And even then they will just rehash it in a different form and push it again.

The problem is also, this won't work. The pervs will simply use something else, prompting even stronger regulation to avoid having unapproved apps etc. Meanwhile we will all live in a panopticon society for no tangible benefits. In the end it could even kill FOSS and open computing because anyone who can edit the code can edit out the spyware.

[1] https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/cyber-resi...

But this is even worse than that. It would allow for dubious security resellers to define adequate protections. That would basically be their own products.

Everyone in IT knows that there are borderline dubious products that heavily border scam. Not every security solution of course, but there is a lot of bad sheep that present as much a danger to security as direct attacks.

If you want to protect user data, don't collect it. Best security you can achieve.

Perhaps I am overanalyzing and this just tries to introduce formal processes to deal with security concerns. But it doesn't look like it. It seems you need a third party to certify your products for once and I believe this is lobbying for questionable security products and lawyers in one go.

This trope is getting tedious.

The EU tries to regulate the Wild West that the internet opened up. That's not at all the same as "killing innovation". It's reasonable and realistic to try to regulate. I'm fearful of attempts to regulate the internet, because there are strong forces that want to load the regulations with provisions that would be a dictator's wet dream. But to my mind, unregulated everything is a nightmare.

Unfortunately governments in general and the EU in particular have a poor track record of making helpful regulations for businesses operating in STEM fields. Not many politicians have a STEM background themselves and not many have much experience of smaller businesses or grass roots volunteer work beyond a quick photo op. A field like software where a single individual can make a disproportionate contribution and where a lot of the FOSS we depend on every day was written at least partially by volunteers is probably quite alien to them.

Until the politicians are better educated the overall state of regulation will continue to be poor. Unfortunately until the small businesses and the FOSS world can speak at the same volume as corporate lobbyists and PR firms with multimillion budgets the politicians will probably continue to be poorly informed. In most places we have nothing like that level of coordination among the smaller players yet.

Oh my! An awful lot of contributors to FOSS are europeans.

Why are people so hung up on the EU?

It could easily close most security issues by regulating data collection. That would seriously reduce the damage of possible data leaks. Any encrypted content is only safe for a limited amount of time. This hasn't changed for ages.

In the permission less school of thought, you don't need permission to use an existing API or data to do whatever you want as long as it isn't abusing the service or illegal.

In a permission full school of thought, you should always ask permission, from the authorities and whoever might have a vested interesting what you are doing.

It seems that in Europe it is far more common that many (most?) people expect you to get permission before you go off writing your random programs and putting them live on the Internet.

Where as in some other countries, people view pushing half baked ideas live as virtuous and artists manifest destiny and/or a existentially important economic function of startups.

When people from different cultures interact and they have completely different unspoken assumptions it can result in misunderstandings. In my case, the correct thing to do was apologize for the misunderstanding (definitely not arguing, you would never convince them to change their core cultural values!), and then not use the specific service or company involved (that had intractable permission issues due to any member being able to deny permission), and just work with other services that had no built in conflicts with the fundamental purpose of their service. (Organization names and the services involved redacted for courtesy.)

No. In Europe it literally is what you pretend to be permissionless: "you don't need permission to use an existing API or data to do whatever you want as long as it isn't abusing the service or illegal."

Whereas permissionless is really just doing whatever, consequences be damned

The results say otherwise. One way or another Europe killed off its tech companies and it's now entirely reliant on foreign companies for almost all IT services.

It's not a trope because they've already succeeded. You can't look at the EU where almost every IT service they use is made by a foreign company and say call it flourishing.

>But to my mind, unregulated everything is a nightmare.

Everything, like making food for your kids? Breathing air?

Absolutely.

Unregulated food means that corporations can sell toxic food that will make my kids ill, if it is profitable.

Unregulated air quality means that corporations can indiscriminately pollute air, externalizing costs and making air unbreathable.

I think what is true is that it is harder to get VC backed capital here, and hence a lot of “winner takes all” markets are won in the US. But that doesn’t mean that there is no striving startup scene in Europe, they just have different goals or measures of success than “grow a lot”.

Regulating that might even help European companies :-)

Growth is a must - large companies are market makers and a continent without them will become dependent on the ones that have them.

Bought out is also fine - that how you get investment capital.

Regulation only helps incumbent companies though, which is exactly the problem in EU.

European telecom companies are large tech companies, heavily regulated and successful. Yes, they are incumbents now. But they weren't always; at least not all of them.

It's easy to see why: all the startups loudly hailed as successful are running into billions of dollars of debt every year, but keep being propped up by unlimited investor money. In any other industry this would be a failure.

They would if not for the infinite subsidies

> Are you saying all those investors are dumb and just burning money for the fun of it?!

