22 ms·

European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private communication

938 points by pepperberg 5y ago

akomtu 5y ago
I think it's the establishment, i.e. the old wealthy families who run things, are very concerned with the migrants crisis and the real possibility to lose control.
- 8458e112e7b2 5y ago
  Lol. These "old wealthy families" caused the "migrant crisis"
  - akomtu 5y ago
    Because they needed cheap labour. Now they're scared this cheap labor will get out of their control.
    - trompetenaccoun 5y ago
      It already has gotten out of control, hundreds of thousands of people crossed the borders without any checks. There was also this bizarre case of a man now pre-crime style accused of terrorism, although the charges seem very questionable when you look into it: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210525-german-soldier-tells-court-how-he-posed-as-refugee https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210525-german-soldie...
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  I'm partial to blaming the lizard people as, being lizard people, they don't have feelings.
gentleman11 5y ago
This is what people mean when they say “turnkey surveillance states”: you end up 1-3 laws away from almost instant total government surveillance of all citizen activity. The trillion dollar infrastructure was built by you and me for free from their POV (we paid them to do it with taxes), and now they can just say they want to use it
- exdsq 5y ago
  So what do we do?
  - f38zf5vdt 5y ago
    It will probably take another World War before people collectively remember why privacy even existed in the first place.
    - manmal 5y ago
      It’s a bit early to give up already.
    - adventured 5y ago
      What would a world war have to do with reminding people of privacy? World War 2 gave China and Soviet Russia a new sense of privacy? WW2 made the US worse as a place in most regards, not better. That's what caused the US to build its military industrial complex, to install a massive standing global military, to primarily guard against the Europeans going on rampage again for the nth time (which was guaranteed to happen with the USSR very eager to conquer even more of Europe in the days post WW2). From WW2 the US got a dramatically expanded (and more intrusive) Federal Government, surveillence state and war machine, encouraged by Hoover's aggressive domestic actions and all the newly minted three letter agencies (CIA 1947, NSA 1952, NRO 1960, ATF 1972, DEA 1973). A third world war would make the governments even more paranoid, scared, and intrusive, not less. You wouldn't want to see what the involved governments would do to their people as a war involving the US, Russia, China, and various countries in Europe and Asia broke out. The stakes would be as high as they could possibly be, given the nuclear arsenals in existence now. Privacy would rapidly sink toward zero, and that conflict would be an extraodinary argument in favor of zero privacy (according to the governments): for no mistakes can be tolerated, the dangers are too high, no privacy can be afforded (they would claim).
      - dane-pgp 5y ago
        If we accept the (unconventional) view that the Cold War was WW3, then it could be argued that the countries which escaped Russian domination learned the value of privacy (even if their appreciation of it has waned over time). You're right, though, that it's probably not worth getting our hopes up about what sort of societies would exist after WW4 (based on that numbering system).
petercooper 5y ago
I wonder how this meshes with GDPR as this seems like a huge violation of it. Law enforcement being able to dig into messages with a warrant is one thing, but delegating responsibilities to platforms to look for crime is quite another.
- mimsee 5y ago
  Rules for thee but not for me.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- agilob 5y ago
  Which part of GDPR does it violate?
- progval 5y ago
  1. this seems to be misinformation, the author is the only source on the topic 2. it would probably be compatible with GDPR anyway. GDPR article 6, paragraph 1: "Processing shall be lawful only if and to the extent that at least one of the following applies [...] (c) processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject"
- tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
  My understanding is that this explicitly creates an exception from one of the EU privacy laws (not sure if GDPR or something else) so that providers can scan your content. While this doesn't seem to oblige providers to scan your content, that is expected to come in a next step.
jude- 5y ago
Do they want everyone to switch en masse to end-to-end encrypted communications? Because this is how you encourage that.
- vnchr 5y ago
  Seems like the same legal body that made these laws would outlaw that activity.
  - SllX 5y ago
    Yeah, but how sustainable is the EU really, in the long term? I’m still convinced it will either dissolve or devolve into a rump organization within my lifetime.
    - thatguy0900 5y ago
      Well, I'm assuming that's one of the things that total pervasive surveillance and control of communication is meant to address.
      - SllX 5y ago
        Seems like acting with that intent with this power is an easy way to accelerate the EU’s own dissolution. The Warsaw Pact, the Cold War, the Iron Curtain across Europe and the Berlin Wall, as well as the communist surveillance States that still-living Europeans lived within and remember well enough was not that long ago.
        thatguy0900 5y ago
        They probably make the argument to themselves that none of those people had anywhere near the amount of data they will have. I guess it remains to be seen how long an intelligence agency can hold a country together when they have access to a large portion of every private conversation between citizens.
    - rich_sasha 5y ago
sergiomattei 5y ago
TIL. Not European, but this is madness.
shreyshnaccount 5y ago
This is a joke, right? right??
- cachvico 5y ago
  Yes; or satire, or propaganda.
  - cachvico 5y ago
    Update to correct myself - can't believe that it's not fiction..
- 7373737373 5y ago
  https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2020/0259(COD)&l=en https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheproc... .pdf: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2020/0568/COM_COM(2020)0568_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_instituti... The votes seem to be here (page 5): https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PV-9-2021-07-06-RCV_FR.docx https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PV-9-2021-07-0... I suppose this will only show up on sites like https://www.abgeordnetenwatch.de/eu/abstimmungen https://www.abgeordnetenwatch.de/eu/abstimmungen or https://www.votewatch.eu/en/term9-european-parliament-latest-votes.html https://www.votewatch.eu/en/term9-european-parliament-latest... later...
sprafa 5y ago
this is the only place where this can be found. Would love to know more from someone perhaps a little bit less involved.
- Broken_Hippo 5y ago
  I couldn't find anything else either: When I do a shallow google search for "EU mass surveillance", I find articles referring to a loophole in AI rules for mass surveillance and some articles stating that mass surveillance can only be for national security - and the most recent is in April.
- BjoernKW 5y ago
  I've just found another source corroborating this: https://www.euractiv.com/section/data-protection/news/new-eu-law-allows-screening-of-online-messages-to-detect-child-abuse/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/data-protection/news/new-eu...
Tenoke 5y ago
Would any email provider protect me from this, get my emails actually delivered and ideally work with my own domain? Not that I see myself switching after 15 years and 6 Gmail accounts but if I am to I'd rather know who I'd use. And no I won't risk setting it up myself and risk missing on some portion of my emails like I've had happen at workplaces before we'd sigh and switch to Google. For Chat tg/signal seem like they would but I am less sure what the best option is for email.
- soziawa 5y ago
  > For Chat tg/signal seem like they would but I am less sure what the best option is for email. Something that doesn't store the chats in a decryptable form on their servers is probably preferrable. So Telegram out and Signal, Threema or WhatsApp in.
  - eitland 5y ago
    Friendly reminder that WhatsApp is far out: it uploads all data unencrypted to at least one cloud if on of the participants have backups enabled. So Signal, Matrix or possible Threema (I don't know it) is in. Personally though, I use Telegram and I drive an ordinary car, not an armored one.
    - nybble41 5y ago
      No matter which chat service you use, any recipient could potentially upload the unencrypted data to a cloud backup service. If you don't trust the intended recipients with the data then you shouldn't share it with them in the first place.
      - eitland 5y ago
        Have my upvote. This is a great - and often forgotten I think - point. I guess my point is that in WhatsApp it is so easy to stumble into doing it, and that it sends it directly to the cloud. For clarification: I'm certainly annoyed at Google for a number of reasons, but I don't think their security record is worse than everyone else's. Quite the contrary.
hirundo 5y ago
I am proud to live in a country that is not doing this. Openly. Yet. At least now they have to build a parallel construction to prosecute you for whatever they find, which takes some effort. Yay team.
- Dah00n 5y ago
  Sounds like the US when you mention parallel construction but since the laws are way way worse than this one in the states I'm guessing it is somewhere else?
8458e112e7b2 5y ago
Must be Trump's fault
linspace 5y ago
It seems then the worst from both worlds: accept cookies popups and GDPR bureaucracy with mass surveillance.
hughrr 5y ago
Well bye bye European tech industry. Why the hell would anyone want to do business with such a risk in place?
- elevenoh 5y ago
  I'm not in the EU, but I'd exit any jurisdiction that implements this.
- Goety 5y ago
  The EU already has unprecedented control over commerce. Notice how they chopped up the UK during Brexit. EU adopting this measure means the enforcement will likely be corrupt and impossible to enforce standards.
  - oblio 5y ago
    > The EU already has unprecedented control over commerce. Unprecedented compared to who? Every sovereign state has more control than the EU does: US, China, etc. > Notice how they chopped up the UK during Brexit. How did the EU chop up the UK?
    - throwaways885 5y ago
      I believe GP is referring to the EU 'forcing' the UK to put a border between Britain and Northern Ireland, because the EU wanted a hard border somewhere and wouldn't budge on that.
      - jlokier 5y ago
        Well, the UK wanted Northern Irelend to benefit from a have-your-cake-and-eat-it semi-membership of the EU, while actively denying that to the rest of their own people elsewhere in the UK. The EU have offered many opportunities for the UK to harmonise with the EU on many issues, while continuing with Brexit. For the most part, UK rejected repeated offers that would grant UK people and businesses more rights. For example, the rights of British people to freely travel in EU countries could have been kept, but the UK said we don't want our people to have that, as the price of mirroring it by allowing EU citizens the ability to travel in the UK is too high. EU offered to let students from the UK travel through EU under the Erasmus scheme. UK said no. EU offered a customs union, where standards were more harmonised and the would need to be far fewer checks at borders. That would have been far cheaper for every business in the UK that sells into the EU. UK rejected that. UK actively wants to diverge from EU standards (e.g. for things like food). It shouldn't be surprising that EU will protect businesses that conform to those standards over those seeking to undermine them. Businesses in Northern Ireland currently have advantageous access to the EU in ways no other part of the UK does. I don't mean the physical access to Ireland, I mean administrative access to the EU markets. You can see it in tax and import/export forms. There are currently reasons to set up businesses in Northern Irelend to get that foot-in-both-worlds advantage. A lot of businesses in the UK mainland would love to have the same rights as businesses in Northern Ireland. Especially those in Scotland who didn't vote to leave anyway, and see it as an England-imposed harm on them. What would you expect should happen, that UK should be allowed to use Nothern Ireland as backdoor to send unchecked goods to the EU, imported from say the USA and Australia and re-exported into the whole EU market with no border checks anywhere?
