Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

51% Positive

Analyzed from 5194 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#don#more#chat#control#right#things#without#why#democracy#privacy

Discussion (165 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

Havocabout 1 hour ago
The global push to kill privacy makes me sad.

Feels like I grew up in a golden age and subsequent generations won't care because they never knew a different world

theshrike7926 minutes ago
I grew up when everyone was saying "don't post your face, name or address on the internet" - and that's what I've done. There are a total of maybe 3-6 pictures of me on the internet and my real name isn't attached to most of my brainfarts online.

It's not that I hide it like a secret agent, I just don't shove my face and name next to every opinion I have.

But the younger generations... They grew up with Snapchat which means Snap Streaks, which again means posting your face with every message. Next was Facebook, real names everywhere. Then came "personal branding", again face and name plastered everywhere.

And now governments want to lock in the real name + face + identity combo for everyone with laws. Fuck that.

shevy-java4 minutes ago
It's not just killing privacy though. Democracy is undermined here by big money.
OtomotO33 minutes ago
We are living in a strange mixture of 1984, Fahrenheit 451 and Brave New World
cyanydeezabout 1 hour ago
alright, but the important query is: this isn't happening in a vacuum, there's a lot of various forces.

Lets say the primary force we need to prevent is russian influence campaigns that back and push far right nationalists who will destabilize democracy. Is that a sufficient reason for controls?

It's always curious what people think about the actual content that's typically pushing these things.

Xelbair36 minutes ago
>Lets say the primary force we need to prevent is russian influence campaigns that back and push far right nationalists who will destabilize democracy. Is that a sufficient reason for controls?

No. Because if you solve underlying tensions in society the so called russian propaganda has nothing to take hold on.

Also who and under what rules will decide which propaganda is allowed? is American propaganda fine? Chinese? Japanese? UAE?

Not only this creates dissident, and suppresses voices critical of current government. but also gives extraordinary power on level of soviet union to current government.

You might trust current EU to not abuse it, but it might take a single elections, or single term for un-elected(!) officials in EC for attidute to change.

Just like in US - a lot of powers were granted but suddenly there's a person willing to abuse them.

For that to be even considered in EU we would need a lot more check and balances - especially for European Comission and Council.

Another issue is - is EU a trade union or federation? if former - this is outside of EU's responsiblities and powers. if later - look at point above.

If you really wanted to solve this problem you would go after advertisers and data collection companies, and regulate them.

Gareth32138 minutes ago
The answer to lies is generally sunshine, not censorship. There are just too many examples of censorship eventually being misused by those in power. The power to censor Russia right now might appear appealing to those in charge, but they need to remember, pro-Russian factions may be voted into power in the future, and they will use this power to suppress information they don't like. Once the precedent is created, it's too late to cry about censorship when it's your "side" which gets censored. No one will care.

To point: I don't accept the premise that the governments gets to decide which information I should be allowed to consume.

orbital-decay21 minutes ago
Is it a sufficient reason to build a cage for yourself that only needs a single regime flip to turn against you? Is it a sufficient reason to become what you're trying to avoid? Is destabilizing democracy necessary to stop the democracy from being destabilized? No, no, and no.

>russian influence campaigns

Just FYI, your rhetoric precisely mirrors Russian internal rhetoric used to boil the frog 10-15 years ago. If this doesn't make you pause and think, nothing will. In Russia people who fall for it are called "unteachable". Which makes sense, you don't seem to learn anything from their mistakes even though you have a live example of your future that you will reach with 99% certainty.

u808037 minutes ago
>who will destabilize democracy

Let's just ban those politicians, ban and censor "bad" media and platforms, and surveil all citizens to protect us from those pesky authoritarians!

tjoff44 minutes ago
Is eroding privacy the only way to combat that?
egorfineabout 1 hour ago
> Is that a sufficient reason for controls?

no.

budududuroiu40 minutes ago
to argue that the success of the far right nationalists is solely off the back of Russian disinformation campaigns ignores the material reality experienced by far right party voters
gherkinnn38 minutes ago
Rubbish. Fighting fascism by implementing totalitarian tools is a ludicrous idea.

Start with dismantling the means by which the information cancer spreads. No more targeted ads, no more data harvesting. Increase privacy.