For example, Uber has not been profitable for a single year in its 10 years of existence.

Same goes for most if YCombinator's "top companies".

In which other industry can you lose money (often billions of dollars a year) and still be in business and claim you're successful.

There is no such thing. Private money is finite, it ends up eventually as investors want ROIs.

> Uber has not been profitable

Actually, they announced their first profitable quarter in 2023.

> In which other industry can you lose money (often billions of dollars a year) and still be in business and claim you're successful.

Well in the Government business, of course! Deficits around the world keep increasing and governments borrow trillions they never pay back.

Sorry, disqualified according to your own arbitrary rules.

And regarding AI startups there's about a bazillion of them in EU, just as in the US. Sure, ChatGPT was invented by a US company but you can't really claim that there's "nothing" in the EU. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

But I am happy to be proved wrong, thats why I asked in the first place.

Off the top of my head, but some of these are older than 5 years: Spotify, Voi, Revolut, Ledger, Aiven.

Some stuff the EU does is really good, like the GDPR, the right to be forgotten, the right to repair (smartphones with replaceable batteries and standard USB connectors). I don't even think it kills innovation. It just makes sure it is aligned with society.

But at the same time they do things like this....

Regulations are usually well intended but second order effects are rarely thought out at all.

GDPR, article 17(3)a: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...

> 3. [Right to erasure] shall not apply to the extent that processing is necessary:

> (a) for exercising the right of freedom of expression and information;

More precise information from WP29. See the criteria list, beginning in page 13: https://ec.europa.eu/justice/article-29/documentation/opinio... This was from the DPD era, but still applies to GDPR.

How Google handles removal requests: https://support.google.com/legal/answer/10769224?hl=en&sjid=...

Also the privacy of politicians being investigated for corruption and graft. And corrupt judges for freeing their customers.

One evil piece of legislation. But hey, at least Google/Facebook/Amazon is not selling “my data”!

Also, if I were into social studies, I'd look at social media and how they drive outrage, and a good way to show kids how such an influence operation works so they don't fall for it. My wife and I have been a little active in this area, but way too little to make any meaningful difference, unfortunately.

Please tell me where exactly GDPR requires this cookie banners. A direct quote is preferred.

Hint: those cookie banners are put their by the unregulated industry you're so willing to defend. Because they truly believe they have the god-given right to your data.

I can see a cause and effect, I don't need to invent conspiracies and accuse the industry that provides me goods and services I actually want.

What exactly is dumb about "you can't collect user data wholesale, but if you want to do it, you have to ask the user for consent"?

Why are so willing to blame the law for something that the industry is doing, and you're giving the industry the carte blanche to do whatever they please

> I don't need to invent conspiracies and accuse the industry that provides me goods and services I actually want.

There's no conspiracy. The conspiracy is literally what you're saying: that the law makes the good benevolent industry put up these cookie banners riddled with dark patterns that list hundreds of data brokers. Instead of, you know, literally following the law.

When a whole industry (and, mind you, pretty much any business with a website, not just those selling ads) reacts identically to a law is either a conspiracy or I can safely blame the law for that.

I live in EU and my employer has a cookie banner even if never storing any private data nor having any ads on the website. Just for Google Analytics. But GDPR is so bad that the lawyers advised us to have the cookie banner just to be safe.

Or the whole industry either doesn't care and relies on consultants like OneTrust to provide them with "GDPR Compliance" or know exactly what they are doing.

> Just for Google Analytics. But GDPR is so bad that the lawyers advised us to have the cookie banner just to be safe.

See, you're just parroting others (and your lawyers) even though in the last 6 years you could've read the law yourself.

You couldn't even show me where the law requires these dark patterns and selling of your data to the highest bidder out of hundreds of data brokers.

The reason your lawyers told your company to implement the banner is because your company is responsible for the data it transmits to third parties. And you've decided to use Google Analytics which collects significantly more data than is strictly required, and is a third party.[1]

"Oh mu god this bad no good law requires us to be careful with user data boo hoo"

[1] And is also problematic due to Cloud Act (US) and Schrems II (EU)

Who are you then?! Are you a consultant? A lawyer? A business owner? Can you even show me in the law the accepted patterns for simple, common usage scenarios like analytics? Then for all the less commons scenarios for each business? Are you willing to guarantee your advice with your money? Can a business come to you and sue you if your advice was faulty and they got fined by one of the distributed institutions enforcing GDPR in any of the EU countries?

"(...) except for specified exclusions such as open-source software (...)"