sillyquiet 5y ago
I mean not to be a conspiracy theorist, but I am pretty convinced they and other gov orgs (US, UK) are probably doing it already if I had to guess. This makes the stuff they find legally useable for evidence I guess.
- akomtu 5y ago
  Also to normalize "black boxes" that are run by private companies to monitor thaffic.
VortexDream 5y ago
This sounds insane. Everybody that voted for this needs to lose their seat.
- josefx 5y ago
  It is a "think of the children" law, the last time the European Commission pushed a law under that reasoning it turned out they were targeting mainly political activists. Back then the super secret list of child porn sites they cited as impossible to take down through sane means contained two things: child porn sites that were taken down within 24 hours of the list becoming public and the sites of political activists. There is no way in hell any of the politicians that voted yes on this law thought of children when they did, at least not in a socially acceptable way.
  - bwindels 5y ago
    do you have a source for this?
    - josefx 5y ago
      Seems like it has been a bit longer than I thought, also these kinds of laws seem to pop up every other quarter, making it near impossible to find information on a specific event. Most I can currently find are sources on the Zugangserschwerungsgesetz which was partially driven by the same Politicians trying to install an EU wide blocklist. While the source does not mention the blocking of political activists (a change that the content of the list would be confirmed by an independent board is mentioned) it does cover the success of deleting over blocking and lies like "India does not have laws against child pornography". [1] [1] https://netzpolitik.org/tag/Zugangserschwerungsgesetz/ https://netzpolitik.org/tag/Zugangserschwerungsgesetz/
xunn0026 5y ago
The good thing about this is that within a decade there will be no more corruption, no more forced prostitution, no more corporate abuse. It will be utopia.
- givinguflac 5y ago
  I’m genuinely curious how you think that will come to pass. All those things existed before the internet and will continue to do so after this. Is there a missing /s?
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Yes, I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm. Can't prove it, but I'm still pretty sure...
jimbob45 5y ago
>Previously secure end-to-end encrypted messenger services such as Whatsapp or Signal would be forced to install a backdoor. Isn’t Signal FOSS? I don’t know how they’d police that when everyone can just fork it and remove the back door. Also don’t VPNs circumvent this legislation as well? How will they police self-hosted email servers? I know the response to these questions is usually “You’re right, this is what happens when the techno-illiterate write laws” but I genuinely can’t think of how I would go about doing this if I was the one who wanted a back door.
- soziawa 5y ago
  > Isn’t Signal FOSS? I don’t know how they’d police that when everyone can just fork it and remove the back door. If the goal is large scale surveillance, it can be combatted fairly effectively as has been shown with e.g. kino.to and other streaming sites which have gone practivally extinct. The same would happen to websites hosting illegal apps. If the goal is to go after real criminals this is of course useless. But EncroChat [1] has shown that at least large parts of the criminal world don't seem to have great operation security practices. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EncroChat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EncroChat
cachvico 5y ago
Warning - this is a work of fiction, or satire. Mods - perhaps you want to adjust the title.
- josho 5y ago
  Sadly I believe this is legit. Here's a better* source https://www.politico.eu/article/european-parliament-platforms-child-sexual-abuse-reporting-law/ https://www.politico.eu/article/european-parliament-platform... *This source at least explains the other side of the issue.
  - tephra 5y ago
    It should be noted that this allows for the continuation of voluntary scanning and reporting to CSAM that some companies do for all messages that goes via their platforms. This is also a temporary legislation that will be in place until a long term legislation is in place. Regardless of that I do think this legislation is bad.
- gary_0 5y ago
  How is it satire? Wikipedia[0] says that Patrick Breyer is a real MEP and this is his official blog. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Breyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Breyer
  - rapnie 5y ago
    Yes he is. Here are twitter and fediverse accounts: - https://chaos.social/@echo_pbreyer https://chaos.social/@echo_pbreyer - https://twitter.com/echo_pbreyer https://twitter.com/echo_pbreyer
  - cachvico 5y ago
    Appreciate the correction. I assumed it because of the last line "More Information on Chatcontrol: www.chatcontrol.eu" - that link literally redirects back to his own website.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
gorjusborg 5y ago
Can this be true? I'm having a hard time understanding how they can stand for internet privacy and legal mass surveillance simultaneously.
- em3rgent0rdr 5y ago
  Because politicians want to look tough on child abuse.
  - candiodari 5y ago
    Really? Child abuse stats are dropping like a stone. It's getting so bad that truly ridiculous things are being treated as child abuse, like for example a not-quite-divorce. Not "a bad divorce". Not "parents fighting". Not divorced. Separated (meaning living apart for whatever reason, without getting legally divorced). I'd say for what time period, but there is literally no time period given. When kids are asked any time period is taken. Siblings ... insulting each other ... is now child abuse. Seriously. Serious medical problems of any caretaker figure ... is child abuse. WITHOUT any further qualification. And of course, government facilities, whether homeless, or at this point even any hospital, all constitute child abuse. This is apparently not a problem, only parents are problematic ... https://acestoohigh.com/got-your-ace-score/ https://acestoohigh.com/got-your-ace-score/ Meanwhile, of course, the reputation of services attempting to address child abuse is atrocious. Violence is a constant everywhere in youth services in pretty much all countries. Both violence by youth services personnel, violence among kids within youth services, violence outside of youth services itself, but directly related (e.g. the police forcibly moving foster kids, or the reverse, drug couriers or prostitution rings "recruiting" in youth services, often with help from officials and/or caretakers) And we all know their reputations when it comes to raising succesful kids: https://www.kansascity.com/news/special-reports/article238206754.html#:~:text=%E2%80%9CWe%20are%20sending%20more%20foster,Generations%20of%20young%20people https://www.kansascity.com/news/special-reports/article23820.... Child abuse, itself, is dying. Less and less convictions, every year again. But there is ever more interference in the life of children by the government, with demonstrated atrocious results. And they want to be tough on child abuse? This will destroy far more kids' lives than it will save ...
chuck_throwaway 5y ago
Maybe brexit has it right - Europe isn't a good place to be a member of.
- bkor 5y ago
  UK already has crazy laws around this. Brexit enabled more invasive laws to be implemented.
  - throwaways885 5y ago
    As somebody who was somewhat in-favour of Brexit (not popular here, admittedly), my view is that it's easier to fight for privacy against just the UK government, rather than the entire EU bloc. I think if an entity as powerful as the EU puts this into legislation, it's game over. I have a similar view on federal laws in the United States - they don't tend to repeal federal surveillance laws without violence.
    - estaseuropano 5y ago
      But every member has a veto. You never needed to convince 28 countries, you only needed to convince your own government to vote against. Plenty of laws stuck in limbo because one country doesn't like it - but exactly zero laws on the books that sosme country really hates.
      - throwaways885 5y ago
        How does a group of citizens get a motion tabled to repeal mass surveillance laws in the EU? Just by sheer scale, it's harder to get the attention of the EU than it is the UK government.
      - zajio1am 5y ago
        > But every member has a veto. No, most EU legislation is decided on by ordinary legislative procedure, using qualified majority voting rules in council of EU ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_E... ).
wiz21c 5y ago
Are there safe havens ? Switzerland for example ?
- z3ncyberpunk 5y ago
  Yes, Switzerland, one of the (already) most corrupt places...
edrxty 5y ago
Are there any primary sources for this? I'm having trouble finding anything talking about any final legislative action involving chat control/ePrivacy etc. that isn't this random pirate party blog.
- em3rgent0rdr 5y ago
  https://www.politico.eu/article/european-parliament-platforms-child-sexual-abuse-reporting-law/ https://www.politico.eu/article/european-parliament-platform...
  - scandox 5y ago
    This is a much better source of information than the headline link. It describes how this came about, what its limitations are and just gives a whole lot more context. Of course it fails to advocate - which itself may have become a vice.
    - fitblipper 5y ago
      Rule of thumb: If something invokes "protect the children" to justify itself or to push it's agenda, it is advocating something. Not only that it is doing so in an underhanded and emotionally targeted way. I'm not saying politico is the primary source of advocacy in this situation, but they are at least echoing it and helping frame the debate around that.
      - duduuegeh 5y ago
        Seems like a rule that fails pretty fast if children actually need protecting.
        dsomers 5y ago
        I’m really shocked at how causally some HN commenter will discount the very real problem of online child pornography. It honestly disgusts me how people will hardly acknowledge it’s a real problem.
aktuel 5y ago
Does anyone have a link to details about who voted how?
- bwindels 5y ago
  I'm looking as well, so far have only found https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sed/doc/votingList/(A9-0258_2020).pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sed/doc/votingList/(A9-0258_2... which doesn't say much.
- bwindels 5y ago
  It's actually linked in the article, on page 5 of https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PV-9-2021-07-06-RCV_FR.docx https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PV-9-2021-07-0... The actual text that has been adopted is at https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2020/0568/COM_COM(2020)0568_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_instituti... AFAICT
perihelions 5y ago
Just to clarify a point for discussion: this is already the law in the USA, and always has been [0]. European privacy law formerly prohibited private entities from reading personal communications, and handing them over warrantlessly to governments (as I understand it (?)); but this was never a thing in the US. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
- cvwright 5y ago
  This makes the EU look pretty hypocritical for striking down the "Privacy Shield" agreement that they had with the US for GDPR. In fact, I have to wonder if this will put that ruling in danger of being overturned now? (And how much do you want to bet that the lawyers at Facebook are gearing up for that very fight right now?)