Everybody knows about the influence of Russian bots on the net and yet precisely fuck all is being done about it.

consensus122 minutes ago
And how do you do that? Either you have some government agency able to quickly decide what is a "Russian bot" and censor it or you have a public deliberation process where evidence is required to be presented before censoring the Russian bot. The former is guaranteed to be abused to censor things that the government doesn't like and the latter is too slow to be of any effect.
Chu4eeno28 minutes ago
You know EU has mostly gone after and unpersoned leftoids (and accusing them of working for russia), despite the rightoid wringing of hands?

Look up e. g. Hüseyin Doğru.

elricabout 2 hours ago
This is going to further increase anti-EU sentiment. This is unacceptable behaviour, but no politician is ever going to experience any negative consequences over this because they're so very far removed from the democratic process.
jltsirenabout 1 hour ago
Most of the time, when "the EU" is doing something bad, it's actually the national governments wearing a different hat. The Parliament is pretty reasonable on the average, while the national policicians in the Council take advantage of the ignorance of the public. They can pursue their favorite policies without consequences, as the EU gets all the blame.
egorfine42 minutes ago
Doesn't matter because Apple will happily implement messages scanning immediately and eagerly. And despite let's say Poland not implementing the bill, all iPhones in Poland will snitch on their owners. Tim Cook's Apple is not Steve Jobs' Apple.

Case in point: my new Mac purchased in Switzerland and activated in Poland on my US Apple account required me to provide my age in the setup assistant. Neither Poland nor Switzerland or the US have this stupid law. Yet Apple is already doing it's part to eliminate my privacy.

dgellow12 minutes ago
Could you clarify what you mean by „required me to provide my age in the setup assistant“? Was is actually required, or optional? Dont they already have your age associated with your iCloud account, or were you creating a new one? Without more details I’m pretty skeptical there is something nefarious here
theshrike7924 minutes ago
And you think Google or Samsung will fight tooth and nail against EU not to implement it?
Chu4eenoabout 1 hour ago
I don't think you can nicely divide it like that.

It seems to be mostly bad individuals, or just individuals with some bad ideas they refuse to give up.

dgellow11 minutes ago
Plus the lobby groups that are behind and provide most of the proposal drafting
constantius40 minutes ago
The issue is that the outcome is the same: whether the Parliament is made up of angels or not, the dealings of the Commission and Council affect the Member States anyway.
tommicaabout 1 hour ago
True, this seems to be Denmarks project
cyanydeezabout 1 hour ago
Also, don't forget the foreign propagandists who absolutely hate democracy, and have toppled both Britain and America.

That seems to always be "forgotten" about how the internet is acting as a accelerationist far right platform.

kmeisthaxabout 1 hour ago
As an extension of this, look at the European Commission's response to the Stop Destroying Videogames[0] petition. It's utter dogshit. The petition is a pure consumer protection issue and the Commission's response is "but we can't touch IP rights". Bullshit, you guys made IP rights, you wrote all the rules surrounding them, and Donald Trump is about to drown you with them because America's tech oligarchs figured out your rulebook better than you knew it.

Or, if you think that issue's too niche, look at all the talk of "sovereign clouds". It's almost all "how can we build our own giant polluting AI datacenters" and not "how do we take our data back from the Americans". Because, ultimately, the European Commission is built out of an urge to submit to capital interests. The Epstein class are puppeting the EC in exactly the same way they puppet Donald Trump.

If there is any future in the EU, it will start with abolishing the European Commission to take away the capital class's accountability sink.

[0] For legal reasons, unrelated to Stop Killing Games, but they work together

onraglanroad15 minutes ago
Abolishing the European Commission would be seen as an attack on the individual countries' sovereignty as it would give more power to the EU.
consensus117 minutes ago
Well of course it's about building data centers. There are exactly 3 options for you:

1. use "giant polluting AI data centers" in the US or China

2. build "giant polluting AI data centers" in the EU

3. do without modern technology

Option 1 fails at "how do we take our data back from the Americans" and option 3 is insanity and will fail at the ballot box. So get ready for option 2.

constantius34 minutes ago
The EU has a lot of upsides, and it's often been a reason to be optimistic about it as a project, but everyobe has a red line beyond which the upsides don't outweigh the downsides, where the slope becomes too slippery to ignore.

If Chat Control passes, I think lobbying for the exit of your country is going to become a very justifiable position.