- wouldn't this mean that FOSS is specifically not at risk???

edit: Even going further through the links, then searching for "open" in the actual text of the document (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...) gave me the following:

"In order not to hamper innovation or research, free and open-source software developed or supplied outside the course of a commercial activity should not be covered by this Regulation. This is in particular the case for software, including its source code and modified versions, that is openly shared and freely accessible, usable, modifiable and redistributable. In the context of software, a commercial activity might be characterized not only by charging a price for a product, but also by charging a price for technical support services, by providing a software platform through which the manufacturer monetises other services, or by the use of personal data for reasons other than exclusively for improving the security, compatibility or interoperability of the software."

I read it as this: In effect, if you make money of the software you destribute you are responsible to address security issues

I hope that this is a change for the better. Now everyone who piggy-backed on some OSS project so far has to either maintain a fork (-> more contributions) or provide incentive for the dev to fix it (money?)

I asked the organizers about potential funding for the work that needed to be done since the project wasn't a commercial endeavour for us. They didn't even consider this before making demands for work that would consume several days if not weeks. The funding they had amounted to some gift cards and t-shirts. (They are very nice people, but there is not much they can do either.)

I am personally very frustrated with FOSS as it stands today. It's disingenuous: either the project is almost unusable on its own and you need to buy services from the people creating it (Kubernetes), it's missing parts you need, you get a pseudo-OSS license (BSL), sometimes funded by a foundation that has to do a whole lot of extra work to get donations and more often than not pays entry-level salaries or you run a project because you love doing it where you are expected to do the compliance work ... Why exactly?

And about 95% of the changes requested are basically paperwork to check off the boxes, ship material of bills, etc. Not the fun kind of problems. (Note: the CNCF doesn't pay its contributors anything, at least I didn't get a dime so far. The only thing I got was a truckload of paperwork, requests for more free work besides the project reviewing conference submissions for KubeCon, and more.)

I think, if you are a commercial FOSS user you should absolutely be on the hook for getting your wallet out and paying for people doing the ridiculous about of slog required for compliance. Pay a foundation for the compliance work, or hire the people working on the project to get it done. Does the EU get it right? No clue, but something has to be done. Supply chain security is important and the work needs doing, which somebody has to pay for.

[1] https://github.com/orgs/ContainerSSH/discussions/574#discuss...

I doubt the likes of Ursula, who come form extremely privilege backgrounds and have been groomed since childhood for high ranking leadership positions, see themselves as being any kind of "servants".

The term come from the days when public servants were elected from the general public, but those days are long gone and now we're bickering which members of the wealthy elite do we elect to screw us over for 4+ years without any accountability or repercussions.

And so they convince themselves that they are not in it for the money but merely for the public good, as wealthy people they are hard to bribe (somewhat true) and better this than loafing around doing nothing all day.

Whether it is the best for society is another matter, but this is a fair representation of some of the people in those circles that I know. They would rather see it as a sacrifice than as them holding power for power's sake because that's not what you're supposed to do.

It's loosely connected to Noblesse Oblige (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noblesse%20oblige ), as in that you should strive to do good deeds and to use your station in life wisely if you are wealthy or in a position of power (but then you first have to obtain a position of power...).

Here's where you blew it. Wealthy people aren't immune to greed. The wealthier you are, the more wealth you wan to amass because that's what everyone else around you is doing.

I doubt Donald Trump got into politics because he got bored of being rich and became soooo interested in helping the common man. Wealthy people go into politics because politics means more power, more connections and networking, and ultimately more wealth.

Also, people born in opulent wealth have no idea of the struggles of the common man you're claiming they want to help. I doubt Ursula knows how much is the price of groceries, gas, electricity, plus the average wage of the common folk.

No, you didn't get what I wrote, the sentence you quoted starts with 'And so they convince themselves'. Whether it is true or not has no bearing on it.

Not sure that she's the perfect example for what you're trying to say

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_von_der_Leyen

In the U.S., the main issue is that the House has had 435 members since 1929. It's become so obscene that representation was better, on paper, for colonial Americans in the British Parliament than today.

I would argue that 435 Representatives is already too much. Humans can only keep track of around 100 people. With so many representatives there is barely enough time for each of them to speak and engage with each other. Increasing the number for "better representation" will just worsen the problem.

A more cynical take is that since they just vote along party lines anyway, the number does not matter too much.

Remember when we used to do things because they were hard instead of falling back on lazy cynicism and convenience of status quo?

The U.S. seems stuck with the two party system primarily due to the mathematics of the Electoral College and lack of ranked choice voting. These require changes at the state level, not federal.

16 states and DC have now opted out of the Electoral College (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...). RCV is now in place for state-wide elections in Maine and Alaska, but recently banned (seemingly as a partisan protectionist measure) in Florida, Tennessee, South Dakota, Montana, and Idaho.

