8 ms·

And they wonder why so many Brits want to leave the EU.

by beejiu 12y ago

bowlofpetunias 12y ago
Actually, privacy protection is one of few issues in which the EU is on the side of the citizens. Also, anything critical of the EU will get you downvoted into oblivion on HN. I sincerely hope that the upcoming EU elections will open people's eyes to the waning support for the EU's faux democracy. (In the Netherlands there is currently a large crowdsourcing initiative being set up to counteract the EU's censorship of the election results. Although most voters are likely to simply boycott these fake elections.)
- techsupporter 12y ago
  What do you mean, censorship of the election results? Genuine question, I haven't heard of this. (Perhaps that's by design.)
  - beejiu 12y ago
    I think he's referring to an issue with the European Union laws which state that election results must be held back until all member states have finished voting. However, in the Netherlands, it is law that results must be counted immediately and published as soon as they are counted. So, in the previous election, the vote was technically illegal under Netherland's laws. However, this time around, it seems Netherlands isn't holding a vote until the last day of voting.
- DasIch 12y ago
  You do realize that the EU is becoming steadily more "democratic" and especially this election is an important milestone for this process? While there certainly is a problem in how democratic the EU is, they are steadily working on solving this problem.
  - beejiu 12y ago
    I think the problem is that the democracy is largely symbolic. For example, elected representatives are unable to propose legislation, they are only allowed to approve it. Only the European Commission is able to propose legislation, and that is an undemocratic body -- there are only 24 commissioners who couldn't possibly represent the views of the "electorate" in a fair way. They also have a mandate to act in European interests, which makes it difficult to legislate against further EU expansion and authority. It doesn't really matter that the EU president is a democratic position in these elections, because he or she really has no authority as far as the appointment of the 24 commissioners is concerned.
    - arrrg 12y ago
      But the governments appoint the commission. That’s democratic. It’s one or two steps of indirection (and you could make a decent argument that two steps of indirection are too many), but that doesn’t make it undemocratic. This indirection isn’t uncommon in democratic systems. For example, the German chancellor is only voted into office indirectly by parliament. She can then appoint any ministers she wants, no confirmation needed by anyone. No one would call Germany undemocratic. The EU commission just works similarly, only that in its case elected governments are making the appointments, though they have to additionally be confirmed by the EU parliament. I’m all for structuring it differently, but to call it undemocratic is just wrong. Its structure is in many ways problematic, but that’s nothing that can’t be fixed. Yes, the parliament should get the right to initiate laws, of course. But your look on this is a bit too weird.
      - beejiu 12y ago
        Having 740 million people represented by 24 councillors is not democratic. Even if they are elected in "second order" by our elected politicians, one person could not possibly fairly represent its country's citizens. We already have a first past the post system in the UK, so this is essential the 'squared' form of that. The House of Commons has a mixture of different politicians and parties representing its electorate. The single MEP, however, only represents the majority government so there is no diversity of opinion in the commission. The definition of democracy is representation of the population, not representation of the 51%. What's the point of having 750 MEPs if they can only approve sanitised legislation?
- mike_hearn 12y ago
  I don't think they're on the side of the citizens. Consider that the EU was A-OK with all personal financial data being shipped to the US Treasury department, despite that it clearly violated basically every privacy law on the books. Now consider that EU countries are all falling over themselves to agree to FATCA, despite that it also violates privacy laws which say banks aren't allowed to send client data abroad. Their "solution" is that instead of banks directly sending data to the USA, first it gets sent to the local government, and then the local government sends it to the USA. See, because governments don't have to follow their own laws. Great, isn't it. So far the EU's "standing up for the citizen" amounts to selling everyone out to the Americans, and breaking the setting in my browser that says I don't want to be bugged every time a site sets a cookie. They broke my browser! And .... now this. The EU needs to get the hell away from the internet before they screw it up even more ....
k-mcgrady 12y ago
Britain? You mean the country that imprisons people for offensive posts on social media and arrests people connected to journalists under anti-terror laws?
- beejiu 12y ago
  Fair point, but two wrongs do not make a right. In this case, Google is right that the ruling amounts to censorship. It's an attack on free speech.
  - venomsnake 12y ago
    Even worse - it opens the gate to Winston Smith's job.
    - SEMW 12y ago
      Data protection legislation is, and always has been, about your ability to control information that's about you. Winston Smith's job was about controlling information that's about other people. Do you really think that's a distinction without a difference?
      - venomsnake 12y ago
        No. But it sets dangerous precedent about what truth is. And we all know how all of this stuff creeps. But if a court can mandate something to be forgotten, what prevents the next case of mandating what could be altered. Does an author have a right his bad books to be forgotten and to claim that he has only bestsellers? Do I have a right to be forgotten about my previous to last disatrous project and only for the last one that was stellar. Does Obama have a right healthcare.gov roll out to be forgotten? Does Bill Clinton and Monica have that right too? This is rewriting history.
        SEMW 12y ago
        > we all know how all of this stuff creeps. Implying that there's a slippery slope to get from "I can control a company's use of information that's about me" to Winston Smith's job - controlling information about other people - is like saying that suicide being legal is a slippery slope to murder being legal. After all, it's just a difference between me doing it to myself and me doing it to other people, right? > But if a court can mandate something to be forgotten, what prevents the next case of mandating what could be altered. You're forgetting the context of this, which is data protection legislation. The court isn't "mandating something to be forgotten". It's letting someone enforce a right to object to a company processing data relating to them.
claudius 12y ago
Honestly, by now I also want Britain to leave the EU. If these guys think of themselves as an isolated island in the middle of the Atlantic rather than an important piece of Europe ten kilometres off the coast of France, fine, but they should stop forcing their curious worldview on the rest of Europe.
- arethuza 12y ago
  Worth noting that not all parts of the UK are anti-EU - there is a larger margin in favour of the EU in Scotland than there is against in England: http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/6761-scotland-and-the-eu-the-polling-evidence http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/6761-s... [Edit: I am a Scot]
  - beejiu 12y ago
    Also worth noting that Scotland could realistically become independent of the UK in a referendum this year (opinion polls have a small margin against), which will leave it both out of the UK and out the European Union.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - ronaldx 12y ago
      >out the European Union. This is IMHO highly unlikely in practice. Succession/secession law regarding EU membership is untested, but the simplest suggestion is that rest-of-the-UK retains membership, and Scotland has to reapply as a "new" member. I think that's what you're saying. But, this is awkward and probably not legally correct because it treats the two newly formed countries differently. This is also not in anyone's interest, except for perhaps Spain (Spanish politicians are pushing this solution because they are worried about Catalonia): it forces two countries to do the opposite of what their electorate would prefer. For now, this is just a propaganda designed to frighten voters: some other arrangement would be made. Wikipedia has a large amount of detail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_enlargement_of_the_European_Union#Upcoming_independence_referendum_sanctioned_by_an_EU_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_enlargement_of_the_Euro...
chunkyslink 12y ago
Who is 'they' that you are referring to?
- beejiu 12y ago
  British politicians.

