Hillary levels and worse than the disastruous Merker/Juncker duo in every way. I'd like to see her replaced with someone like Macron. That's the type of leadership that the EU needs right now.
- toyg 7mo ago
  > She is blatantly EPP Well, that's because she was nominated by European governments, which happen to be largely run by right-wing parties right now. There have been socialist personalities in her place in the past. That has nothing to do with democracy.
- orwin 7mo ago
  I honestly like the system as long as its reach is limited and it's stay this way (i.e EU regulations set goals, and states do what they want to reach it). The money lobbyists throw is huge, for very, very little progress.
JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
> They only have to win once and it's law. We have to win every time. Passing legislation takes about as much effort as repealing. (The exception being if the legislation spawns a massive bureaucracy.) Chat Control 1.0 was de facto passed. It's now being unpassed. We don't have to win every time. Just more.
- WhyNotHugo 7mo ago
  > Passing legislation takes about as much effort as repealing. While true, those trying to pass this legislation get paid to do so, while those against it have work hard and pay taxes to fund the former.
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    > those trying to pass this legislation get paid to do so Chat Control has paid lobbyists on both sides. Also, paying lobbyists is still sinking resources. And the people taking their meetings are still sinking political capital into a fight that has–to date–yielded zilch. > while those against it have work hard and pay taxes to fund the former The principal moneyed interests in this fight are the tech companies. Your taxes aren't funding their fight. The police lobby is less effective if filtered through paid lobbyists versus having a police chief personally pitch lawmakers.
- gzread 7mo ago
  See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive Your ISP had to spy on you. This was the law for 8 years until it was ruled unconstitutional.
- wolvoleo 7mo ago
  Considering it's a sensitive topic there'll be very little interest in repealing it. Especially if they drag up a few token cases and go like "see it's working!". Look at all the crazy secret surveillance powers in the US. How much of that got repealed after snowden? No, people just got used to it because no politician wants to be called a tattooist terrorist friend.
Valakas_ 7mo ago
The best defense is often an offense. If we start going on the offensive, and pushing laws that promote privacy, then they also need to start winning every time not to get those pushed. Let's get our act together.

cess11 7mo ago

The US really, really wants it implemented, and several national police institutions in the EU does too. Plus the politicians that start to drool a little at the prospect.

moffkalast 7mo ago
Given the current US-EU relations I'm more surprised we're not telling them to go fuck themselves on this.
- cess11 7mo ago
  Not sure what you mean. The current EU leadership is extremely stuck in the Cold War, the US can be a bit inconvenient at most but at least they're not the islamocommies, hence they're the freedom side of history. They're not going to do anything directly against the US, instead opting for subservience and wishful thinking, e.g. that trade agreements with South America, India and Australia will somehow make a future for Europe even if the US stays inconvenient.

dmitrygr 7mo ago

We need a double-jeopardy-like constitutional amendment for legislation. Legislation once-tried and failed cannot be tried again.

krapp 7mo ago
That would be antithetical to democracy. The people must be allowed to introduce any legislation they want, as often as they want. Otherwise it would be trivial for a government to intentionally fail to pass anything they disagree with, and thus act as a de facto dictatorship.
- jagged-chisel 7mo ago
  Not to mention how would one even define "the same legislation"?
- dmitrygr 7mo ago
  When have "the people" been last consulted on this? Do you really think Chat Control has high public support? Given how most "democracies" work in our world today (which is to say with no consultation of the people), i think limiting their ability to do further harm might be worth it.
  - krapp 7mo ago
    This wouldn't limit the ability of governments to do harm, it would limit the ability of the people to mitigate that harm by giving them only one chance to ever do so. I don't think "democracy is flawed therefore we need less of it" is a good idea.
  - moffkalast 7mo ago
    The MEPs represent the people. They've just been consulted. They said no. Looking at what each of my MEPs voted they seemed to pretty accurately represent their own party lines, the right and far right voted for, left and center left voted against. I'm shocked! Shocked! Well not that shocked.
  - 7mo ago

xeonmc 7mo ago

I think the more fitting imagery would be https://en.meming.world/images/en/4/4a/Moe_Tossing_Barney_From_Moe%27s.jpg https://en.meming.world/images/en/4/4a/Moe_Tossing_Barney_Fr...

hkpack 7mo ago

The alternative is a dictatorship.