- aksss 5y ago
  From that source: In 1986, the United States Congress updated the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 by enacting the Electronic Communications Privacy Act which included an updated "Wiretap Act" and also extended Fourth Amendment-like protections to electronic communications in Title II of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, known as the Stored Communications Act. In Carpenter v. United States (2018), the Supreme Court ruled warrants are needed for gathering cell phone tracking information, remarking that cell phones are almost a “feature of human anatomy”, “when the Government tracks the location of a cell phone it achieves near perfect surveillance, as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone’s user”. and that [cell-site location information] provides officers with “an all-encompassing record of the holder’s whereabouts” and “provides an intimate window into a person’s life, revealing not only [an individual’s] particular movements, but through them [their] familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations.”[5] AND From https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/e-mail-and-warrant-requirements.html https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/e-mail-and-wa... Are there Any Laws that Protect Your Email Privacy? Under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), police can access emails without a warrant if the emails are stored in the cloud and at least 180 days old. However, this law is outdated and lawmakers are attempting to pass the E-mail Privacy Act. This would update the ECPA by requiring warrants for all email searches. At the moment, in July 2018, the ECPA has yet to pass. E-mails that are in remote storage and opened or older than 180 days do not require a warrant. Instead, the police only need to obtain an administrative subpoena. Administrative subpoenas are issued by federal agencies without any approval by a judge, so they are much easier to obtain. So.. run your own email server in your basement if you're concerned (which would require a warrant). Or try end-to-end encryption solutions.
yreg 5y ago
This reads like a hoax. Do we have other sources on it?
- alkonaut 5y ago
  It does read extremely one-sided, as you’d expect from the pp.
ashtonkem 5y ago
You do have to wonder about the long term stability of a nominal democracy where 72% of citizens oppose digital monitoring, while 77% of their representatives vote for laws they emphatically do not want. Put more bluntly, is this even a democracy in anything other than the trappings?
- Dah00n 5y ago
  Well, they have a better voting track record than the US vis-à-vis citizens vs politicians, so I guess the answer world be No if the US is authoritarian but Yes if it is democratic.
- LanceH 5y ago
  A discussion I've never really seen take place is, "Why does law enforcement have a (prominent) seat at the table for which laws should be passed?" We in the US continually hear from the FBI and other agencies how they need to abridge rights in order to be more effective. IMO, that really shouldn't be in their wheelhouse. They should be enforcing only laws that exist. Making new laws for their convenience should be none of their business. If they are hamstrung by some pesky civil rights, tough. I'm sure there may exist counterexamples, but I can't think of where an agency has advocated in favor of more personal protections.
  - _trampeltier 5y ago
    Good point. Of course every kind of worker has his wishes to change law/rules for work. But the agencies are really good in pushing for new laws (and more work .. perpetum mobile).
- CameronNemo 5y ago
  How is it not a democracy? It is representative, sure, but it is still more democratic than many other nominal democracies which do not even have proportional representation. Perhaps people just do not consider this an important issue, and do not factor it in to how they choose their representatives very much? What do you suggest as the alternative? Direct democracy? Anarchy? https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ziq-do-anarchists-support-democracy https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ziq-do-anarchists-su...
actually_a_dog 5y ago
I find it interesting that "derogation" (my new word for the day) means both: * the act of officially stating that a law or rule no longer needs to be obeyed, and * the act of talking about or treating someone in a way that shows you do not respect him, her, or it, according to [0]. If the shoe fits, I guess? --- [0]: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/derogation https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/derog...
- oblio 5y ago
  It is also: > special permission not to obey a rule, law, etc.:
ramtatatam 5y ago
Can somebody tell me if personally hosted email is subject to this bizarre law?
908B64B197 5y ago
Something I'm wondering is how this will affect Europe's ability to attract and retain top tier talent. Europe already seems to be losing to the US. Will this accelerate this brain drain or slow it? [0] [0] https://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/the-global-brain-trade https://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/the-global-br...
- agilob 5y ago
  The same law already exists in US and Australia
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    Australia has a pretty bad drain to the US.
  - adventured 5y ago
    Can you point out the specific same law that already exists in the US? What exists in the US is primarily the absence of restrictive laws. Private companies can - for the most part - freely scan your communications/data that go across their service depending on the terms of use/privacy they set. What the EU is doing is quite different from the US approach. They're starting out from a supposed perch of claiming that they very strongly believe in privacy rights, and then they're violating that to an almost comical degree. The difference is one of remarkable hypocrisy.
balozi 5y ago
Maybe the Brexiteers were right all along.
- adventured 5y ago
  Well it may not be for the British, they're not going to get less mass surveillance due to Brexit. However for some countries that could choose to leave the EU due to totalitarian laws like this, it may be a benefit, if they choose to pursue a privacy-focused path. Which are the most privacy-focused nations in the EU that might leave over a law like this?
  - estaseuropano 5y ago
    This is such an uninformed comment. By virtue of the eu legal process this law only exists because Italy voted in favour of it, like all other EU countries. Anything else you hear is spin. Also this lae doesn't oblige anyone to anything, its a temporary law that comes in as another law ran out, and the aim is to have a more thorough piece of legislation on the books in 3 years. For the record, UK has much worse laws already on the books, as do the US or Australia.
    - adventured 5y ago
      Saying it's uninformed doesn't make it so, nice try at front-loading some argument from intimidation though. > For the record, UK has much worse laws already on the books, as do the US or Australia. First of all, who said that the US or UK didn't? That's misdirection. This story is about the EU. What I posited, is member states leaving the EU, those that are heavily concerned about privacy rights. What would that have to do with the US laws? > Also this lae doesn't oblige anyone to anything, its a temporary law that comes in as another law ran out A temporary mass surveillance bill. Yeah right. You were saying something about uninformed.
      - estaseuropano 5y ago
        Sorry but please read the politico article posted a dozen times in this discussion. It is less agenda driven and wuotd clearly spells out this is just a law to allow providers to do it, not an obligation. In fact that provision existed before but was running out, thus this temporary law. As regards the brexit comment, you are right my writing was unnecessarily harsh but you missed the main point: > By virtue of the eu legal process this law only exists because Italy voted in favour of it, like all other EU countries. The history of much EU bashing is that national governments vote YES in Brussels then turn around and say nationally 'really sorry we are obliged to implement this EU law' -- the very law they could have vetoed if they had wanted to. This is one of the basics of EU lawmaking which the previous commenter clearly was ignorant of.
chacham15 5y ago
From the article: > According to police data, in the vast majority of cases, innocent citizens come under suspicion of having committed an offence due to unreliable processes With this being said, what is the rationale for this? Its worth noting however, that the current legislation "allow[s] providers of e-mail and messaging services to automatically search all personal messages of each citizen for presumed suspect content and report suspected cases to the police" but does not mandate it yet.
baybal2 5y ago
Full name list ECR: Bourgeois, Jurzyca, Kanko, Melbārde, Terheş, Van Overtveldt, Zīle NI: Beghin, Buschmann, Castaldo, Comín i Oliveres, Ferrara, Furore, Gemma, Giarrusso, Gyöngyösi, Pignedoli, Ponsatí Obiols, Puigdemont i Casamajó, Regimenti, Rondinelli, Rookmaker, Sinčić, Sonneborn, Vuolo PPE: Adamowicz, Ademov, Adinolfi Isabella, Alexandrov Yordanov, Amaro, Arias Echeverría, Arimont, Arłukowicz, Asimakopoulou, Băsescu, Bellamy, Benjumea Benjumea, Bentele, Berendsen, Berger, Berlusconi, Bernhuber, Bilčík, Blaga, Bogdan, Bogovič, Buda, Buşoi, Caroppo, Carvalho, Casa, Caspary, del Castillo Vera, Christoforou, Clune, Colin-Oesterlé, van Dalen, Danjean, De Meo, Didier, Doleschal, Dorfmann, Duda, Düpont, Ehler, Estaràs Ferragut, Evren, Falcă, Ferber, Fernandes, Fitzgerald, Fourlas, Frankowski, Gahler, García-Margallo y Marfil, Geuking, Gieseke, Glavak, González Pons, Halicki, Hansen, Hava, Herbst, Hetman, Hohlmeier, Hölvényi, Hortefeux, Hübner, Jahr, Jarubas, Juknevičienė, Kalinowski, Kalniete, Kanev, Karas, Kefalogiannis, Kelly, Kopacz, Kovatchev, Kubilius, Kympouropoulos, Kyrtsos, de Lange, Lega, Lenaers, Lewandowski, Lexmann, Liese, Lins, López Gil, López-Istúriz White, Łukacijewska, Lutgen, McAllister, Maldeikienė, Manders, Mandl, Marinescu, Markey, Martusciello, Mato, Maydell, Mažylis, Meimarakis, Melo, Metsola, Millán Mon, Monteiro de Aguiar, Montserrat, Morano, Mortler, Motreanu, Mureşan, Niebler, Niedermayer, Nistor, Novak, Novakov, Ochojska, Olbrycht, Patriciello, Pereira Lídia, Pieper, Pietikäinen, Polčák, Polfjärd, Pollák, Pospíšil, Radev, Radtke, Rangel, Ressler, Sagartz, Salini, Sander, Sarvamaa, Schmiedtbauer, Schneider, Schreijer-Pierik, Schulze, Schwab, Seekatz, Sikorski, Simon, Skyttedal, Šojdrová, Sokol, Spyraki, Štefanec, Tajani, Terras, Thaler, Thun und Hohenstein, Tobé, Tomac, Tomc, Vaidere, Vandenkendelaere, Verheyen, Vincze, Virkkunen, Voss, Vozemberg-Vrionidi, Walsh, Walsmann, Warborn, Weber, Weiss, Wieland, Wiezik, Winkler, Winzig, Wiseler-Lima, Zagorakis, Zarzalejos, Zdechovský, Zoido Álvarez, Zovko, Zver Renew: Alieva-Veli, Al-Sahlani, Andrews, Ansip, Auštrevičius, Azmani, Bauzá Díaz, Beer, Bijoux, Bilbao Barandica, Botoş, Boyer, Brunet, Cañas, Canfin, Chabaud, Charanzová, Chastel, Christensen, Cicurel, Cioloş, Cseh, Danti, Decerle, Dlabajová, Donáth, Durand, Ďuriš Nicholsonová, Eroglu, Farreng, Flego, Gade, Gamon, Garicano, Gheorghe, Glück, Goerens, Gozi, Groothuis, Grošelj, Grudler, Guetta, Hahn Svenja, Hayer, Hlaváček, Hojsík, Huitema, Ijabs, in 't Veld, Joveva, Karleskind, Karlsbro, Katainen, Kelleher, Keller Fabienne, Knotek, Körner, Kovařík, Kyuchyuk, Loiseau, Løkkegaard, Melchior, Mihaylova, Mituța, Müller, Nagtegaal, Nart, Oetjen, Paet, Pagazaurtundúa, Pekkarinen, Petersen, Pîslaru, Rafaela, Ries, Riquet, Rodríguez Ramos, Schreinemacher, Séjourné, Semedo, Šimečka, Solís Pérez, Ştefănuță, Strugariu, Søgaard-Lidell, Tolleret, Toom, Torvalds, Trillet-Lenoir, Tudorache, Vautmans, Vedrenne, Verhofstadt, Vázquez Lázara, Wiesner, Yon-Courtin, Zacharopoulou, Zullo S&D: Agius Saliba, Aguilera, Ameriks, Andrieu, Androulakis, Angel, Ara-Kovács, Arena, Avram, Balt, Barley, Bartolo, Belka, Benea, Benifei, Beňová, Bergkvist, Biedroń, Bischoff, Blinkevičiūtė, Bonafè, Borzan, Brglez, Bullmann, Burkhardt, Calenda, Carvalhais, Cerdas, Chahim, Chinnici, Cimoszewicz, Ciuhodaru, Číž, Cozzolino, Crețu, Cutajar, Danielsson, De