Corbyn was famously a Leaver, for the reasons we're observing right now, before aligning his position with his base: a Labour Left UK without the antidemocratic corruption of the EU would arguably have been a better country to live in.

microtonalabout 1 hour ago
Still, this is mostly pushed by particular countries (e.g. Denmark), the commission and aggressively pursued by lobbyist. The most democratic body in the EU (the EP) has so far always rejected Chat Control.

Without the EU, this would have been introduced in some member countries much earlier (see also UK).

xinayder28 minutes ago
Let it not be forgotten that when Denmark was president of the Council of EU and tried to push this forward, one of the former colleagues/friends of the justice minister was charged with child abuse in 2025. Just search Henrik Sass Larssen and Peter Humeelgaard.

We should start digging into the lives of those pushing for mandated age verification, chat control, and other privacy killing measures to show the world their true face. The public deserves to know who exactly is pushing for the "privacy law for kids" agenda.

elricabout 1 hour ago
Yes, EP has rejected it, and now the president of the EP is ignoring that outcome.
Gareth32126 minutes ago
I can speak for the sentiment in Denmark: most people are unaware of this legislation. A vocal minority of us (who are a little too online) have been trying to educate people, but I think it feels too esoteric. We had a poll last year which asked, "the ability to detect child abuse is more important than the right to online privacy." 65% of people said yes, 33% said both are equally important, and only 2% said online privacy is more important. The discussion for normal people is often couched in the language of "think of the children." Unfortunately, that appears to be highly effective with the Danes.

To be honest, I'm beginning to suspect most people don't care all that much about privacy if you promise them safety.

ajsnigrutinabout 1 hour ago
It only has to pass once, and we have to scream about it every goddamn time try try. And they'll try and try again and again.
logicchains41 minutes ago
>Without the EU, this would have been introduced in some member countries much earlier (see also UK).

And without the EU there'd be some states in which it would never be introduced. Decentralization is what made Europe so successful historically compared to large centralized empires like China and the Ottomans, and the EU is destroying that.

dgellow6 minutes ago
What you call decentralization and „so successful“ resulted in constant wars and conflicts. Europe would be in a way worse place right now without some form of union like the EU
dmitrygr6 minutes ago
> no politician is ever going to experience any negative consequences

They do eventually. Ask Marie Antoinette.

ajsnigrutinabout 1 hour ago
> This is going to further increase anti-EU sentiment.

Rightfully so.

Except for no-roaming-charges within EU, most people can't name one good regulation that came from EU and couldn't be handled individually by their own country. The latest example is 3eur customs tax per every item bought from china, even if it's a 1eur phone case (1eur + 3eur customs + 22% vat on both.... what's the added value of custom tax? who knows, but you pay it anyway). Add all the money wasting, horrible behaviour of politicians in charge, overpaid MEPs for what they do... it's no wonder people hate everything EU related.

All sticks, no carrots.

mcvabout 1 hour ago
There's the lack of customs charges for items from other European countries. The common market is a really big advantage. There's the Euro, and in the past, the EU did a fairly decent job at holding large corporations accountable, although that seems to have disappeared with Neelie Kroes' retirement.

And of course the lack of borders. Being able to go on vacation with no trouble is massive. Do we really want those border checks back?

wqaatwtabout 1 hour ago
You didn’t need the EU for the removal of trade barriers and the common market. Both were established quite a while before the EU as we know it now became a thing in the 90s.

> we really want those border checks back

Why? You don’t need to be in the EU to belong to Shengen.

ajsnigrutin6 minutes ago
The custom thing started from basically the beginning of eu, this wasn't done in the last decades, but the customs chargers for outside stuff have been increased by the EU. The large corporations are not reall accountable, Volkswagen screwed up, americans got buyback programms, hyundai/kia screwed up, americans got gas cards... intel scews up (spectre, no hyperthreading to keep safe), europeans get nothing. And yes, there are border checks within EU, just had to show my ID yesterday on the slovenia-austria border.
toughabout 1 hour ago
Why one couldn't have all these without the EU ?
kubafuabout 1 hour ago
Tell me you don't see the value in the tax as a way of discouraging people from ordering a pair of socks from the other side of the globe, while they can buy them locally?
jvuygbbkuurxabout 1 hour ago
Why let a middleman rentseek?
gherkinnn36 minutes ago
What have the Romans ever done for us?
9devabout 1 hour ago
Are you kidding me..? The freedom of movement across all member states, including the right to settle and start a business anywhere you like, that's not a "good regulation" to you? Being able to pay in all of those states without paying FX rates, bringing home your purchases across the border without tolls or even checkpoints no less? The funding of a massive amount of public benefit projects in poorer member states, including art and artists, public health and education, infrastructure - all of that isn't worth anything? The ability to trust everything you buy to be safe, from child toys to food to cars? This list goes on for a long time.

