| ▲ | varispeed 13 hours ago |
| Corruption. A taboo topic people prefer to downvote and pretend it does not exist. But even bigger problem is that institutions designed to prevent this from happening are not doing their job. Thousands security service and civil servants take their wages and look the other way. |
|
| ▲ | armada651 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I think it's actively harmful to your own cause when you suggest corruption without any evidence. Just because politicians don't take action on an issue you think is important doesn't mean they're corrupt. It's more likely that the issue you think is important is simply not important to most voters. Suggesting politicians are corrupt without any evidence will make that worse. If people think their politicians are corrupt they will further disengage with the political process, which will ensure there's even less pressure on politicians to take action on niche issues like this. |
| |
| ▲ | EmbarrassedHelp 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The EU Commission was caught breaking the law in order to lobby for Chat Control: https://noyb.eu/en/gdpr-complaint-against-x-twitter-over-ill... The EU Commission also gave a foreign tech company called Thorn (they pretend to be a charity), special access to government officials:
https://netzpolitik.org/2022/dude-wheres-my-privacy-how-a-ho... I think both of those cases would be examples of lobbying and corruption. | | |
| ▲ | surgical_fire 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The thing is that "The EU commission" is an entity composed os politicians, appointed by member states. It's little coincidence that national governments want Chat Control (laundering that through EU), and the EU parliament is the entity that shots it down (coincidentally the entity that is most beholden to the public). It would be nice to learn which comissioners are lobbying for it. | |
| ▲ | armada651 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Neither examples are evidence of corruption. That doesn't mean they're not problematic, but there's no evidence here of a politician receiving a kickback for any of these actions. | | |
| |
| ▲ | nolroz 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think a hearty fuck off is warranted for responses like this. What the shit do you base the converse off? Pretend there's no corruption and there won't be any?? | | |
| ▲ | labcomputer an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > Pretend there's no corruption and there won't be any?? If you look at that person's responses to others in this thread, that is exactly what they are doing. I do hope they have proper health and safety training for moving the goalposts so much. | |
| ▲ | armada651 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Of course not, if there's evidence of corruption then those involved should be rooted out and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. What I'm saying is that if there's no evidence of corruption, then simply assuming corruption will harm your cause because it will make it seem like political activism is futile in the face of supposedly hidden corruption. |
| |
| ▲ | varispeed 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|
|
| ▲ | microtonal 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The EU does regulate Google and Apple through the DSA and the DMA. I don't think most EU politicians are corrupted by these companies. I think it is far more likely that it is a lack of knowledge and incompetence. I am pretty sure that the majority of Parliament members, Council members and maybe even Commission members do not even know that there are viable alternatives outside Google (certified) Android and iOS. So they try to regulate their app stores, etc. instead. I hope that with digital sovereignty becoming more important, there will be more interer in alternative mobile operating systems. |
| |
| ▲ | labcomputer an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > I don't think most EU politicians are corrupted by these companies. Well, of course not! They're corrupted by the other companies who benefit from the DSA and DMA. | |
| ▲ | grufkork 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A lot of the suggestions do actually sound pretty good at a quick glance, but have far-reaching consequences that are not instantly obvious if you don't know your tech/security/privacy or otherwise value a specific topic highly. The average HN reader is likely more concerned about privacy and less so about crime and safety than the average guy on the street, and politicians need to handle and balance a lot many more interests than only that of privacy advocates. "Securely signed/verified devices for accessing your bank" or "increased surveillance and tracking of criminals" sound like splendid ideas and direct solutions to immediate problems. Now, how to actually implement them and how it will affect society in the long run might seem less important when you've got increasing crime rates, a slowing economy, displeased voters or whatever looming. In short, some dilemmas have very clear answers when you (willingly or through unawareness) only concern yourself with a subset of the effects of a decision, and this goes both for politicians and special interest groups. That being said, I'm very pro-privacy and it's the job of policymakers to know the details of what they're deciding on. Reality is however usually very complex and nuanced with several things being true because they all contribute a part to what's going on. e: what am I doing, speaking like I actually know how things work? Nothing is absolute and nuance is important, but sometimes it is also very useful to simplify and generalise to get things done. If no one had any conviction, not much would ever happen. But moderation in all things. | |
| ▲ | palata 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I think it is far more likely that it is a lack of knowledge and incompetence. I agree with that. Reading HN comments, where people are supposed to be generally tech-savvy, I see a ton of "lack of knowledge and incompetence" (not in a negative way, just "uninformed"). Why should politicians know better than the average tech-savvy person? But politicians get yelled at by everybody, saying everything and its contrary, while the tech-savvy people can comfortably take a condescending tone explain why "being so stupid is impossible so it has to be corruption". | | |
| ▲ | soraminazuki 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. After Snowden, there's absolutely no reason to believe that governments "accidentally" push for policies that strengthen surveillance and control over our digital lives. It's ridiculous to believe in the goodwill of those in power when these kinds of proposals are made over and over again despite strong pushback. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | II2II 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's more of a case of the boy who cried wolf than it is of denial. Too many people see something they don't like, imply a nefarious motivation without evidence, then expect everyone to agree that it is corruption. If there is corruption, show the evidence. Otherwise, be honest and state that you don't agree with something. If you want to persuade people, back up your claims with verifiable evidence without falling back to nebulous claims of corruption. |
|
| ▲ | fidotron 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Thousands security service and civil servants take their wages and look the other way. Diplomatic status tax free too. |
|
| ▲ | kyleee 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| No doubt there is corruption; but it’s also momentum. There aren’t stable and good alternatives for so many reasons so the duopoly has momentum |
| |
| ▲ | varispeed 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | I understand, but this is a national security matter. The focus should be on developing matching domestic capability. | | |
| ▲ | cyanydeez 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | you know that domestic capability means putting taxes to take things into a public good and corporations and paranoia are the bigger problem to overcome than anything technical. Any endevour will be cast as some kind of fascist takeover of governance. | | |
| ▲ | bornfreddy 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well no, there is no need to develop domestic capability. Put laws in effect which disable foreign capabilities and which reward domestic ones, and they will be developed. No endeavor from government needed (which is a good thing, since governments are not really great at doing such stuff). | | |
| ▲ | cyanydeez 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well yes, just because you think it's a public good worth competing over doesn't mean there's anyone who thinks it's a viable business model. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | epistasis 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Who is doing this corruption? If it's Apple or Google let us know in the US because we have laws to go after them for acting corruptly in other countries. Vaguely asserting corruption without specifics or even naming the perpetrators isn't "taboo", it's just poor form and silly. Letting such vague accusations float without evidence, motive, or even people to blame, leads to nothing good, and only vague distrust, which itself enables corruption. It leads to people believing there's no way to know the truth, therefore helplessness, and results in fascism like in Russia. Lazy cynicism is itself a form of corruption of one's own mind. |
| |
| ▲ | bryan_w 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Lazy cynicism is itself a form of corruption of one's own mind I love this way of thinking. I might use this quote down the road |
|
