Comment by joshes | Hacker News Reader

Comment by joshes | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>“The Presidency of the LEWP presented its intention to propose concrete measures towards creating a single secure European cyberspace,” according to brief minutes of the meeting. The secure European cyberspace would have a "virtual Schengen border", it adds, referring to the treaty that allows freedom of movement within the EU but imposes controls on entry to the bloc. There would also be “virtual access points" whereby “the Internet Service Providers would block illicit contents on the basis of the EU ‘black-list’”, the proposal says.

Wow. Not only is it a terrible-sounding idea when heard second hand, it is even worse when heard straight from the horse's mouth. "A single secure cyberspace" sounds an awful lot like "A single secure SOCIETY!" It's as if Emperor Palpatine and the MAFIAA elite got together to determine the most efficient way to deny people of their rights for the sake of greed and power. How can anyone possibly hear what they are saying in these plans and not recoil with horror and disgust? It runs counter to all ideals and freedoms that the West purports to stand for.

Sheer absurdity.

It is the classic case of what happens when you apply the old rules (stuff like Schengen) to completely new areas where they don't apply at all.

Agreed. The problem with politicians (in places where they are democratically elected) is that they are concerned only with short term solutions because they are only concerned with getting re-elected and scoring political points. So when new and unique situations presents their selves and certain interest groups and parties feel threatened (especially those with any semblance of influence), the politicians apply older and inapplicable methods because it provides the image that they are "at least doing something" about the supposed threat.

The Internet is still a completely new, ever-changing landscape and politicians are stuck spinning their wheels in the mud as special interests (such as the MAFIAA) demand something, anything be done when the new model does not run parallel to their profit motive. So the easy solution is to just slap older laws and regulations over the top like an ill-fitting band-aid and hope it works. MAFIAA wins. Politician wins. Citizenry loses, as per usual.

There were no elected representatives at this meeting. The LEWP is a subgroup of the non-democratic council, not of the parliament. That's one of the things that you have to be careful with the EU - many "politicians" are not elected.

Who are the members of the group? Ex-politicians? People from MAFIAA? A mix of both? If they aren't elected they still might have the instincts of a politician.

I think you're misunderstanding me. These people are normal working politicians but they were never elected to the post. Normally, they are appointed by the civil service (who obviously aren't elected either) of a country of the EU but sometimes they are appointed by a government.

The council is the executive branch of the EU, a bit like the President of America, except with a lot more power (the President of America doesn't have much power on domestic issues). For example, one of the things that the Council has the power to do is pass new laws, and they can often choose not to put it to a vote in the EU Parliament. The EU Parliament is elected, but not many people vote or really take an interest in it (good luck finding someone who can name one of their MEPs, or any MEP for that matter).

To say that these people have short-term interests or that they are beholden to the electorate or something is factually mistaken. There is no such accountability of democracy.

I'm just speculating that, even if they aren't elected to this post, if they are politicians by trade they may still act as such out of habit or training (i.e. they will prefer short-term and antiquated or inapplicable methods to solve a problem, in order to present the image that they are "doing something").

Why don't they apply at all? They just don't apply because no-one has made them apply yet.

Years ago one could get copied tapes and access banned materials in flea markets and back rooms. It was illegal and yet people did it.

Neo-Nazis traded banned reading materials just as Christians traded illegal bibles in China.

While the internet has made the flow of information easier, it's not the case that it invented the practice which has probably gone on since the invention of speech.

All the internet has done has given us the ability to get involved in illegal practices much easier than they did before.

We wouldn't have borders if we could teleport to any place on earth. The internet is the closer to this scenario than the classical country model.

Except is has nothing to do with physical objects, only bits and oscillating electrons.

The analogy holds because governments are trying to apply notions (such as national borders) derived from a physically-constrained world of isolation to the unconstrained, connected virtual world.

This virtual world you speak of requires a physical medium of transfer.

Let us not forget all that physical hardware is somewhere and somebody's electrical infrastructure is powering it.

OSI - Level 1.

It sounds like a very low-tech imitation of the Great Firewall of China.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com