Gerrymandering and lack of a mixed electoral system also seem major factors for the political duopoly, with less clear solutions to me.

I'm not well versed on political subdivisions in Japan or South Korea, but there appear to be prefecture/province level officials that don't sound too far out of line with states. Looks like if the U.S. had the national representation (population per seat) of Japan we would have over 1000 reps, South Korea almost 2000.

There is a huge difference between unitary states and federations. American states have legislatures, constitutions, and nearly unlimited rights to raise taxes. Prefectures in Japan are much closer to counties in the U.S. US states are much close to independent countries than to administrative subdivisions in unitary countries.

> Looks like if the U.S. had the national representation (population per seat) of Japan we would have over 1000 reps, South Korea almost 2000.

On the other hand it's about on par with the EU parliament. What would the advantages of significantly increasing the number of representatives be? Most individual matters should be addressed to state officials anyway.

Better representation, obviously. This is like asking the advantage of increasing the number of pixels on a screen.

How many average constituents per member is right? We're not going back to <50k constituents per member like the U.S. in the 1790s or Nordic countries today, but unclear why we can't get under 300k per constituent like Mexico or Australia.

We're an extreme outlier in OECD countries:

https://www.amacad.org/ourcommonpurpose/enlarging-the-house/...

Looking at federations instead of unitary states, Mexico has ~250k per member, about 3x better than the U.S., while Australia has under 200k per member. Germany has only a little over 100k per member.

Potential effects of better U.S. representation here: https://thirty-thousand.org

> On the other hand it's about on par with the EU parliament.

The EU is a voluntary economic union (see Brexit), the U.S. is a federation of states which may not unilaterally secede (see Texas v. White).

Regardless some very important economic and other policy decisions are taken on the EU level so wouldn't the same arguments regarding representation apply?

It just seems that scaling legislatures beyond a certain point might have diminishing returns would increasing the house to 900+ members really be a significant improvement? The actual influence a single random representative might be able exert would also be significantly diminished. Let's be honest the federal house of representatives is very extremely dysfunctional and is hardly even capable of accomplishing anything useful would increasing it's size somehow improve that?

And again in a multilayer heavily decentralized system such as the US most decisions that directly affect you or that you as an individual could actually influence are taken on the local or state level anyway.

> This is like asking the advantage of increasing the number of pixels on a screen

I'm sorry but (just like most analogies people make in general) this make doesn't make much sense.

Also, the more constituents, the more difficult it is for third-party candidates to run and meaningfully affect the debate.

In the end, continent-sized superpower government is really hard. Even in the "good old days", you often ended up with people like Nixon.

In 1900 Congress had 357 representatives for a population of 76 million.

Today Congress has 435 representatives for a population of 331 million.

This term should be reserved for people who actually serve the public, not spy agencies and lobbyists.

Careful, you're touching on the core of Euroskepticism within the EU itself. These are not elected officials, nor are they public servants in the usual sense.

https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/25/who-benefits-inside-the...

Complex situations like this can't just be reduced to a yes/no decision. What does a "no" vote even mean? Does it mean that nothing like that treaty can ever be passed? What about something which resembles the original but tries to address the concerns that were raised by the people who voted against it? What about just certain sections?

Simply "yes/no" is a very crude measurement to actually know what people think or what a good solution would look like. I was somewhat in favour of Brexit, but for very different reasons than Farage (basically: "fuck the fuck in or fuck the fuck off", but not this "we want all of the benefits but none of the costs"). This is why parliaments can amend bills and the like. Maybe we should choose people to represent each side so they can debate each other and reach a compromise. Oh, wait...

---

I don't know about the French one, but the Dutch one was rife with misinformation and nonsense. You know, like that Brexit one, or the EU-Ukraine association treaty one there was a few years later. Except worse because there was bullshit and nonsense on both sides (the amount of "if you vote no" fear-mongering was pretty ridiculous).

Also, like Brexit when asked many people voted yes/no depending on how much they liked the government, or other factors which had little to do with the actual treaty being proposed.

One can say "a vote is a vote, and you shouldn't police motivations". There is something to be said for that. But on the other hand it's hard to ignore that the vote was made in the context of misinformation, and people didn't actually vote on the asked question.

In general I'm actually hugely in favour of more direct democracy, but every single referendum I've seen up close (in Netherlands and when I was living in the UK) has been nothing short of a clusterfuck, in addition to the more fundamental problems I mentioned. I didn't vote in any of them as I didn't think they were valid tools for good decision-making.

But then you only have indirect democratic legitimacy at best.

> Complex situations like this can't just be reduced to a yes/no decision.