Castro, Dobrev, Durá Ferrandis, Engerer, Ertug, Fajon, Fernández, Ferrandino, Fritzon, Fuglsang, Gálvez Muñoz, García Del Blanco, García Muñoz, García Pérez, Gardiazabal Rubial, Gebhardt, Geier, Glucksmann, González, González Casares, Grapini, Gualmini, Guillaume, Guteland, Hajšel, Heide, Heinäluoma, Homs Ginel, Hristov, Incir, Jerković, Jongerius, Kaili, Kaljurand, Kammerevert, Kohut, Köster, Krehl, Kumpula-Natri, Lalucq, Lange, Larrouturou, Leitão-Marques, López, López Aguilar, Luena, Maestre Martín De Almagro, Majorino, Maldonado López, Marques Margarida, Marques Pedro, Matić, Mavrides, Maxová, Mebarek, Mikser, Miller, Molnár, Moreno Sánchez, Moretti, Negrescu, Neuser, Nica, Noichl, Olekas, Papadakis Demetris, Penkova, Picierno, Picula, Pisapia, Pizarro, Plumb, Regner, Reuten, Roberti, Rodríguez-Piñero, Rónai, Ros Sempere, Ruiz Devesa, Sánchez Amor, Sant, Santos, Schaldemose, Schieder, Schuster, Sidl, Silva Pereira, Sippel, Smeriglio, Stanishev, Tang, Tarabella, Tax, Tinagli, Toia, Tudose, Ujhelyi, Ušakovs, Van Brempt, Vind, Vitanov, Vollath, Wölken, Wolters, Yoncheva, Zorrinho The Left: Arvanitis, Aubry, Barrena Arza, Björk, Bompard, Botenga, Chaibi, Daly, Demirel, Ernst, Flanagan, Georgoulis, Gusmão, Hazekamp, Kokkalis, Konečná, Kouloglou, Kountoura, MacManus, Matias, Maurel, Michels, Modig, Omarjee, Papadimoulis, Pelletier, Pineda, Rego, Rodríguez Palop, Schirdewan, Scholz, Urbán Crespo, Villanueva Ruiz, Villumsen, Wallace Verts/ALE: Alametsä, Alfonsi, Andresen, Auken, Biteau, Bloss, Boeselager, Breyer, Bricmont, Carême, Cavazzini, Cormand, Corrao, Cuffe, Dalunde, D'Amato, Delbos-Corfield, Delli, Deparnay-Grunenberg, Eickhout, Evi, Franz, Freund, Geese, Giegold, Gregorová, Gruffat, Guerreiro, Hahn Henrike, Häusling, Hautala, Herzberger-Fofana, Holmgren, Jadot, Keller Ska, Kolaja, Kuhnke, Lagodinsky, Lamberts, Langensiepen, Marquardt, Matthieu, Metz, Neumann, Nienaß, Niinistö, O'Sullivan, Paulus, Pedicini, Peksa, Peter-Hansen, Reintke, Riba i Giner, Ripa, Rivasi, Roose, Ropė, Satouri, Semsrott, Solé, Spurek, Strik, Toussaint, Urtasun, Vana, Van Sparrentak, Von Cramon-Taubadel, Waitz, Wiener, Yenbou, Ždanoka
choo-t 5y ago
It seems that the Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse [0] are as obvious as they are effective. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...
BjoernKW 5y ago
That the European Parliament didn't spontaneously disappear in a massive vortex of cognitive dissonance can only mean that most MEPs either don't understand GDPR or this new law, maybe neither.
verst 5y ago
I'm seeing a lot of responses from fellow folks in the US that seem to imply this EU (proposed?) regulation is unprecedented in the US. Is that actually so?
- rsynnott 5y ago
  No. This essentially allows providers (Facebook et al) to look at the messages their users are sending. They used to be allowed do this in the EU, and have always been allowed do it in the US.
alfalfasprout 5y ago
It's becoming scary how dangerous legislation is passed under the guise of protecting against "child exploitation". It's basically political suicide for politicians to vote against it (since the public cannot understand the nuance).
- bwindels 5y ago
  Up to people who do understand it to expose the ones voting for it.
- ArkanExplorer 5y ago
  EU Politicians pass anti-privacy legislation to 'protect' us from terrorism.... Which is caused by the open borders and migrant settlement programs promoted by the EU in the first place. Convenient isn't it?
  - ben_w 5y ago
    EU internal borders are open, the external ones are not. It’s a bit like the USA in that regard, biggest difference is our versions of California and Louisiana have their own national languages.
quickthrower2 5y ago
This would also include any non EU citizens communications with an EU citizen. Also you might be an EU citizen without realising (by descent)
- estaseuropano 5y ago
  Thai comment makes no sense whatsoever and i do wonder what absurd world you imagine. This law gives companies in the EU the legal grounds to do some scanning measures, it is neither an obligation to do so, nor when companies do so is anyone checking whether you, a person outside the EU, happen to have European ancestors. Logically of course that applies to residents, as would the laws in any other place.
  - quickthrower2 5y ago
    I’m just trying to imagine this world, thanks. It’s absurd enough without me absurdifying it further. Ok so what you are saying is any users whatsoever of EU based email providers can be subject to companies doing some scanning if they wish to. Since most multinationals will have European offices, it might apply to every provider and therefore pretty much everyone.
    - estaseuropano 5y ago
      How this will play out is to be seen. But in many places this is already possible - see US and AU. Normally it applies to your local legal context, so if they are a multinational and have an EU branch they likely already have the servers separate to respect GDPR.
f6v 5y ago
Damn CCP! Oh, wait…
alkonaut 5y ago
> Previously secure end-to-end encrypted messenger services such as Whatsapp or Signal would be forced to install a backdoor. This is surely a fantastic extrapolation of this author. The chance of this happening is zero, which is also the chance of this being explicitly stated in the legal text. It would be a disaster of course. And extremely controversial. Which is why it doesn’t just get passed under the radar, even as a temporary measure. Isn’t there a copy of the actual legal text anywhere? Or a sober analysis of that text that isn’t made by a member of the pirate party? Edit: Here https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2020/0568/COM_COM(2020)0568_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_instituti... It doesn’t mention encryption, back doors, or forcing any entity to do anything. It does mention allowing companies to temporarily continue current monitoring for child abuse under certain conditions. What exactly is the outrage about?
- aksss 5y ago
  > the chance of this happening is zero https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/471/227/dd0.png https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/471/227/dd0...
  - cassonmars 5y ago
    Why would a company in the US (Signal) decide to comply with the doctrine of another country, especially a doctrine antithetical to their entire business?
    - aksss 5y ago
      Well, zero is not just a really small number. But to answer "why" would involve unpacking many direct and indirect motivations. First, I would never trust that any corporation has any doctrine that they would or could stand by ad infinitum given the right pressures. At the end of they day you're talking about humans. A group of self-interested humans. A group of self-interested humans whose makeup changes as directors and executives rotate out. A group whose intentions can be undercut by an individual. Think you that the "Snowden" move doesn't happen the other way around? Probably more frequent that the intelligence communities infiltrate private organizations with rogue contractors than they experience it themselves. Probably really dang easy to be honest. Since it came up earlier, I might just casually point to AT&T letting the NSA (or whomever) mirror all the traffic running through their network[0]. That would seem antithetical to their business, but obviously there are competing motivations. Where are those motivations sourced? Who makes the call? We don't know. I guess that's my point - you can't put faith in opaque decision making processes. I wouldn't rely on them, is all I'm saying. You could say the risk is low, but it's definitely not zero. [0] https://www.propublica.org/article/nsa-spying-relies-on-atts-extreme-willingness-to-help https://www.propublica.org/article/nsa-spying-relies-on-atts...
yawaworht1978 5y ago
Whatever this law or proposal is, it sounds bad and I don't like it. The only one good thing would be if the ones who draft, pass and implement it are not exempt and equally subject to the invasive tentacles of the buerocrats. I can kinda understand how and why crime happens, but I never understood the motives or way of thought of the people who want this kind of stuff implemented.uch less the ones who vote for it.
- aksss 5y ago
  Yeah, it's pretty funny how we have the government literally wiretapping and spying on journalists, and that's okay, but when it comes home to roost, the representatives don't like it when it happens to them. Funny probably isn't the right word. Obama: https://www.wired.com/2013/05/doj-got-reporter-phone-records/ https://www.wired.com/2013/05/doj-got-reporter-phone-records... Trump: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/05/trump-doj-reporter-surveillance https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/05/trump-doj-reporter-s... Surveillance for thee but not for me: https://www.rt.com/usa/nsa-probably-congress-greenwald-arrest-651/ https://www.rt.com/usa/nsa-probably-congress-greenwald-arres...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
NumberCruncher 5y ago
Every time a surveillance system and violation of privacy rights is advertised in the EU as a solution against child abuse and trafficking I ask myself how such a system could have changed the outcome of a case like Dutroux. Would have been the dozens of witnesses and police officers involved in the investigation suicided a way sooner, later, more silently, or at all? We will never know...
Lapsa 5y ago
RIP internet
unnouinceput 5y ago
Hopefully Switzerland won't become member of EU any time soon. I started to move my e-mail accounts to protonmail in 2018, and still not done as old friends/business partners like to use my old accounts. Human habits, a hard death.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
shrubble 5y ago
Reminder that even Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols knew 25 years ago that Jimmy Savile was abusing children and the BBC upper management must have known many more details about their star, than Johnny Rotten. Not only was nothing done but BBC's upper management escaped any responsibility for the protection they gave Savile. One could mention the Dutroux affair, British PM Ted Heath, and many more scandals... yet it does seem that the European elite excuse themselves and instead invade everyone else's privacy instead.
- swiley 5y ago
  Facebook fails to go after child pornography despite it's insane panopticon.
hungryforcodes 5y ago
Well it's nice the EU makes it so easy to choose to live anywhere world wide. If it's going to implement a draconian surveillance state that will converge towards corrupted abuse by its officials and member states, then why not live in any number of totalitarian like countries elsewhere with cheap out of living and a nice beach instead? There is no functional difference anyways.
CryptoPunk 5y ago
Being democratic does not ensure having a free society. It takes active democratic participation, by people who believe in the principles of a free society, for democracies to institute laws that establish free societies.
jaimex2 5y ago
OK Boomers, good luck with that. It's fun watching old people legislate on things they don't understand.
test_epsilon 5y ago
I hear lots of amazing sounds (and accompanying self congratulation) from the EU when it comes to "human rights". Time and time again though, they prove they're not actually interested in human rights or interests of their own citizens. Which means all their other cries of human rights about other issues are empty crocodile tears. Even when it may happen that the side they take is a good one from a human rights perspective, that's obviously purely by coincidence that it happens to align with their agenda. Horrifying.
hkai 5y ago
Does it mean I can take out my enemies by sending them child porn?
rurban 5y ago
The Koehntoppsche Idiotenfalle or news:de.alt.binaries.sex.children proposal to discuss usenet and web censorship is actually 25 years old. http://web.archive.org/web/20040618062603/http://kris.koehntopp.de/inkomploehntopp/00078.html http://web.archive.org/web/20040618062603/http://kris.koehnt... (German)