Many politicians have used the EU as a convenient scapegoat for inconvenient decisions, and people like you continue to spread completely uninformed FUD.

Let's even put aside all the benefits you have but apparently either don't know or don't care about. How well do you think your home country would fare against the USA or China or Russia on its own? The only weapon all of us have against the big power blocks of the world is being a power block on our own.

The EU isn't perfect, and I'm absolutely opposed to the Chat Control bullshit in its entirety, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

consensus139 minutes ago
I think he is saying all those beneficial things could be done by multilateral agreements without the need for the additional layer of EU organization and bureaucracy. In fact some of them already have been done that way.
logicchainsabout 1 hour ago
>The freedom of movement across all member states, including the right to settle and start a business anywhere you like, that's not a "good regulation" to you

That's not regulation, that's a reduction in regulation.

Sharlinabout 1 hour ago
> even if it's a 1eur phone case (1eur + 3eur customs +

That's the fucking point for fuck's sake! Pardon my language, but the entire point of the tariff is to stop people from buying masses of trivial things from the other side of the world, with all the externalities that it entails. This tariff tries to cover at least some fraction of said externalities.

People on HN should not be this clueless about basic economy. This tariff is one of the good things that the EU has done lately, but unfortunately it won't be popular among the common folk who just want their cheap unsustainable stuff without having to think about the consequences.

ondra20 minutes ago
This is obviously not the point if the surcharge disappears on packages with total price over 150 €.
sunaookami27 minutes ago
When Trump introduced tariffs everyone screamed but now the EU does EXACTLY the same and suddenly it's okay.
xienze21 minutes ago
> That's the fucking point for fuck's sake! Pardon my language, but the entire point of the tariff is to stop people from buying masses of trivial things from the other side of the world, with all the externalities that it entails. This tariff tries to cover at least some fraction of said externalities.

Boy, when you put it that way it makes me wonder why people didn't appreciate the genius of Trump's tarrifs.

hopppabout 1 hour ago
They just can't let it go.

Is it democracy if they keep pushing agendas even if they are voted down?

ttoinouabout 1 hour ago
It's an open secret the european union has nothing to do with the will of the people
hhh42 minutes ago
plenty of people desire something like this, and 'saving the children' is their genuine intent and desire. Humanity is willing to shoot itself in the foot again and again, there's no need for it to be some shadowy cabal.
constantius27 minutes ago
Plenty of people do want more surveillance, but that's not why EU politicians are doing this. Seeking to implement surveillance across an entire continent cannot be explained by "the will of the people". Danes might want surveillance for their children, but I can't imagine them lobbying their EU representatives to also protect the children in France as well.
surgical_fire17 minutes ago
This is bullshit. The EU parliament is the organ that shot it down so far.

Read the article. It is the national governments pushing this shit. They try to launder if through the EU because passing those legislations locally would likely be very unpopular.

blfrabout 2 hours ago
First, why does the EU leadership refuse to learn from falling behind the US economically and technologically, most starkly with AI recently, and their failures in regulating the Internet, most annoyingly the cookie law? And why aren't you, the EU citizen, more annoyed by it? I see a lot of pro-EU content on this site when they're terrible on both tech and entrepreneurship.

Second, what's up with Denmmark pushing for it here? They're usually very reasonable.

graemepabout 2 hours ago
Denmark have been pushing for chat control for a long time.

The American view of the EU is very much a grass is greener one. They see the things that are better than in the US but not the things that are worse.

blfrabout 2 hours ago
Yes, I know they've been pushing for this when they're pretty reasonable and independent on other issues. How come?
wqaatwtabout 1 hour ago
Ar they, though? The established longterm consensus is pretty reasonable in the EU, it’s not self evident that things have been going in the right direction on the whole in recent years.
tokaiabout 1 hour ago
I'm completely serious here; the former minister of law was beaten as a child and it informs his whole world view.
sphabout 2 hours ago
I don't want to enter into conspiracy territory, but it seems that there's a big insistence from whomever is behind pushing for this to pass at any cost. First it was Denmark, now the EU parliament president, a Maltese. What's for certain is that those that stand to benefit massively are governments and politicians themselves.