Perhaps. Usually it should be retried. But you cannot just turn around and say you suddenly have legitimacy because the executive of a government once thought to ratify a constitution.

You also cannot just say voters were misinformed. Perhaps you are misinformed? This just displays a concerning understanding of democracy. To me that was the propaganda of that specific time in which they needed to ratify something without popular support, against democracy in that case.

If people are stating things that are factually incorrect then you can, I think. Like I said, I'm not hugely comfterable policing people's motivations for voting one way or the other, but at the same time I also think it's foolish to ignore, especially when you're considering how to better organize these kind of more direct democratic measures: you need to evaluate how well they went.

For example "the treaty will allow Turkey to join the EU" was factually just incorrect: it didn't say anything about Turkey, and changed nothing meaningful about the EU entry procedure (and entrance of Turkey was never close in the first place). This nonsense was repeated in the association treaty with Ukraine.

This is really my point: you can't really have a conversation like that via a referendum. Repeat referenda are not really an option as your results will be increasingly biased towards the people with the strongest feelings/motivations.

Furthermore, the EU more or less worked the same before the treaty, and this treaty didn't really change that. In that sense it was a rather poor way to voice the specific criticism that the democratic nature of the EU should be reformed. I actually agree with that! I just don't think the referenda's were meaningful. If anything, it was counter-productive as the amount of nonsense mixed in with the better arguments just makes the criticism easier to ignore, and people who "just say no all the time" are generally easy to ignore in the first place (voting "no" is not a constructive way to improve things).

As you surely also know, the debate around the Lisbon treaty is a matter of public record. You can pull a random sampling of articles op/eds and political speeches from the time and see that this point is made again, and again, and again.

>Furthermore, the EU more or less worked the same before the treaty, and this treaty didn't really change that.

Yes, and it seems most of the governed weren't too happy about it.

Also, what point are you trying to make here? Are you suggesting that referendums should be ignored if the people vote against the status quo?

I feel I have made my points plenty clear, at length, and you're simply replying with assertions that don't even recognize what I said, ending with a ridiculous and insulting accusation.

So good day to you.

The people answered and the government of France should have listened, instead they came back with this treaty, changed a few tidbits and called it a day.

It was a slap in the face of democracy that was denounced by the right as well as by the left.

To say that this is a complex topic, so surely people don't know how to make up their mind because they may confuse the issue at hand with something else is laughable.

In a presidential campaign, it is perfectly valid to vote for someone because they speak well, wear nice clothes, say the right thing, or promise anything under the sun.

But a referendum should only be valid if people voted only for the question at hand and nothing else? That's very disingenuous.

If a government triggers a referendum and people vote no either because they don't like the proposal or because they don't like the party/government that brings the proposal forward, then this vote is as valid as any.

I wonder where does it come from, treating EU as some sort of divine deity not capable of any wrong doing and such an effort to sweep its flaws under the rug while chanting "EU is great!".

It's probably the most corrupt and undemocratic organisation on this side of the planet.

But in general, compared to average US views, there is probably more of a recognition that a government is needed, and that it's better than the alternative. But to be honest it's kind of hard to really say too much meaningful without specifics.

This is positively unthinkable in other parts of the word. Puzzlingly (or perhaps not-so-puzzlingly), large swaths of Western Europe are comfortable with this, despite having recent experience with totalitarian states that were positively brutal.

Say what you will, I do see a connection between the two.

I don't know what "slaughter your cattle to reduce greenhouse gases" refers to specifically, but Greenhouse gases are bad and reducing them is good. As I see it the only way to meaningfully take action on it is by government control. I don't actually like this but it's just the reality of the matter: companies will keep doing what nets them a profit, and millions of consumers can't really do an in-depth study on everything they buy, and the only party that can take meaningful action is government. I think climate change denial has always been primarily about opposition to government action, and not so much about the science of it.

"You shall not leave your residence", presumably, refers to COVID lockdowns? Most of the world had these kind of restrictions, including the US, and some locations much more severe than Europe. Many people thought they were a good thing and followed them because of that, and didn't blindly follow government for the sake of obeying the government.

And in both cases there was/is plenty of opposition too (presumably anyway, because I don't exactly know what you're referring to).

People can protest. People can vote different. They can go on the internet and TV and say politicians are a bunch of wankers. Comparisons with "totalitarian states" is just silly.

I'm rather shocked that you're unaware of this.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_farmers%27_protests

- https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/03/ireland-...

- https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/green-deal/fit-f...

>Greenhouse gases are bad and reducing them is good

Agreed, but that's hardly the point. Reducing crime is also good, but I'm sure you'd agree that the methods employed matter very much.