938 points by pepperberg 5y ago

I think it's the establishment, i.e. the old wealthy families who run things, are very concerned with the migrants crisis and the real possibility to lose control.

8458e112e7b2 5y ago
Lol. These "old wealthy families" caused the "migrant crisis"
- akomtu 5y ago
  Because they needed cheap labour. Now they're scared this cheap labor will get out of their control.
  - trompetenaccoun 5y ago
    It already has gotten out of control, hundreds of thousands of people crossed the borders without any checks. There was also this bizarre case of a man now pre-crime style accused of terrorism, although the charges seem very questionable when you look into it: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210525-german-soldier-tells-court-how-he-posed-as-refugee https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210525-german-soldie...
vorpalhex 5y ago
I'm partial to blaming the lizard people as, being lizard people, they don't have feelings.

gentleman11 5y ago

This is what people mean when they say “turnkey surveillance states”: you end up 1-3 laws away from almost instant total government surveillance of all citizen activity. The trillion dollar infrastructure was built by you and me for free from their POV (we paid them to do it with taxes), and now they can just say they want to use it

exdsq 5y ago
So what do we do?
- f38zf5vdt 5y ago
  It will probably take another World War before people collectively remember why privacy even existed in the first place.
  - manmal 5y ago
    It’s a bit early to give up already.
  - adventured 5y ago
    What would a world war have to do with reminding people of privacy? World War 2 gave China and Soviet Russia a new sense of privacy? WW2 made the US worse as a place in most regards, not better. That's what caused the US to build its military industrial complex, to install a massive standing global military, to primarily guard against the Europeans going on rampage again for the nth time (which was guaranteed to happen with the USSR very eager to conquer even more of Europe in the days post WW2). From WW2 the US got a dramatically expanded (and more intrusive) Federal Government, surveillence state and war machine, encouraged by Hoover's aggressive domestic actions and all the newly minted three letter agencies (CIA 1947, NSA 1952, NRO 1960, ATF 1972, DEA 1973). A third world war would make the governments even more paranoid, scared, and intrusive, not less. You wouldn't want to see what the involved governments would do to their people as a war involving the US, Russia, China, and various countries in Europe and Asia broke out. The stakes would be as high as they could possibly be, given the nuclear arsenals in existence now. Privacy would rapidly sink toward zero, and that conflict would be an extraodinary argument in favor of zero privacy (according to the governments): for no mistakes can be tolerated, the dangers are too high, no privacy can be afforded (they would claim).
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      If we accept the (unconventional) view that the Cold War was WW3, then it could be argued that the countries which escaped Russian domination learned the value of privacy (even if their appreciation of it has waned over time). You're right, though, that it's probably not worth getting our hopes up about what sort of societies would exist after WW4 (based on that numbering system).

petercooper 5y ago

I wonder how this meshes with GDPR as this seems like a huge violation of it. Law enforcement being able to dig into messages with a warrant is one thing, but delegating responsibilities to platforms to look for crime is quite another.

mimsee 5y ago
Rules for thee but not for me.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
agilob 5y ago
Which part of GDPR does it violate?
progval 5y ago
1. this seems to be misinformation, the author is the only source on the topic 2. it would probably be compatible with GDPR anyway. GDPR article 6, paragraph 1: "Processing shall be lawful only if and to the extent that at least one of the following applies [...] (c) processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject"
tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
My understanding is that this explicitly creates an exception from one of the EU privacy laws (not sure if GDPR or something else) so that providers can scan your content. While this doesn't seem to oblige providers to scan your content, that is expected to come in a next step.

jude- 5y ago

Do they want everyone to switch en masse to end-to-end encrypted communications? Because this is how you encourage that.

vnchr 5y ago
Seems like the same legal body that made these laws would outlaw that activity.
- SllX 5y ago
  Yeah, but how sustainable is the EU really, in the long term? I’m still convinced it will either dissolve or devolve into a rump organization within my lifetime.
  - thatguy0900 5y ago
    Well, I'm assuming that's one of the things that total pervasive surveillance and control of communication is meant to address.
    - SllX 5y ago
      Seems like acting with that intent with this power is an easy way to accelerate the EU’s own dissolution. The Warsaw Pact, the Cold War, the Iron Curtain across Europe and the Berlin Wall, as well as the communist surveillance States that still-living Europeans lived within and remember well enough was not that long ago.
      - thatguy0900 5y ago
        They probably make the argument to themselves that none of those people had anywhere near the amount of data they will have. I guess it remains to be seen how long an intelligence agency can hold a country together when they have access to a large portion of every private conversation between citizens.
  - rich_sasha 5y ago

sergiomattei 5y ago

TIL. Not European, but this is madness.

shreyshnaccount 5y ago

This is a joke, right? right??

cachvico 5y ago
Yes; or satire, or propaganda.
- cachvico 5y ago
  Update to correct myself - can't believe that it's not fiction..
7373737373 5y ago
https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2020/0259(COD)&l=en https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheproc... .pdf: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2020/0568/COM_COM(2020)0568_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_instituti... The votes seem to be here (page 5): https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PV-9-2021-07-06-RCV_FR.docx https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PV-9-2021-07-0... I suppose this will only show up on sites like https://www.abgeordnetenwatch.de/eu/abstimmungen https://www.abgeordnetenwatch.de/eu/abstimmungen or https://www.votewatch.eu/en/term9-european-parliament-latest-votes.html https://www.votewatch.eu/en/term9-european-parliament-latest... later...

sprafa 5y ago

this is the only place where this can be found. Would love to know more from someone perhaps a little bit less involved.

Broken_Hippo 5y ago
I couldn't find anything else either: When I do a shallow google search for "EU mass surveillance", I find articles referring to a loophole in AI rules for mass surveillance and some articles stating that mass surveillance can only be for national security - and the most recent is in April.
BjoernKW 5y ago
I've just found another source corroborating this: https://www.euractiv.com/section/data-protection/news/new-eu-law-allows-screening-of-online-messages-to-detect-child-abuse/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/data-protection/news/new-eu...

Tenoke 5y ago

Would any email provider protect me from this, get my emails actually delivered and ideally work with my own domain? Not that I see myself switching after 15 years and 6 Gmail accounts but if I am to I'd rather know who I'd use. And no I won't risk setting it up myself and risk missing on some portion of my emails like I've had happen at workplaces before we'd sigh and switch to Google. For Chat tg/signal seem like they would but I am less sure what the best option is for email.

soziawa 5y ago
> For Chat tg/signal seem like they would but I am less sure what the best option is for email. Something that doesn't store the chats in a decryptable form on their servers is probably preferrable. So Telegram out and Signal, Threema or WhatsApp in.
- eitland 5y ago
  Friendly reminder that WhatsApp is far out: it uploads all data unencrypted to at least one cloud if on of the participants have backups enabled. So Signal, Matrix or possible Threema (I don't know it) is in. Personally though, I use Telegram and I drive an ordinary car, not an armored one.
  - nybble41 5y ago
    No matter which chat service you use, any recipient could potentially upload the unencrypted data to a cloud backup service. If you don't trust the intended recipients with the data then you shouldn't share it with them in the first place.
    - eitland 5y ago
      Have my upvote. This is a great - and often forgotten I think - point. I guess my point is that in WhatsApp it is so easy to stumble into doing it, and that it sends it directly to the cloud. For clarification: I'm certainly annoyed at Google for a number of reasons, but I don't think their security record is worse than everyone else's. Quite the contrary.

hirundo 5y ago

I am proud to live in a country that is not doing this. Openly. Yet. At least now they have to build a parallel construction to prosecute you for whatever they find, which takes some effort. Yay team.

Dah00n 5y ago
Sounds like the US when you mention parallel construction but since the laws are way way worse than this one in the states I'm guessing it is somewhere else?