And no, it's certainly not that bullshit astroturfed story that has been going around, of Meta behind this concerted effort across the Western world because they're too lazy to validate one's age.

dgellowabout 2 hours ago
The population doesn’t support chat control. The European Parliament rejected the chat control proposal earlier this year. Now it seems that the European Parliament president is trying to bypass that
iamnothereabout 2 hours ago
Denmark’s recent reasonableness is somewhat of a historical aberration if you look at their history. The migrant crisis (and the failure of governments to address it) has stirred up some ugly things there.
tokaiabout 1 hour ago
What do you mean the migrant crisis stirred up things? The anti immigration position in danish politics has been a winning position since the mid 00's.
iamnothereabout 1 hour ago
As the crisis has worsened across Europe, Denmark started unbelievably intrusive AI-enabled mass surveillance of welfare recipients (almost 15% of the population), dangerous infrastructure which could be applied to the population as a whole. And I’d argue that fears over migrant-driven crime are what allowed Denmark’s politicians to push for Chat Control in the first place.
GTP43 minutes ago
While the EU is not perfect and surely needs improvement in many areas, it is still better than not having it. This is why you see a lot of pro-EU content: many people here (myself included) are of the opinion that the EU needs to be improved, not dismantled.
logicchains38 minutes ago
>While the EU is not perfect and surely needs improvement in many areas, it is still better than not having it.

Would you still believe this if Chat Control got though? What good did the EU bring that's good enough to make up for the badness of everyone in Europe having all their private digital communications constantly scanned?

Krssst7 minutes ago
If Chat Control gets through, it means the Parliament approved it, which means the EU people voted for politicians that supported the idea. If the EU got dismantled, the same politicians would be elected (they won once why not twice) and do it again at the local level. (though, maybe not in every country)
GTP17 minutes ago
Yes, definitely. Just as an example, my country wouldn't have a lot of consumer protection laws we now have thanks to the EU. As a concrete example, there used to be a single phone service provider acting as a monopolist and we had the highest phone bills in the EU. When this started to change, it still wasn't possible to keep the same phone number when switching providers, which is a huge thing for businesses and freelancers. The EU forced our government to change this. And I'm not even talking about all the financial help that we got from the EU. Which, admittedly, was used poorly by my politicians. But this isn't the EU's fault, it's their fault.
tmtvl44 minutes ago
> And why aren't you, the EU citizen, more annoyed by it?

Because the USA tends to privilege corporations over people whereas in the EU it's more balanced (still pretty biased towards corps, though), and I am a people, not a corporations.

Take, for example, the 'cookie law': I much prefer being annoyed by the cookie pop-up over websites shoving a ton of unnecessary and unwanted cookies onto my computer without permission.

...speaking of which:

> and their failures in regulating the Internet

Which political entity would you say has done the best job in regulating the Internet? Where are citizens most protected from being inundated with advertising, unwanted cookies, unnecessary JavaScript, false news, scams, and all the other garbage one is normally subjected to when not putting in some amount of effort in combating that shit?

wqaatwt36 minutes ago
And because you are grateful for the cookie policies you don’t mind rewarding them with unlimited access all your private communication? I don’t really follow this argument..

> would you say has done the best job in regulating the Internet

So again.. how do these basic/superficial (or even if they are extremely effective and useful, that doesn’t really change anything) regulations justify mass surveillance?