Of course, which is why I ask for specifics; I am not unaware of these things, but I am unaware what exactly you have in mind with a vague general statement.

I know the most about the Dutch case, which is not about greenhouse gases but nitrogen and its effect on soil quality (but that's a relatively minor detail for the purpose of this conversation) and that has been a point since at least the 90s. For decades serious measures had been delayed under protests from the farmers, until things really came to a head a few years ago.

Anyway, there were huge protests, for measures that had been delayed for decades, and the measures were changed. The newly established "farmers party" is doing reasonably well in polls for the upcoming elections. I don't really see how this is an example of a 'high tolerance for the involvement of government authority in such things as "you shall slaughter your cattle to reduce greenhouse gases"' that you mentioned. These have been the largest protests in the country since the 80s, so that seems like an odd definition of "high tolerance", or "unshakable trust".

The Guardian report about Ireland simply says "if we want to meet our goals, then we must reduce greenhouse gases". No one is forcing anyone to slaughter anything. Actually, that wasn't the case in the Netherlands either: it was just about a long-term reduction in the number of farm animals.

This kind of "looking out for the greater good" thing that the government does is hardly unique to the EU, or "positively unthinkable in other parts of the world".

For years now, the people who tried to say that the EU in its current form is not working have been silenced by the media or labelled as conspiracy nuts.

Instead, it leaves the parties on the fringe as the only ones doing the criticizing.

Why should it be controversial to say that the EU is not perfect and that leaving it could work out better for certain countries?

Instead it's like no one can imagine a time where the EU did not exist and it's almost like we have forgotten that the EU is not the end all be all of everything.

In the best case when it doesn't work well it's a convenient target to blame (when it's their own fault).

In other cases they'd like the freedom to be *more* (much more) authoritarian than EU membership allows.

But currently let's be honest, most simply work for Putin or China and the aim is just to wreak havoc.

So in fact the institutions are entirely democratic, and arguable more democratic (and less dysfunctional!) than their counterparts in the US and China (the other two super blocks).

That's not how it works though, they represent people in their EU member states, posters should go up in every capital because those clowns were elected by people everywhere.

  Postponed != win
  Postponed = () => await nextCrisis() 
    .then(crisis => introduceUncomfortableLegislationBecauseOf(crisis))

- out-innovate the authoritarians somehow

- go on the political offensive to have non-tech people realize why they should care about things like this

- establish an entire new model for society somewhere, like how personal freedom maximalists left the then-monarchical/theocratic Europe for the new world long ago

Basically, commissioners are usually former senior politicians who can no longer get elected, because they've been disgraced in some way or other. It's a sinecure.

It's almost impossible to dismiss them; the EU Parliament only has the power to dismiss the entire commission. That sounds like a nuclear option that could never be used; but is has been done, exactly once. It was over corruption; the parliament decided that essentially every commissioner was crooked.

No, after the European Parliament has approved the proposed President of the European Commission and the Council has chosen the other 26 commissioners, the Commission as a whole is subject to another vote of confidence by the European Parliament.

Each country sends candidates which then have to be approved by the european parliament.

Man someone needs to pick a history book asap x)

They wanted to practice their religion / lack thereof, thus were freedom-seeking.

They were willing to brave an Atlantic crossing in small wooden ships and build brand-new lives rather than put up with curtailed freedoms; hence "maximalists".

And when you mix church and state, or when the state kowtows to the church by persecuting its enemies, you have at least a partial theocracy.

  - go on the political offensive to have *tech* people realize why
    they should care about things like this

The worry that it "only takes a few defectors who will sell out for the money" is valid, but in reality I don't think things would be workable if 60%-80% of capable engineers simply wouldn't build, test, maintain or work with proscribed "fascist technologies".

Without advocating for them I'll just say that I came to this forum a little over a year ago with the intention of researching ethics and development. As I near writing some conclusions I feel they're one of the few organisations I see consistently putting emphasis on ethics and I am thinking of joining for that reason.

Something along the lines of a Hippocratic Oath is needed.

Notwithstanding the complexities of intent, misuse and side-effects I increasingly think it is possible for hackers to consistently adopt a "I will do no harm to others and society" credo.

Sometimes just making it plain to an employer that you belong to a professional body whose ethics code would prohibit you from working on unconscionable tech is powerful - not least that it would afford you some protections under employment law if they threaten to fire you. At least that applies in other areas of medicine and engineering.

[0] https://www.bcs.org/

There is something really wrong about it doesn't?

https://www.euractiv.com/section/law-enforcement/news/eu-com...

Of course, if you're pro privacy, eurosceptic or Christian, you won't be targeted.

> Netherlands and Germany want to exempt audio telephony, while Sweden wants to exempt communications over mobile networks.