And they wonder why so many Brits want to leave the EU.

by beejiu 12y ago

And they wonder why so many Brits want to leave the EU.

Actually, privacy protection is one of few issues in which the EU is on the side of the citizens. Also, anything critical of the EU will get you downvoted into oblivion on HN. I sincerely hope that the upcoming EU elections will open people's eyes to the waning support for the EU's faux democracy. (In the Netherlands there is currently a large crowdsourcing initiative being set up to counteract the EU's censorship of the election results. Although most voters are likely to simply boycott these fake elections.)

techsupporter 12y ago
What do you mean, censorship of the election results? Genuine question, I haven't heard of this. (Perhaps that's by design.)
- beejiu 12y ago
  I think he's referring to an issue with the European Union laws which state that election results must be held back until all member states have finished voting. However, in the Netherlands, it is law that results must be counted immediately and published as soon as they are counted. So, in the previous election, the vote was technically illegal under Netherland's laws. However, this time around, it seems Netherlands isn't holding a vote until the last day of voting.
DasIch 12y ago
You do realize that the EU is becoming steadily more "democratic" and especially this election is an important milestone for this process? While there certainly is a problem in how democratic the EU is, they are steadily working on solving this problem.
- beejiu 12y ago
  I think the problem is that the democracy is largely symbolic. For example, elected representatives are unable to propose legislation, they are only allowed to approve it. Only the European Commission is able to propose legislation, and that is an undemocratic body -- there are only 24 commissioners who couldn't possibly represent the views of the "electorate" in a fair way. They also have a mandate to act in European interests, which makes it difficult to legislate against further EU expansion and authority. It doesn't really matter that the EU president is a democratic position in these elections, because he or she really has no authority as far as the appointment of the 24 commissioners is concerned.
  - arrrg 12y ago
    But the governments appoint the commission. That’s democratic. It’s one or two steps of indirection (and you could make a decent argument that two steps of indirection are too many), but that doesn’t make it undemocratic. This indirection isn’t uncommon in democratic systems. For example, the German chancellor is only voted into office indirectly by parliament. She can then appoint any ministers she wants, no confirmation needed by anyone. No one would call Germany undemocratic. The EU commission just works similarly, only that in its case elected governments are making the appointments, though they have to additionally be confirmed by the EU parliament. I’m all for structuring it differently, but to call it undemocratic is just wrong. Its structure is in many ways problematic, but that’s nothing that can’t be fixed. Yes, the parliament should get the right to initiate laws, of course. But your look on this is a bit too weird.
    - beejiu 12y ago
      Having 740 million people represented by 24 councillors is not democratic. Even if they are elected in "second order" by our elected politicians, one person could not possibly fairly represent its country's citizens. We already have a first past the post system in the UK, so this is essential the 'squared' form of that. The House of Commons has a mixture of different politicians and parties representing its electorate. The single MEP, however, only represents the majority government so there is no diversity of opinion in the commission. The definition of democracy is representation of the population, not representation of the 51%. What's the point of having 750 MEPs if they can only approve sanitised legislation?
mike_hearn 12y ago
I don't think they're on the side of the citizens. Consider that the EU was A-OK with all personal financial data being shipped to the US Treasury department, despite that it clearly violated basically every privacy law on the books. Now consider that EU countries are all falling over themselves to agree to FATCA, despite that it also violates privacy laws which say banks aren't allowed to send client data abroad. Their "solution" is that instead of banks directly sending data to the USA, first it gets sent to the local government, and then the local government sends it to the USA. See, because governments don't have to follow their own laws. Great, isn't it. So far the EU's "standing up for the citizen" amounts to selling everyone out to the Americans, and breaking the setting in my browser that says I don't want to be bugged every time a site sets a cookie. They broke my browser! And .... now this. The EU needs to get the hell away from the internet before they screw it up even more ....