> false news

For what its worth in no way has the EU been effective in doing anything about this (I’m not sure they even tried doing anything that directly addressed it?)

consensus133 minutes ago
All of those are either illegal already (scams) or easily avoidable without regulation.
enedilabout 2 hours ago
> most annoying the cookie law

Also, the least consequential even ignoring often stated fact that cookie banners are malicious compliance. I care much less about cookie banners than about the ads, and for both of I have uBlock origin filters. So, what to be angry about exactly?

olejorgenbabout 2 hours ago
And either 80% of banners are not respecting the law, or the law managed to omit mandating making it as easy to reject as accept... Rejecting usually require you to enter into settings and sometimes click "reject" for every individual partner(!)
vikaveriabout 1 hour ago
That was the case in the beginning, for a while. Now I rarely see even ones where I have to click Settings and Reject all, usually it's just Accept all and Accept only essential. No dark patterns just two equally visible buttons. Often also just "We use only essential cookies" and OK button because they don't have 1138 partners they want to sell your data to
EdiX19 minutes ago
"Cookie banners are malicious compliance" is starting to wear thin as an excuse. GDPR went into law in 2018, almost ten years ago and for almost as long websites have been "maliciously complying". If you don't don anything about it at some point it's not malicious anymore, it's just how the law is meant to be interpreted.

I have a different hypothesis for why the GDPR exists: it is to create a market for EU based compliance companies.

ezstabout 2 hours ago
> falling behind the US economically and technologically

Are you even human? Do you really believe what you say? Doesn't it come across as absurd, from everything that happened to the US since the Snowden revelations, the Patriot Act, spiraling into fascism, a first time attacking science and democracy, a second time to install oligarchs, traitors, corrupt and incompetents to run the state, with the result of tanking your real economy (on every metric that's not related to AI), burning down your soft power, burning bridges with every ally, losing the war against Iran, and causing a generational talent exodus out of the US?

Oh yeah, by no means am I blindly defending "the EU leadership", but some reality check is much needed.

nxmabout 2 hours ago
At least there’s free speech and people are not arrested for mean memes (as is the case in UK and Germany). Burning bridges with “allies” which were taking advantage of you?
drawfloatabout 1 hour ago
Didn't we just have a round of people being fired and arrested in the US for saying mean things about Charlie Kirk?
tokioyoyoabout 2 hours ago
This gets brought up a lot, and I’m not sure how to explain it. But inconsequential complete free speech is not the top issue for some people. People have different priorities.
toughabout 1 hour ago
as long as your mean memes aren't against the POTUS ;)
pbkompaszabout 1 hour ago
And at least people are not shot in the streets by the police for protesting...
tmtvl38 minutes ago
> free speech

Democracy only works well when the populace is properly informed and it's much easier for someone to tell a lie than for someone else to disprove that lie. Think of the Alex Jones Sandy Hook hoax conspiracy hypothesis.

watwutabout 1 hour ago
Europe is over all far more democratic and safer then USA. Including people actually being safer when they speak.
tokaiabout 1 hour ago
Right now people in the US are being designated as terrorist for being against the government.
thranceabout 1 hour ago
A group of protesters got 50 years in jail for daring to exercise their constitutional duty against ICE illegally detaining citizens. Meanwhile the J6 thugs all got pardonned by the literal pedophile in office, and not a single Epstein victim got any justice.
basiswordabout 2 hours ago
European here. I like the cookie law. It's made it clear to people how much we're being tracked and I can choose to opt out. The implementation could of course be better but the real issue is the scummy web devs choosing to make it as annoying as possible instead of taking the more sensible decision to not have 150 trackers on every page.

>> I see a lot of pro-EU content on this site when they're terrible on both tech and entrepreneurship.

Life is bigger than tech or entrepreneurship. In the 00's I dreamed of moving to the US. That's changed, especially over the last decade. If I was offered a huge salary tomorrow to work in the US I would turn it down.

microgptabout 2 hours ago
Website operators hate these cookies popups because they make their website more annoying and make me more likely to press the back button and click on a different website. As it should be. This incentivizes them to stop tracking me.
dminikabout 2 hours ago
Why then do they make the most annoying, user-hostile dark pattern cookie banners they can come up with? No, website operators hate that they have to either stop spamming thousands of tracker scripts or put up a banner.

They found out that they can offload blame on the EU instead and so have chosen to make the web as annoying as possible.

sensanaty25 minutes ago
The solution to that one is pretty simple, simply don't collect information you don't need, and you can avoid the banner altogether! Github manages to not have banners, it's not because of magic.
ajsnigrutinabout 1 hour ago
99% of the people just click accept and go through.

