←back to thread

Chat Control: Incompatible with Fundamental Rights (2022)

(freiheitsrechte.org)
833 points Bluestein | 5 comments | 18 Jun 24 09:34 UTC | HN request time: 0.026s | source
Show context
elzbardico ◴[18 Jun 24 11:35 UTC] No.40716529[source]▶
The funny thing about the EU is that while they do all this theatre of parliamentary elections, the bulk of such decisions are always taken by an unelected organ, the EU commission. It is not that I think they have mischievous intentions, on the contrary, but any unchecked managerial bureaucracy always go to the path of endless regulation and control.
replies(4): >>40717258 #>>40717743 #>>40717936 #>>40719496 #
snowpid ◴[18 Jun 24 13:56 UTC] No.40717936[source]▶
The EU commission is not unchecked. Unelected governments (and instead appointed by the parlament) are the norm in most European states. Why on HN people feel entitled to make such comments? Is it a Krueger effect on politics?
replies(3): >>40718068 #>>40720591 #>>40720984 #
1. AlanYx ◴[18 Jun 24 14:08 UTC] No.40718068[source]▶
Depends how you define unchecked. The European Parliament's only real recourse against the Commission is censure, and it's never been successfully done (although it came close in 1999 (Santer) and in 2004 (Barroso)). On the other hand, the EP has successfully picked off a handful of individual Commission initiatives, probably most relevant to HN being the 2005 Software Patents Directive. The problem with one-offs though is that it doesn't stop the overall direction the Commission wants to go; it comes back again and again, as it has done here with chat control coming back rebranded as upload moderation. There's no way to get them to change direction wholesale other than censure, which as noted above has never been successfully done.
replies(1): >>40718161 #
2. snowpid ◴[18 Jun 24 14:17 UTC] No.40718161[source]▶
checked means clearly bounded by laws and institutions. There are judges who disagree the EC. The council and the parliament have to say yes to new law. This is clearly checked.
replies(1): >>40719531 #
3. andrepd ◴[18 Jun 24 16:19 UTC] No.40719531[source]▶
The courts are arguably the least worse institutions of the EU, but they are slow and not really applicable in many matters.

The """parliament""" is a joke. Do you know of any other democratic parliament in the entire world which doesn't have the power to propose laws? I don't.

As people have pointed out, the commission can just keep pushing and pushing and pushing the legislation they want, as they are doing with Chat Control. It only needs to win once, whereas the other side needs to win every time.

replies(2): >>40720129 #>>40720226 #
4. snowpid ◴[18 Jun 24 17:26 UTC] No.40720129{3}[source]▶
"The courts are arguably the least worse institutions of the EU, but they are slow and not really applicable in many matters." Slowness don't matter if we talk about unchecked EC.

"The """parliament""" is a joke. Do you know of any other democratic parliament in the entire world which doesn't have the power to propose laws? I don't." don't matter if we claim ah unchecked EC.

"As people have pointed out, the commission can just keep pushing and pushing and pushing the legislation they want, as they are doing with Chat Control. " EC can't because the parlament, the council and the judges can disagree. As again the EC is not unchecked.

5. AlanYx ◴[18 Jun 24 17:36 UTC] No.40720226{3}[source]▶
AFAIK there aren't any other major examples of directly elected governing bodies who don't have the power of legislative initiative. There are more examples if you count indirectly elected bodies like the German Bundesrat.

The core governance issue isn't so much about the ability to propose new bills as it is about not being able to function as a true counterbalance. I think if the European Parliament simply had the power to propose repeal of legislation (even if they didn't get the power to initiate legislation), that would go a long way to improving the usefulness of the EP as an institution.