k-mcgrady 12y ago

Britain? You mean the country that imprisons people for offensive posts on social media and arrests people connected to journalists under anti-terror laws?

beejiu 12y ago
Fair point, but two wrongs do not make a right. In this case, Google is right that the ruling amounts to censorship. It's an attack on free speech.
- venomsnake 12y ago
  Even worse - it opens the gate to Winston Smith's job.
  - SEMW 12y ago
    Data protection legislation is, and always has been, about your ability to control information that's about you. Winston Smith's job was about controlling information that's about other people. Do you really think that's a distinction without a difference?
    - venomsnake 12y ago
      No. But it sets dangerous precedent about what truth is. And we all know how all of this stuff creeps. But if a court can mandate something to be forgotten, what prevents the next case of mandating what could be altered. Does an author have a right his bad books to be forgotten and to claim that he has only bestsellers? Do I have a right to be forgotten about my previous to last disatrous project and only for the last one that was stellar. Does Obama have a right healthcare.gov roll out to be forgotten? Does Bill Clinton and Monica have that right too? This is rewriting history.
      - SEMW 12y ago
        > we all know how all of this stuff creeps. Implying that there's a slippery slope to get from "I can control a company's use of information that's about me" to Winston Smith's job - controlling information about other people - is like saying that suicide being legal is a slippery slope to murder being legal. After all, it's just a difference between me doing it to myself and me doing it to other people, right? > But if a court can mandate something to be forgotten, what prevents the next case of mandating what could be altered. You're forgetting the context of this, which is data protection legislation. The court isn't "mandating something to be forgotten". It's letting someone enforce a right to object to a company processing data relating to them.

claudius 12y ago

Honestly, by now I also want Britain to leave the EU. If these guys think of themselves as an isolated island in the middle of the Atlantic rather than an important piece of Europe ten kilometres off the coast of France, fine, but they should stop forcing their curious worldview on the rest of Europe.

arethuza 12y ago
Worth noting that not all parts of the UK are anti-EU - there is a larger margin in favour of the EU in Scotland than there is against in England: http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/6761-scotland-and-the-eu-the-polling-evidence http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/6761-s... [Edit: I am a Scot]
- beejiu 12y ago
  Also worth noting that Scotland could realistically become independent of the UK in a referendum this year (opinion polls have a small margin against), which will leave it both out of the UK and out the European Union.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - ronaldx 12y ago
    >out the European Union. This is IMHO highly unlikely in practice. Succession/secession law regarding EU membership is untested, but the simplest suggestion is that rest-of-the-UK retains membership, and Scotland has to reapply as a "new" member. I think that's what you're saying. But, this is awkward and probably not legally correct because it treats the two newly formed countries differently. This is also not in anyone's interest, except for perhaps Spain (Spanish politicians are pushing this solution because they are worried about Catalonia): it forces two countries to do the opposite of what their electorate would prefer. For now, this is just a propaganda designed to frighten voters: some other arrangement would be made. Wikipedia has a large amount of detail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_enlargement_of_the_European_Union#Upcoming_independence_referendum_sanctioned_by_an_EU_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_enlargement_of_the_Euro...

chunkyslink 12y ago

Who is 'they' that you are referring to?

beejiu 12y ago
British politicians.