This could be solved on the client side, by requiring all devices with browsers sold in EU to have separate cookie jars per domain and by default those cookies would be deleted on window/tab close. If you wanted to stay logged in to a site, you'd click a button next to the url bar that says "keep cookies for this domain", and be done.

sensanaty27 minutes ago
Cookies have literally nothing to do with GDPR or the ePrivacy directive. It is mentioned I think twice total in both documents as an example of how user data is persisted and tracked across domains, but ultimately the mechanism is irrelevant.
grayhatter44 minutes ago
So you like the law, but don't like how it didn't actually solve the problem it was trying to solve?

I assume you're pretty well read up on matters of privacy, right? So you have a better awareness and understanding. But do you believe the average person does? Or would you assume that the average person has either been trained to ignore the banner, automatically consent to more invasive tracking, or is generally more confused about why the banner exists, or what it does?

The cookie consent law is the dumbest application of an attempt to improve privacy. It's made the internet worse, and is being used to train people into consenting to giving away their privacy without thinking... because: "clicking accept is what you have to do to use the page" -- every normal person casually browsing any site.

No implementation for cookie based consent can be done correctly.

Personally, I'd love to see a law that makes any/all dark patterns a crime, and empowers state prosecutors via grand jury to bring charges for them against both the company, and individual authors of the specific commits as jointly responsible. I don't want statutory laws, I want a trial jury to look at it, and decide if any technological measure, pattern, tactic, procedure, design, or measurement was used to encourage one decision over the other instead of a fair choice.

I don't want a set of rules that given enough funding any company is able to win as a negative sum game. I want a jury, not a trailing clause, to decide if the company is clearly acting in good faith or worthy of apocalyptic fines.

bluecalmabout 2 hours ago
It's not like we can do anything. We don't have democracy - we can't vote on issues and we (in most countries) can't even vote on people. We just vote on 2-3 non-fringe parties and they choose people and policies. You may formally put an X next to some name but it's just a chosen party official. They need to walk party line and be in good standings with the leadership to even get on the list.

There is just nothing you can do really in that system other than pursue career in politics which is a no-go for most people for obvious reasons.

blfrabout 2 hours ago
Yeah, we can: I am from Poland and precisely through this mechanism our MEPs/delegates/nominates know that supporting this would be a disaster for their political group right here back home regardless of direct voting.
josmarabout 2 hours ago
Only Switzerland has a true democracy
dgellowabout 1 hour ago
We also have representatives. We call it semi-direct democratic system. There is no such thing as a „true democracy“, it’s a set of principles
basiswordabout 2 hours ago
>> We don't have democracy - we can't vote on issues

This is how democracy works pretty much everywhere. You vote for parties or people based on their policies.

gib444about 2 hours ago
Why does any country or bloc need to learn lessons about "falling behind" the US?

Why is that the yard stick?

I certainly don't spend all day dreaming of F150s, McMansions, the psychopaths leading silicon valley, 9 lane highways, US style PE, and world-class fascist politicians such as Trump

Dear lord

spacebanana735 minutes ago
A couple of decades ago both France and Britain had higher per capita GDP than the US. Now they are significantly behind.

Similarly top European companies used to rival American companies in profitability, power and valuation. There’s not really an equivalent of FAANG/ NVIDIA in Europe, just ASML and LVMH.

nxmabout 2 hours ago
Dear lord… thanks to EU regs, you’re already behind in tech and giving up more and more ground to China in manufacturing (see planned VW job cuts just this week)
rockinghighabout 1 hour ago
The US is also falling behind Chinese manufacturing. They had to ban Chinese cars because legacy American automakers couldn't compete.
yownie34 minutes ago
do you have an original talking point somewhere in this drivel that doesn't sound like it's written by a 15 year old edgelord?
m4nu3labout 1 hour ago
The education system has failed in the EU, but in a different way than it has in the US.

I realised this when people thought mandating the USB-C connections was a good idea because "it is the best standard". I didn't think the mandated connector was a huge deal per se, but it made it clear to me that there is a flawed thought process behind EU regulations. And this is a big deal.

Many things are not really understood in the EU. The majority don't seem to understand free speech. The EU has an article about free speech that clearly states there is no free speech, but people point to it when they claim there is.

9devabout 1 hour ago
Of all things to criticise, you pick out the one ruling that eventually lead to a consolidation of chargers? Really? I haven't ever met a single person who wasn't grateful of being able to have one cable for all their devices.
m4nu3labout 1 hour ago
This is exactly what I'm talking about. A short-term view of the world, progress and technology.