I suspect this is to give the EU and other countries with legislation coming to pass their legislation, then coordinate the timing of enforcement.

Ylva Johansson, the EU Home Office Commissioner. She's openly anti-encryption and has said she doesn't care about privacy or security concerns. She won't even meet with any group that disagrees with her.

Thierry Breton, the European Commissioner for Internal Market. He is working with Ylva Johansson and Thorn to pass Chat Control.

Monique Pariat, European Commission’s Director-General for Migration and Home Affairs

Catherine de Bolle, Europol Executive Director

Julie Cordua, CEO of Thorn.

Cathal Delaney, Former Europol employee who now works for Thorn.

Ruiz Perez, Senior former Europol official Fernando, who now is on Thorn's board.

Alan M. Parker, British billionaire, and founder of the Oak Foundation that bankrolls the fake charities lobbying for Chat Control.

Chris Cohn, British billionaire hedge fund manager and Google activist investor. He provides funding for anti-encryption lobbying in the North American and the EU.

Ashton Kutcher, Demi Moore. They try to whitewash Thorn's actions while lobbying on their behalf. The EU government let them bypass civil rights groups with their lobbying due to their fame. Other actors involved with Thorn can be found [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_(organization)).

Ernie Allen, chair of the WeProtect Global Alliance, WPGA, and former head of the National Centre for Missing & Exploited Children, NCMEC, in the US. Part of the network of fake charities and corrupt organizations lobbying to ban encryption and privacy.

Sarah Gardner, former Thorn employee and now the head of the Heat Initiative. Part of the network of fake charities and corrupt organizations lobbying to ban encryption and privacy. She's focus on US lobbying.

Lily Rhodes, former Thorn employee and now the director of strategic operations at the Heat Initiative. Part of the network of fake charities and corrupt organizations lobbying to ban encryption and privacy. She's focus on US lobbying.

Maciej Szpunar, Polish Advocate General at the European Court of Justice. Wants to use the proposal for prosecuting copyright infringement.

Other individuals involved are: Margrethe Vestager, Margaritis Schinas, Antonio Labrador Jimenez, Douglas Griffiths, Javier Zarzalejos.

A non exhaustive list of the fake charities and corrupt organizations involved:

ECPAT, Eurochild, Missing Children Europe, Internet Watch Foundation, Terre des Hommes, Brave Movement, Thorn, Oak Foundation, WeProtect Global Alliance, Justice Initiative, Purpose

Organizations operating more in North America: Hopewell Fund, Heat Initiative, Children’s Investment Fund Foundation

Finally, let's not forget that Ashton Kutcher, the darling of VCs, had to step down from his position at Thorn after submitting letters in support of their fellow actor and friend, a convicted rapist.

If he is willing to push for such privacy invasive measures in EU, he won't stop there, he will come for you in the US as well.

Now if my memory serves me right, we have seen this kind of entanglements before in the financial services(the big banks and the SEC in the US) with the disastrous consequences that we all know.

It turns out that in France the MPs who could do that are from the far right and that is why I asked the question above.

I was impressed at how the Euro-skeptic MEPs understood my concerns and took the time to write back to me in detail. They seemed by far the most democratically engaged of all the MEPs I communicated with

Make of that what you will.

I think the Council of Ministers also comes into the process. The Council consists of the national government ministers whose purview includes the matter at hand; it's membership changes for each meeting. It's really just all the member governments of the EU, one nation one council-member.

No, once a proposal is made the commission can withdraw it but not amend it anymore

After the proposal is made parliament and the council shuttle back and forth (between each other) proposed changes for up to 3 times (I might be wrong on the exact number)

If the proposal doesn't pass by then (or is withdrawn) it fails

Right now it is actually the council of the EU that is preventing the law from progressing.

Framing it like you do is ignoring the fact that the only reason we're here in the first place is because a good chunk of member states and MEPs want this law

I've seen this process up close (for a Member State) and it is reliably slow with a reliable amount of ping-pong and battles between the various parties..

This is Chat Control 2.0, the first bill did not make it through so now they come back with this new iteration. If this one doesn't pass , they'll come back with Chat control 3.0 and so on by next year or the one after.

The EU was a good idea at the start. A bunch of countries wanting to preserve peace and increase trade? Sure sign me up.

That's what it was at the start.

But now, with the open borders between countries, laws that supersedes state laws, talks about having an army and a desire to turn European countries into the United States of Europe, what is the advantage here?

You could have pacts and treaties to foster cooperation and trade. You could share intelligence and help each other out just like any other country in the world does it currently without something like the EU to manage it all.