8458e112e7b2 5y ago

Must be Trump's fault

linspace 5y ago

It seems then the worst from both worlds: accept cookies popups and GDPR bureaucracy with mass surveillance.

hughrr 5y ago

Well bye bye European tech industry. Why the hell would anyone want to do business with such a risk in place?

elevenoh 5y ago
I'm not in the EU, but I'd exit any jurisdiction that implements this.
Goety 5y ago
The EU already has unprecedented control over commerce. Notice how they chopped up the UK during Brexit. EU adopting this measure means the enforcement will likely be corrupt and impossible to enforce standards.
- oblio 5y ago
  > The EU already has unprecedented control over commerce. Unprecedented compared to who? Every sovereign state has more control than the EU does: US, China, etc. > Notice how they chopped up the UK during Brexit. How did the EU chop up the UK?
  - throwaways885 5y ago
    I believe GP is referring to the EU 'forcing' the UK to put a border between Britain and Northern Ireland, because the EU wanted a hard border somewhere and wouldn't budge on that.
    - jlokier 5y ago
      Well, the UK wanted Northern Irelend to benefit from a have-your-cake-and-eat-it semi-membership of the EU, while actively denying that to the rest of their own people elsewhere in the UK. The EU have offered many opportunities for the UK to harmonise with the EU on many issues, while continuing with Brexit. For the most part, UK rejected repeated offers that would grant UK people and businesses more rights. For example, the rights of British people to freely travel in EU countries could have been kept, but the UK said we don't want our people to have that, as the price of mirroring it by allowing EU citizens the ability to travel in the UK is too high. EU offered to let students from the UK travel through EU under the Erasmus scheme. UK said no. EU offered a customs union, where standards were more harmonised and the would need to be far fewer checks at borders. That would have been far cheaper for every business in the UK that sells into the EU. UK rejected that. UK actively wants to diverge from EU standards (e.g. for things like food). It shouldn't be surprising that EU will protect businesses that conform to those standards over those seeking to undermine them. Businesses in Northern Ireland currently have advantageous access to the EU in ways no other part of the UK does. I don't mean the physical access to Ireland, I mean administrative access to the EU markets. You can see it in tax and import/export forms. There are currently reasons to set up businesses in Northern Irelend to get that foot-in-both-worlds advantage. A lot of businesses in the UK mainland would love to have the same rights as businesses in Northern Ireland. Especially those in Scotland who didn't vote to leave anyway, and see it as an England-imposed harm on them. What would you expect should happen, that UK should be allowed to use Nothern Ireland as backdoor to send unchecked goods to the EU, imported from say the USA and Australia and re-exported into the whole EU market with no border checks anywhere?

sillyquiet 5y ago

I mean not to be a conspiracy theorist, but I am pretty convinced they and other gov orgs (US, UK) are probably doing it already if I had to guess. This makes the stuff they find legally useable for evidence I guess.

akomtu 5y ago
Also to normalize "black boxes" that are run by private companies to monitor thaffic.

VortexDream 5y ago

This sounds insane. Everybody that voted for this needs to lose their seat.

josefx 5y ago
It is a "think of the children" law, the last time the European Commission pushed a law under that reasoning it turned out they were targeting mainly political activists. Back then the super secret list of child porn sites they cited as impossible to take down through sane means contained two things: child porn sites that were taken down within 24 hours of the list becoming public and the sites of political activists. There is no way in hell any of the politicians that voted yes on this law thought of children when they did, at least not in a socially acceptable way.
- bwindels 5y ago
  do you have a source for this?
  - josefx 5y ago
    Seems like it has been a bit longer than I thought, also these kinds of laws seem to pop up every other quarter, making it near impossible to find information on a specific event. Most I can currently find are sources on the Zugangserschwerungsgesetz which was partially driven by the same Politicians trying to install an EU wide blocklist. While the source does not mention the blocking of political activists (a change that the content of the list would be confirmed by an independent board is mentioned) it does cover the success of deleting over blocking and lies like "India does not have laws against child pornography". [1] [1] https://netzpolitik.org/tag/Zugangserschwerungsgesetz/ https://netzpolitik.org/tag/Zugangserschwerungsgesetz/

xunn0026 5y ago

The good thing about this is that within a decade there will be no more corruption, no more forced prostitution, no more corporate abuse. It will be utopia.

givinguflac 5y ago
I’m genuinely curious how you think that will come to pass. All those things existed before the internet and will continue to do so after this. Is there a missing /s?
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Yes, I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm. Can't prove it, but I'm still pretty sure...

jimbob45 5y ago

>Previously secure end-to-end encrypted messenger services such as Whatsapp or Signal would be forced to install a backdoor. Isn’t Signal FOSS? I don’t know how they’d police that when everyone can just fork it and remove the back door. Also don’t VPNs circumvent this legislation as well? How will they police self-hosted email servers? I know the response to these questions is usually “You’re right, this is what happens when the techno-illiterate write laws” but I genuinely can’t think of how I would go about doing this if I was the one who wanted a back door.

soziawa 5y ago
> Isn’t Signal FOSS? I don’t know how they’d police that when everyone can just fork it and remove the back door. If the goal is large scale surveillance, it can be combatted fairly effectively as has been shown with e.g. kino.to and other streaming sites which have gone practivally extinct. The same would happen to websites hosting illegal apps. If the goal is to go after real criminals this is of course useless. But EncroChat [1] has shown that at least large parts of the criminal world don't seem to have great operation security practices. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EncroChat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EncroChat

cachvico 5y ago

Warning - this is a work of fiction, or satire. Mods - perhaps you want to adjust the title.

josho 5y ago
Sadly I believe this is legit. Here's a better* source https://www.politico.eu/article/european-parliament-platforms-child-sexual-abuse-reporting-law/ https://www.politico.eu/article/european-parliament-platform... *This source at least explains the other side of the issue.
- tephra 5y ago
  It should be noted that this allows for the continuation of voluntary scanning and reporting to CSAM that some companies do for all messages that goes via their platforms. This is also a temporary legislation that will be in place until a long term legislation is in place. Regardless of that I do think this legislation is bad.
gary_0 5y ago
How is it satire? Wikipedia[0] says that Patrick Breyer is a real MEP and this is his official blog. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Breyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Breyer
- rapnie 5y ago
  Yes he is. Here are twitter and fediverse accounts: - https://chaos.social/@echo_pbreyer https://chaos.social/@echo_pbreyer - https://twitter.com/echo_pbreyer https://twitter.com/echo_pbreyer
- cachvico 5y ago
  Appreciate the correction. I assumed it because of the last line "More Information on Chatcontrol: www.chatcontrol.eu" - that link literally redirects back to his own website.
actually_a_dog 5y ago

gorjusborg 5y ago

Can this be true? I'm having a hard time understanding how they can stand for internet privacy and legal mass surveillance simultaneously.

em3rgent0rdr 5y ago
Because politicians want to look tough on child abuse.
- candiodari 5y ago
  Really? Child abuse stats are dropping like a stone. It's getting so bad that truly ridiculous things are being treated as child abuse, like for example a not-quite-divorce. Not "a bad divorce". Not "parents fighting". Not divorced. Separated (meaning living apart for whatever reason, without getting legally divorced). I'd say for what time period, but there is literally no time period given. When kids are asked any time period is taken. Siblings ... insulting each other ... is now child abuse. Seriously. Serious medical problems of any caretaker figure ... is child abuse. WITHOUT any further qualification. And of course, government facilities, whether homeless, or at this point even any hospital, all constitute child abuse. This is apparently not a problem, only parents are problematic ... https://acestoohigh.com/got-your-ace-score/ https://acestoohigh.com/got-your-ace-score/ Meanwhile, of course, the reputation of services attempting to address child abuse is atrocious. Violence is a constant everywhere in youth services in pretty much all countries. Both violence by youth services personnel, violence among kids within youth services, violence outside of youth services itself, but directly related (e.g. the police forcibly moving foster kids, or the reverse, drug couriers or prostitution rings "recruiting" in youth services, often with help from officials and/or caretakers) And we all know their reputations when it comes to raising succesful kids: https://www.kansascity.com/news/special-reports/article238206754.html#:~:text=%E2%80%9CWe%20are%20sending%20more%20foster,Generations%20of%20young%20people https://www.kansascity.com/news/special-reports/article23820.... Child abuse, itself, is dying. Less and less convictions, every year again. But there is ever more interference in the life of children by the government, with demonstrated atrocious results. And they want to be tough on child abuse? This will destroy far more kids' lives than it will save ...

chuck_throwaway 5y ago

Maybe brexit has it right - Europe isn't a good place to be a member of.

bkor 5y ago
UK already has crazy laws around this. Brexit enabled more invasive laws to be implemented.
- throwaways885 5y ago
  As somebody who was somewhat in-favour of Brexit (not popular here, admittedly), my view is that it's easier to fight for privacy against just the UK government, rather than the entire EU bloc. I think if an entity as powerful as the EU puts this into legislation, it's game over. I have a similar view on federal laws in the United States - they don't tend to repeal federal surveillance laws without violence.
  - estaseuropano 5y ago
    But every member has a veto. You never needed to convince 28 countries, you only needed to convince your own government to vote against. Plenty of laws stuck in limbo because one country doesn't like it - but exactly zero laws on the books that sosme country really hates.
    - throwaways885 5y ago
      How does a group of citizens get a motion tabled to repeal mass surveillance laws in the EU? Just by sheer scale, it's harder to get the attention of the EU than it is the UK government.
    - zajio1am 5y ago
      > But every member has a veto. No, most EU legislation is decided on by ordinary legislative procedure, using qualified majority voting rules in council of EU ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_E... ).

wiz21c 5y ago

Are there safe havens ? Switzerland for example ?

z3ncyberpunk 5y ago
Yes, Switzerland, one of the (already) most corrupt places...

edrxty 5y ago

Are there any primary sources for this? I'm having trouble finding anything talking about any final legislative action involving chat control/ePrivacy etc. that isn't this random pirate party blog.

em3rgent0rdr 5y ago
https://www.politico.eu/article/european-parliament-platforms-child-sexual-abuse-reporting-law/ https://www.politico.eu/article/european-parliament-platform...
- scandox 5y ago
  This is a much better source of information than the headline link. It describes how this came about, what its limitations are and just gives a whole lot more context. Of course it fails to advocate - which itself may have become a vice.
  - fitblipper 5y ago
    Rule of thumb: If something invokes "protect the children" to justify itself or to push it's agenda, it is advocating something. Not only that it is doing so in an underhanded and emotionally targeted way. I'm not saying politico is the primary source of advocacy in this situation, but they are at least echoing it and helping frame the debate around that.
    - duduuegeh 5y ago
      Seems like a rule that fails pretty fast if children actually need protecting.
      - dsomers 5y ago
        I’m really shocked at how causally some HN commenter will discount the very real problem of online child pornography. It honestly disgusts me how people will hardly acknowledge it’s a real problem.

aktuel 5y ago

Does anyone have a link to details about who voted how?