All my devices supported USB-C before the EU regulation. But if I wanted to buy a device with a new type of connector, I should have been able to. This is how the USB-C came to be and how any new standard in hardware happens. New technologies are made and just sold, and if they are proven to be superior to others in the market, they often become standards.

The USB-C standard is not the best standard that can exist from now to the end of the universe, but if this discovery process is blocked, we will be stuck with it forever, which, of course, will also constrain the design and engineering of devices in other ways.

It's the same fundamental flawed thought process that has made the EU reliant on the US for a lot of services.

kachurovskiyabout 1 hour ago
Instead of the usual knee-jerk it would be nice to see some level-header analysis on mechanics of these things - who pays for the time of the people that decide to push this particular piece of legislation, how they manage to get into the door, who personally makes the proposal, how they gather support for it.
Chu4eeno33 minutes ago
Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore (no joke).
shevy-java4 minutes ago
We see here how lobbyists undermine democracies.

Amazing how the EU commission does so unashamedly. It's basically the copy/paste system of the USA here. Big money wants laws. They have no shame in buying these laws.

r721about 2 hours ago
Related recent discussion:

>European Commission's Metsola Overrides MEPs to Force Through Chat Control

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48657675 (45 comments)

peterspathabout 2 hours ago
Just 4 countries are against: Czech Republic, Italy, Netherlands, and Poland.

https://fightchatcontrol.eu/

blain25 minutes ago
Does governments have any say in this? If not then most MEPs of mentioned countries are too in favor of Chat Control. This is what it says when you click on one of the 4 countries.
sphabout 2 hours ago
There's a lot of flip-flopping. I'm surprised Italy changed their mind when they were very in favour until recently.
AAAAaccountAAAAabout 1 hour ago
I am getting somewhat confused about this. That website seems to be equating (semi-?)-reasonable measures with monstrosities such as banning or effectively banning e2ee.
roerabout 2 hours ago
Might make sense to message the MEP's that oppose chat control moreso the ones that support it. Maybe they can use some of their internal influence to sway some people. I'm pessimistic about the amount of weight these representatives are giving to emails from citizens
ChrisArchitect17 minutes ago
Related:

European Commission's Metsola Overrides MEPs to Force Through Chat Control

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48657675

Advertisement
Lucasoatoabout 2 hours ago
This is so wrong, but here’s another reason: a centralized totalitarian approach could look like a very pragmatic way to exercise control and governance on the population. This is true though only if your technical capabilities are at a similar or higher level of your competitors.

In the European case we have neither the technology advancement of the US, or the supply chain control of China.

This means that a centralized approach is only going to create a larger vulnerability surface for an external attacker.

A decentralized, privacy and security first approach isn’t only right for moral/ethical reasons. It’s the only way we have to defend ourselves, even if we had a fascist government.

yownie31 minutes ago
why have we not heard more of a pushback from business and legal entities regarding privileged communication / protection of trade secrets?
sandworm101about 1 hour ago
So are they going to ban encrypted email? I am rather sure i could cobble together a chat UI whose backend was just email protocol. It would be needlessly complex, but all that ISPs would see is yet more encrypted email going back and forth.
giuscriabout 1 hour ago
The recent times showed us that technical solutions are bananas.

Guardrails must be put at the constitution level, or any tech bypass can be just declared illegal.

treydabout 1 hour ago
Delta Chat does that but it's a bit janky.
throw_awaitabout 1 hour ago
aquirabout 1 hour ago
What's to point of all this? Everyone will use Signal or some other E2E encrypted messenger, this is just bone tossing. Useless politicans spending time on useless things.
afh1about 1 hour ago
Chat control takes screenshots of your phone. E2EE is useless. It's government mandated spyware.
wqaatwt21 minutes ago
So the EU will just tell Apple and Google to remove Signal from their app stores and 95-99% of the population won’t bother figuring out it exists..
sharperguyabout 1 hour ago
They are talking about mandatory on-device scanning. E2E doesn't solve this.
varispeed36 minutes ago
In every authoritarian regime people spent considerable amount of time on workarounds. Underground press, parallel education etc. this is just another iteration of Stasi like regime, just with a nicer suit and better PR.

In reality this should have been rejected wholesale and people proposing this barred from any public sector jobs, or even arrested for terrorist attack attempt (Chat Control fulfils definition of terrorism).