[rdm_blackhole]

Here we go again with new restrictions on civil liberties. This is Chat Control all over again.

The EU won't stop until it has access to all your data, all your messages, anything you read, save, send will be scrutinized by the the big great EU and it's little minions.

Hey, at least we get the freedom of movement right?

[jackjeff]

Too easy to dunk on the EU. The UK, USA and Australia seem to have reached the same conclusions. In UK all young males now have a VPN rather than do whatever you’re supposed to do to see porn. VPNs went from “nerd talk” to “vpn=porn” in the space of weeks. Whatever is next will suffer a similar fate.

[microtonal]

There is no such thing as the EU wants X. There are huge differences between what the European Commission, the European Council, and the majority of the European Parliament want.

Most of the anti-privacy crap hasn't happened thanks to the EU. Particular countries and lobbying groups have been pushing this through the Commission and Council and most attempts have been rejected by the EP.

If we didn't have the EU, some countries would have long introduced this nonsense (like the UK). But in the EU that does not make much sense, since there is a single market, so you have to enforce it EU-wide.

The European Parliament + courts of justice/human rights are one of the last beacons of democracy/freedom worldwide that resist upcoming authoritarianism. We should support them and remind the Parliament over and over again that they should be continuing the good fight.

---

By the way, nearly all your comments on HN are about politics and all trying to sow dissent on Western (and especially European) democracies.

[dryarzeg]

> By the way, nearly all your comments on HN are about politics and all trying to sow dissent on Western (and especially European) democracies.

Disclaimer first: I'm not trying to protect him and I'm not tied to him in any possible way. But since when constantly expressing your own opinion (that's what I assume given the age of the account; maybe I'm wrong, but this seems rather like a person than a bot) is a deliberately malicious activity (as implied by your "trying to sow dissent" expression)? If their opinion doesn't match yours, it doesn't mean that they're evil or something similar. It just means that your views are different.

[rdm_blackhole]

I appreciate the support but I am not surprised.

Even on HN there is been a surge of users who instead of defending their arguments or positions on certain sensitive topics such as the EU prefer to simply smear the opposition.

I write about the EU a lot because I live there and I am especially interested in what the EU is doing regarding tech.

I am especially critical of policies that target my private life and it irks me to no end that some people will claim loud a and clear that I should simply be grateful for what the EU is doing when the EU's actions in a lot of matters that I care about have either been deceptive and/or completely went against the supposed principles that the EU is supposed to have.

[izacus]

Calling out blatant lying and bot propaganda isn't "smearing the opposition".

It's disgusting that people run here, write utter complete lying bullshit and then you attack folks that say "hey, this is complete bullshit".

Be better.

[rdm_blackhole]

> Calling out blatant lying and bot propaganda isn't "smearing the opposition".

I am not sure what you are trying to get at.

Are you implying that this new draft is not in any way related to the recent Chat Control proposal that wanted to intercept all encrypted messages on phones in the EU, this same proposal that has been debated many times here on HN?

If so, then I am sorry if you think this blatant lying. You must have not been paying attention nor have read the many drafts of this law.

This proposal of tightening regulations around messaging apps and VPNs is being pushed as part of the other pushes for digital identity, age verification and potentially linking online identities to your real identity.

This is not happening just around Europe. It's also happening in the UK, Australia and more and I disagree with everyone of them.

This is not a conspiracy theory, this is publicly documented information that has been reviewed by journalist of all sides and has been decried by many human rights organizations who rightfully see all these moves as wanting to remove fully or partially the anonymity that the internet has provided thus far while curtailing freedom of speech.

> It's disgusting that people run here, write utter complete lying bullshit and then you attack folks that say "hey, this is complete bullshit".

I haven't attacked anyone. I am not sure what you are talking about.

I was the one who was attacked ad-hominem by OP who casually hinted that I was either a troll, a bot or working for Russia or China when the truth is that I am simply a EU citizen who is dissatisfied with the way the EU has handled a lot of it's tech regulations and I am simply voicing my personal opinions on these matters just like anyone else does in these threads.

Maybe you don't share my opinions and that's fine, we don't have to be friends.

> Be better

I will interpret this comment as simply someone who sees himself in the right and looks down on everyone else as poor souls needing to be guided to the light. This is not Reddit, you can get off your high horse now.

[surgical_fire]

The recent chat control proposal was shot down by the EU parliament.

It was proposed and pushed forward by member countries represented in other EU inatances. It seems obvious that governments of at least some member countries want this crap and try to get in implemented via EU. When it reached the instance that is more sensitive to public opinion, it was shot down.

This is why I tend to look more favorably on the EU than on any member state government.