bwindels 5y ago
I'm looking as well, so far have only found https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sed/doc/votingList/(A9-0258_2020).pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sed/doc/votingList/(A9-0258_2... which doesn't say much.
bwindels 5y ago
It's actually linked in the article, on page 5 of https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PV-9-2021-07-06-RCV_FR.docx https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PV-9-2021-07-0... The actual text that has been adopted is at https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2020/0568/COM_COM(2020)0568_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_instituti... AFAICT

perihelions 5y ago

Just to clarify a point for discussion: this is already the law in the USA, and always has been [0]. European privacy law formerly prohibited private entities from reading personal communications, and handing them over warrantlessly to governments (as I understand it (?)); but this was never a thing in the US. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine

cvwright 5y ago
This makes the EU look pretty hypocritical for striking down the "Privacy Shield" agreement that they had with the US for GDPR. In fact, I have to wonder if this will put that ruling in danger of being overturned now? (And how much do you want to bet that the lawyers at Facebook are gearing up for that very fight right now?)
aksss 5y ago
From that source: In 1986, the United States Congress updated the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 by enacting the Electronic Communications Privacy Act which included an updated "Wiretap Act" and also extended Fourth Amendment-like protections to electronic communications in Title II of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, known as the Stored Communications Act. In Carpenter v. United States (2018), the Supreme Court ruled warrants are needed for gathering cell phone tracking information, remarking that cell phones are almost a “feature of human anatomy”, “when the Government tracks the location of a cell phone it achieves near perfect surveillance, as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone’s user”. and that [cell-site location information] provides officers with “an all-encompassing record of the holder’s whereabouts” and “provides an intimate window into a person’s life, revealing not only [an individual’s] particular movements, but through them [their] familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations.”[5] AND From https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/e-mail-and-warrant-requirements.html https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/e-mail-and-wa... Are there Any Laws that Protect Your Email Privacy? Under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), police can access emails without a warrant if the emails are stored in the cloud and at least 180 days old. However, this law is outdated and lawmakers are attempting to pass the E-mail Privacy Act. This would update the ECPA by requiring warrants for all email searches. At the moment, in July 2018, the ECPA has yet to pass. E-mails that are in remote storage and opened or older than 180 days do not require a warrant. Instead, the police only need to obtain an administrative subpoena. Administrative subpoenas are issued by federal agencies without any approval by a judge, so they are much easier to obtain. So.. run your own email server in your basement if you're concerned (which would require a warrant). Or try end-to-end encryption solutions.

yreg 5y ago

This reads like a hoax. Do we have other sources on it?

alkonaut 5y ago
It does read extremely one-sided, as you’d expect from the pp.

ashtonkem 5y ago

You do have to wonder about the long term stability of a nominal democracy where 72% of citizens oppose digital monitoring, while 77% of their representatives vote for laws they emphatically do not want. Put more bluntly, is this even a democracy in anything other than the trappings?

Dah00n 5y ago
Well, they have a better voting track record than the US vis-à-vis citizens vs politicians, so I guess the answer world be No if the US is authoritarian but Yes if it is democratic.
LanceH 5y ago
A discussion I've never really seen take place is, "Why does law enforcement have a (prominent) seat at the table for which laws should be passed?" We in the US continually hear from the FBI and other agencies how they need to abridge rights in order to be more effective. IMO, that really shouldn't be in their wheelhouse. They should be enforcing only laws that exist. Making new laws for their convenience should be none of their business. If they are hamstrung by some pesky civil rights, tough. I'm sure there may exist counterexamples, but I can't think of where an agency has advocated in favor of more personal protections.
- _trampeltier 5y ago
  Good point. Of course every kind of worker has his wishes to change law/rules for work. But the agencies are really good in pushing for new laws (and more work .. perpetum mobile).
CameronNemo 5y ago
How is it not a democracy? It is representative, sure, but it is still more democratic than many other nominal democracies which do not even have proportional representation. Perhaps people just do not consider this an important issue, and do not factor it in to how they choose their representatives very much? What do you suggest as the alternative? Direct democracy? Anarchy? https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ziq-do-anarchists-support-democracy https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ziq-do-anarchists-su...

actually_a_dog 5y ago

I find it interesting that "derogation" (my new word for the day) means both: * the act of officially stating that a law or rule no longer needs to be obeyed, and * the act of talking about or treating someone in a way that shows you do not respect him, her, or it, according to [0]. If the shoe fits, I guess? --- [0]: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/derogation https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/derog...

oblio 5y ago
It is also: > special permission not to obey a rule, law, etc.:

ramtatatam 5y ago

Can somebody tell me if personally hosted email is subject to this bizarre law?

908B64B197 5y ago

Something I'm wondering is how this will affect Europe's ability to attract and retain top tier talent. Europe already seems to be losing to the US. Will this accelerate this brain drain or slow it? [0] [0] https://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/the-global-brain-trade https://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/the-global-br...

agilob 5y ago
The same law already exists in US and Australia
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  Australia has a pretty bad drain to the US.
- adventured 5y ago
  Can you point out the specific same law that already exists in the US? What exists in the US is primarily the absence of restrictive laws. Private companies can - for the most part - freely scan your communications/data that go across their service depending on the terms of use/privacy they set. What the EU is doing is quite different from the US approach. They're starting out from a supposed perch of claiming that they very strongly believe in privacy rights, and then they're violating that to an almost comical degree. The difference is one of remarkable hypocrisy.

balozi 5y ago

Maybe the Brexiteers were right all along.

adventured 5y ago
Well it may not be for the British, they're not going to get less mass surveillance due to Brexit. However for some countries that could choose to leave the EU due to totalitarian laws like this, it may be a benefit, if they choose to pursue a privacy-focused path. Which are the most privacy-focused nations in the EU that might leave over a law like this?
- estaseuropano 5y ago
  This is such an uninformed comment. By virtue of the eu legal process this law only exists because Italy voted in favour of it, like all other EU countries. Anything else you hear is spin. Also this lae doesn't oblige anyone to anything, its a temporary law that comes in as another law ran out, and the aim is to have a more thorough piece of legislation on the books in 3 years. For the record, UK has much worse laws already on the books, as do the US or Australia.
  - adventured 5y ago
    Saying it's uninformed doesn't make it so, nice try at front-loading some argument from intimidation though. > For the record, UK has much worse laws already on the books, as do the US or Australia. First of all, who said that the US or UK didn't? That's misdirection. This story is about the EU. What I posited, is member states leaving the EU, those that are heavily concerned about privacy rights. What would that have to do with the US laws? > Also this lae doesn't oblige anyone to anything, its a temporary law that comes in as another law ran out A temporary mass surveillance bill. Yeah right. You were saying something about uninformed.
    - estaseuropano 5y ago
      Sorry but please read the politico article posted a dozen times in this discussion. It is less agenda driven and wuotd clearly spells out this is just a law to allow providers to do it, not an obligation. In fact that provision existed before but was running out, thus this temporary law. As regards the brexit comment, you are right my writing was unnecessarily harsh but you missed the main point: > By virtue of the eu legal process this law only exists because Italy voted in favour of it, like all other EU countries. The history of much EU bashing is that national governments vote YES in Brussels then turn around and say nationally 'really sorry we are obliged to implement this EU law' -- the very law they could have vetoed if they had wanted to. This is one of the basics of EU lawmaking which the previous commenter clearly was ignorant of.

chacham15 5y ago

From the article: > According to police data, in the vast majority of cases, innocent citizens come under suspicion of having committed an offence due to unreliable processes With this being said, what is the rationale for this? Its worth noting however, that the current legislation "allow[s] providers of e-mail and messaging services to automatically search all personal messages of each citizen for presumed suspect content and report suspected cases to the police" but does not mandate it yet.