I think it's very easy to take the benefits of the EU and our resulting prosperity for granted. We need to actually have some power in the US-EU relationship, and the only way is to combine further.

I don't know what that will look like, but I'd like Europe to be able to chart its own course. We know what happens to nations that are at the mercy of countries more powerful.

You opinion is that the EU is good because the EU is good. You want the United states of Europe. I don't.

France, Germany, the Northern European countries were wealthy before the EU became the EU as we know it today.

> I don't know what that will look like, but I'd like Europe to be able to chart its own course. We know what happens to nations that are at the mercy of countries more powerful.

Yes, Europe, not the EU. That's my point. You can have Europe without the EU. You can have cooperation, trade, security without an overarching apparatus like the EU.

When China was still suffering through the effects of Mao, when India was still a British colony, when Brazil was still under the influence of Portugal, sure.

So sure, Europe could have coasted on the spoils of the colonial era a bit longer, but if Europe wants a table in the 21st century with the US and the rise of India and China, then Europe needs to be a unified bloc out of pure demographic reality.

As a recent example, in a world without the EU, would the countries that are in the EU have been able to stand up to Russia last year in the gas supply? I certainly think Germany at least would have blinked.

The main problems I see on the EU is that it is not integrated enough. There's a lot of bureaucracy that could be optimized if some things were more centralized (e.g.: labor laws, defense spending, etc).

  The draft law makes it clear that chat control is a surveillance tool: Non-public communication services are to be exempted, for example if they are "used for national security purposes." This is to protect "confidential information, including classified information." States do not want chat control for their own communications to avoid surveillance .. Poland demanded that only chats of "people under concrete suspicion" should be scanned .. Netherlands and Germany want to exempt audio telephony, while Sweden wants to exempt communications over mobile networks.

> The making and enforcement of rules – abstract, general, binding and enforceable; ‘thou shalt not steal’ – were once considered to be the essence of government. But rules are, in modern governance circles, considered to be about as outmoded and silly a tool of governing as there can possibly be ... The focus is on institutional architecture and the relationships among private and public actors, rather than on the substantive prescription of state legislation, rules, and judicial decisions ... Global governance has become deeply impatient and dissatisfied with the wearisome business of rule-making and especially rule enforcement. Rules are rigid; rules are boring; rules are annoyingly transparent in respect of their breach.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37479001

> This article explains a phenomenon I've been observing with growing uneasiness that I couldn't quite put my finger on till now ... this trend towards delegating power and decision making to an individual office or committee is an abandonment of this [rule of law] principle in favor of a return to rule by individuals who decide at their whim whether to allow or prohibit a thing, where by simply being in favor with certain bureaucrats one can be immune from accountability where politically unpopular targets can be harassed by the state without end simply because they are not politically favored.

For instance, significant web sites must have a functionning noscript/basic (x)html portal where reasonable (and you can browse maps more than ok with noscript/basic (x)html browsers). Just think semantic 2D simple HTML documents (tables are not harmful), and the table "rules" are semantic information in a 2D documents. And when I say "semantic", it is not that abomination of "semantic" web from a decade ago.

(open source software control is achieved via absurd and grotesque size and complexity, and often the control of the upstream source repository).

Small Tech with as many alternatives as possible is the only way out of this. Don't be fooled.

"In its current form, the CSAM proposal would fundamentally change the internet and digital communication as we know it, and that will be a point of no return." https://edps.europa.eu/system/files/2023-10/edsp_briefing-no...

So let me get that straight: they want to allow Chat Control only on fixed-line networks? Do they have landline phones in Sweden that can run chat apps?

That looks like a spoiler tactic to me.

Let me remind you of a quote by former EC President Juncker:

"We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back."

That is how the Commission operates. No wonder that many, including me, have serious trust issues towards them.

The whole EU commission system is a rort. It removes the power from the EU parliament and puts it into the hands of un-elected officials who are appointed in back-room deals between the ministers of the member countries.

It could not be further from democracy.

Well, the UK got rid of the EC and the UK still works exactly the same.

Our government is a proxy of lobbying agencies, working behind closed doors.

There's a bigger root cause

It's no coincidence that the pending tax evasion laws from the EU coincided with the tories pushing Brexit (using tons of lies, like the NHS bus). Now they have free reign, at least until the next election when labour will probably win.

In a way it was truly about "Taking back control". But not by the population but the big vested interests.

No, probably better to make the Council of the European Union a upper house of the EP and give them the nomination right, with the EUCO having some veto powers dictated by how unanimous they are.

But in any case, because the EU is a union of independent states with quite different outlook on things I think it is unavoidable that the system that endures holding it all together is pretty convoluted.

The EU Parliament doesn't get to draft laws, AFAIAA.