The obvious solution is having the EU to be more representative. I dislike how entities like the EU Council and EU Commission are sometimes used to launder some countries' governments authoritarian intentions.

[immibis2]

Talking continually about politics is against the HN guidelines.

[rdm_blackhole]

Politics and tech are basically intertwined at this point. Tech is also intertwined with Geo-politics, tax policies, mental health, and a bunch of other issues.

One cannot talk about tech without talking inevitably of the second or third order effects that derive from it which is again almost inevitably linked to politics either in the US or elsewhere.

[immibis2]

Despite that fact, it's against HN guidelines to talk about it. You can read between the lines of this.

[defrost]

It's against HN guidelines to descend into rabid partisan reflexive unthinking back and forth noise.

If you can curiously converse about politics while avoiding that, you're golden.

Admittedly that's a stretch for a good many.

[rdm_blackhole]

> There is no such thing as the EU wants X. There are huge differences between what the European Commission, the European Council, and the majority of the European Parliament want.

Of course there is such a thing as EU wants X. The commission drafts laws and presents them to the MEPs who vote on them. The MEPs do not have the ability to propose their own laws. So all these bullshit laws that are voted on originate from the commission.

If I tell you that you can have a red balloon and you only choice is either to accept or reject the balloon, then you don't really have a choice do you? You can't say I want a blue balloon.

> Most of the anti-privacy crap hasn't happened thanks to the EU. Particular countries and lobbying groups have been pushing this through the Commission and Council and most attempts have been rejected by the EP.

Most attempts? And that should somehow reassure me?

Here is another law that was overturned after many years even though everyone knew it was illegal from the start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive. It only took something like 8 years.

When Romania protested that this was illegal under their constitution, the EU sued them and forced them to spy on their own citizens. So thank you but no thank you.

> If we didn't have the EU, some countries would have long introduced this nonsense (like the UK). But in the EU that does not make much sense, since there is a single market, so you have to enforce it EU-wide.

On the contrary, if we did not have the EU then it would not be such a problem because the same people who are pushing for this crap would have to repeat the same process 27 times, one in each country and they would have to convince/bribe their way into each government. Instead they can now push this stuff through the commission and it gets voted on and if approved gets applied to 450M people in one go.

That is the definition of single point of failure if I have ever seen one.

> The European Parliament + courts of justice/human rights are one of the last beacons of democracy/freedom worldwide that resist upcoming authoritarianism. We should support them and remind the Parliament over and over again that they should be continuing the good fight.

Do we now have to resort to this sort of emotional arguments? The EU as a whole is 27 countries, the world has more than 200 countries today. Are you claiming that most of them are hell-hole under some sort of tyrannical government? You can't be serious.

This is my problem with the EU supporters these days, you guys are so quick to shove in everyone throats the amazing stuff that the EU supposedly does for us every day but as soon as someone complains, you revert to using the same tactics as populists with the US vs Them rhetoric, the emotional manipulative language and what not.

Also your last paragraph is in complete contradiction with your previous statement. Somehow the EU/European parliament is the last bastion of democracy/freedom but it stills wants to access my private messages and emails (for my own good of course), and now it wants to force VPNs to record identifying information of its users (for our own good again).

If what you say is true then we wouldn't be having this conversation because anyone who proposes this sort of law should have been ostracized and kicked out of the commission in no time. Yet here we are.

> By the way, nearly all your comments on HN are about politics and all trying to sow dissent on Western (and especially European) democracies.

Ha, yes, you got me! I can see that when the push comes to shove it's easier to go for the subtle ad-hominem or character attacks.

God forbid someone in Europe could have any issues with the way things are going at the moment. Seems highly suspicious.

Should I send you a copy of my EU passports? Maybe that's whats going to be required in a few years time to post online if the all-mighty EU gets its way but I can understand if you want to start doing the policing early. After all we can never be too careful.

By the way, I love the new definition of democracy theses days: agree with us about everything or we will consider you a Chinese/Russian/Populist/evil (take your pick) troll.

Its perfectly fitting with the way the EU is trending down towards authoritarianism and subtle freedom of speech suppression.

[leonidasrup]

As much you love to bash EU, Europe has still much more freedom than China or Russia.

In the past decade one of the favored arguments of ultra-right parties in EU was critisism of EU for lack of freedom. The same parties that are cooperating with and have support from dictatorships of China and Russia.

[izacus]

What does this rant have to do with the linked report in this article?

[rdm_blackhole]

> What does this rant have to do with the linked report in this article?

This is not a rant. I responded to OPs message point by point and simply expressed my opinion on these matters just like he did.

I also responded to OPs thinly veiled accusations that are completely unfounded and downright accusatory.