baybal2 5y ago

Full name list ECR: Bourgeois, Jurzyca, Kanko, Melbārde, Terheş, Van Overtveldt, Zīle NI: Beghin, Buschmann, Castaldo, Comín i Oliveres, Ferrara, Furore, Gemma, Giarrusso, Gyöngyösi, Pignedoli, Ponsatí Obiols, Puigdemont i Casamajó, Regimenti, Rondinelli, Rookmaker, Sinčić, Sonneborn, Vuolo PPE: Adamowicz, Ademov, Adinolfi Isabella, Alexandrov Yordanov, Amaro, Arias Echeverría, Arimont, Arłukowicz, Asimakopoulou, Băsescu, Bellamy, Benjumea Benjumea, Bentele, Berendsen, Berger, Berlusconi, Bernhuber, Bilčík, Blaga, Bogdan, Bogovič, Buda, Buşoi, Caroppo, Carvalho, Casa, Caspary, del Castillo Vera, Christoforou, Clune, Colin-Oesterlé, van Dalen, Danjean, De Meo, Didier, Doleschal, Dorfmann, Duda, Düpont, Ehler, Estaràs Ferragut, Evren, Falcă, Ferber, Fernandes, Fitzgerald, Fourlas, Frankowski, Gahler, García-Margallo y Marfil, Geuking, Gieseke, Glavak, González Pons, Halicki, Hansen, Hava, Herbst, Hetman, Hohlmeier, Hölvényi, Hortefeux, Hübner, Jahr, Jarubas, Juknevičienė, Kalinowski, Kalniete, Kanev, Karas, Kefalogiannis, Kelly, Kopacz, Kovatchev, Kubilius, Kympouropoulos, Kyrtsos, de Lange, Lega, Lenaers, Lewandowski, Lexmann, Liese, Lins, López Gil, López-Istúriz White, Łukacijewska, Lutgen, McAllister, Maldeikienė, Manders, Mandl, Marinescu, Markey, Martusciello, Mato, Maydell, Mažylis, Meimarakis, Melo, Metsola, Millán Mon, Monteiro de Aguiar, Montserrat, Morano, Mortler, Motreanu, Mureşan, Niebler, Niedermayer, Nistor, Novak, Novakov, Ochojska, Olbrycht, Patriciello, Pereira Lídia, Pieper, Pietikäinen, Polčák, Polfjärd, Pollák, Pospíšil, Radev, Radtke, Rangel, Ressler, Sagartz, Salini, Sander, Sarvamaa, Schmiedtbauer, Schneider, Schreijer-Pierik, Schulze, Schwab, Seekatz, Sikorski, Simon, Skyttedal, Šojdrová, Sokol, Spyraki, Štefanec, Tajani, Terras, Thaler, Thun und Hohenstein, Tobé, Tomac, Tomc, Vaidere, Vandenkendelaere, Verheyen, Vincze, Virkkunen, Voss, Vozemberg-Vrionidi, Walsh, Walsmann, Warborn, Weber, Weiss, Wieland, Wiezik, Winkler, Winzig, Wiseler-Lima, Zagorakis, Zarzalejos, Zdechovský, Zoido Álvarez, Zovko, Zver Renew: Alieva-Veli, Al-Sahlani, Andrews, Ansip, Auštrevičius, Azmani, Bauzá Díaz, Beer, Bijoux, Bilbao Barandica, Botoş, Boyer, Brunet, Cañas, Canfin, Chabaud, Charanzová, Chastel, Christensen, Cicurel, Cioloş, Cseh, Danti, Decerle, Dlabajová, Donáth, Durand, Ďuriš Nicholsonová, Eroglu, Farreng, Flego, Gade, Gamon, Garicano, Gheorghe, Glück, Goerens, Gozi, Groothuis, Grošelj, Grudler, Guetta, Hahn Svenja, Hayer, Hlaváček, Hojsík, Huitema, Ijabs, in 't Veld, Joveva, Karleskind, Karlsbro, Katainen, Kelleher, Keller Fabienne, Knotek, Körner, Kovařík, Kyuchyuk, Loiseau, Løkkegaard, Melchior, Mihaylova, Mituța, Müller, Nagtegaal, Nart, Oetjen, Paet, Pagazaurtundúa, Pekkarinen, Petersen, Pîslaru, Rafaela, Ries, Riquet, Rodríguez Ramos, Schreinemacher, Séjourné, Semedo, Šimečka, Solís Pérez, Ştefănuță, Strugariu, Søgaard-Lidell, Tolleret, Toom, Torvalds, Trillet-Lenoir, Tudorache, Vautmans, Vedrenne, Verhofstadt, Vázquez Lázara, Wiesner, Yon-Courtin, Zacharopoulou, Zullo S&D: Agius Saliba, Aguilera, Ameriks, Andrieu, Androulakis, Angel, Ara-Kovács, Arena, Avram, Balt, Barley, Bartolo, Belka, Benea, Benifei, Beňová, Bergkvist, Biedroń, Bischoff, Blinkevičiūtė, Bonafè, Borzan, Brglez, Bullmann, Burkhardt, Calenda, Carvalhais, Cerdas, Chahim, Chinnici, Cimoszewicz, Ciuhodaru, Číž, Cozzolino, Crețu, Cutajar, Danielsson, De Castro, Dobrev, Durá Ferrandis, Engerer, Ertug, Fajon, Fernández, Ferrandino, Fritzon, Fuglsang, Gálvez Muñoz, García Del Blanco, García Muñoz, García Pérez, Gardiazabal Rubial, Gebhardt, Geier, Glucksmann, González, González Casares, Grapini, Gualmini, Guillaume, Guteland, Hajšel, Heide, Heinäluoma, Homs Ginel, Hristov, Incir, Jerković, Jongerius, Kaili, Kaljurand, Kammerevert, Kohut, Köster, Krehl, Kumpula-Natri, Lalucq, Lange, Larrouturou, Leitão-Marques, López, López Aguilar, Luena, Maestre Martín De Almagro, Majorino, Maldonado López, Marques Margarida, Marques Pedro, Matić, Mavrides, Maxová, Mebarek, Mikser, Miller, Molnár, Moreno Sánchez, Moretti, Negrescu, Neuser, Nica, Noichl, Olekas, Papadakis Demetris, Penkova, Picierno, Picula, Pisapia, Pizarro, Plumb, Regner, Reuten, Roberti, Rodríguez-Piñero, Rónai, Ros Sempere, Ruiz Devesa, Sánchez Amor, Sant, Santos, Schaldemose, Schieder, Schuster, Sidl, Silva Pereira, Sippel, Smeriglio, Stanishev, Tang, Tarabella, Tax, Tinagli, Toia, Tudose, Ujhelyi, Ušakovs, Van Brempt, Vind, Vitanov, Vollath, Wölken, Wolters, Yoncheva, Zorrinho The Left: Arvanitis, Aubry, Barrena Arza, Björk, Bompard, Botenga, Chaibi, Daly, Demirel, Ernst, Flanagan, Georgoulis, Gusmão, Hazekamp, Kokkalis, Konečná, Kouloglou, Kountoura, MacManus, Matias, Maurel, Michels, Modig, Omarjee, Papadimoulis, Pelletier, Pineda, Rego, Rodríguez Palop, Schirdewan, Scholz, Urbán Crespo, Villanueva Ruiz, Villumsen, Wallace Verts/ALE: Alametsä, Alfonsi, Andresen, Auken, Biteau, Bloss, Boeselager, Breyer, Bricmont, Carême, Cavazzini, Cormand, Corrao, Cuffe, Dalunde, D'Amato, Delbos-Corfield, Delli, Deparnay-Grunenberg, Eickhout, Evi, Franz, Freund, Geese, Giegold, Gregorová, Gruffat, Guerreiro, Hahn Henrike, Häusling, Hautala, Herzberger-Fofana, Holmgren, Jadot, Keller Ska, Kolaja, Kuhnke, Lagodinsky, Lamberts, Langensiepen, Marquardt, Matthieu, Metz, Neumann, Nienaß, Niinistö, O'Sullivan, Paulus, Pedicini, Peksa, Peter-Hansen, Reintke, Riba i Giner, Ripa, Rivasi, Roose, Ropė, Satouri, Semsrott, Solé, Spurek, Strik, Toussaint, Urtasun, Vana, Van Sparrentak, Von Cramon-Taubadel, Waitz, Wiener, Yenbou, Ždanoka

choo-t 5y ago

It seems that the Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse [0] are as obvious as they are effective. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...

BjoernKW 5y ago

That the European Parliament didn't spontaneously disappear in a massive vortex of cognitive dissonance can only mean that most MEPs either don't understand GDPR or this new law, maybe neither.

verst 5y ago

I'm seeing a lot of responses from fellow folks in the US that seem to imply this EU (proposed?) regulation is unprecedented in the US. Is that actually so?

rsynnott 5y ago
No. This essentially allows providers (Facebook et al) to look at the messages their users are sending. They used to be allowed do this in the EU, and have always been allowed do it in the US.

alfalfasprout 5y ago

It's becoming scary how dangerous legislation is passed under the guise of protecting against "child exploitation". It's basically political suicide for politicians to vote against it (since the public cannot understand the nuance).

bwindels 5y ago
Up to people who do understand it to expose the ones voting for it.
ArkanExplorer 5y ago
EU Politicians pass anti-privacy legislation to 'protect' us from terrorism.... Which is caused by the open borders and migrant settlement programs promoted by the EU in the first place. Convenient isn't it?
- ben_w 5y ago
  EU internal borders are open, the external ones are not. It’s a bit like the USA in that regard, biggest difference is our versions of California and Louisiana have their own national languages.

quickthrower2 5y ago

This would also include any non EU citizens communications with an EU citizen. Also you might be an EU citizen without realising (by descent)

estaseuropano 5y ago
Thai comment makes no sense whatsoever and i do wonder what absurd world you imagine. This law gives companies in the EU the legal grounds to do some scanning measures, it is neither an obligation to do so, nor when companies do so is anyone checking whether you, a person outside the EU, happen to have European ancestors. Logically of course that applies to residents, as would the laws in any other place.
- quickthrower2 5y ago
  I’m just trying to imagine this world, thanks. It’s absurd enough without me absurdifying it further. Ok so what you are saying is any users whatsoever of EU based email providers can be subject to companies doing some scanning if they wish to. Since most multinationals will have European offices, it might apply to every provider and therefore pretty much everyone.
  - estaseuropano 5y ago
    How this will play out is to be seen. But in many places this is already possible - see US and AU. Normally it applies to your local legal context, so if they are a multinational and have an EU branch they likely already have the servers separate to respect GDPR.

f6v 5y ago

Damn CCP! Oh, wait…

alkonaut 5y ago

> Previously secure end-to-end encrypted messenger services such as Whatsapp or Signal would be forced to install a backdoor. This is surely a fantastic extrapolation of this author. The chance of this happening is zero, which is also the chance of this being explicitly stated in the legal text. It would be a disaster of course. And extremely controversial. Which is why it doesn’t just get passed under the radar, even as a temporary measure. Isn’t there a copy of the actual legal text anywhere? Or a sober analysis of that text that isn’t made by a member of the pirate party? Edit: Here https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2020/0568/COM_COM(2020)0568_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_instituti... It doesn’t mention encryption, back doors, or forcing any entity to do anything. It does mention allowing companies to temporarily continue current monitoring for child abuse under certain conditions. What exactly is the outrage about?

aksss 5y ago
> the chance of this happening is zero https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/471/227/dd0.png https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/471/227/dd0...
- cassonmars 5y ago
  Why would a company in the US (Signal) decide to comply with the doctrine of another country, especially a doctrine antithetical to their entire business?
  - aksss 5y ago
    Well, zero is not just a really small number. But to answer "why" would involve unpacking many direct and indirect motivations. First, I would never trust that any corporation has any doctrine that they would or could stand by ad infinitum given the right pressures. At the end of they day you're talking about humans. A group of self-interested humans. A group of self-interested humans whose makeup changes as directors and executives rotate out. A group whose intentions can be undercut by an individual. Think you that the "Snowden" move doesn't happen the other way around? Probably more frequent that the intelligence communities infiltrate private organizations with rogue contractors than they experience it themselves. Probably really dang easy to be honest. Since it came up earlier, I might just casually point to AT&T letting the NSA (or whomever) mirror all the traffic running through their network[0]. That would seem antithetical to their business, but obviously there are competing motivations. Where are those motivations sourced? Who makes the call? We don't know. I guess that's my point - you can't put faith in opaque decision making processes. I wouldn't rely on them, is all I'm saying. You could say the risk is low, but it's definitely not zero. [0] https://www.propublica.org/article/nsa-spying-relies-on-atts-extreme-willingness-to-help https://www.propublica.org/article/nsa-spying-relies-on-atts...

yawaworht1978 5y ago

Whatever this law or proposal is, it sounds bad and I don't like it. The only one good thing would be if the ones who draft, pass and implement it are not exempt and equally subject to the invasive tentacles of the buerocrats. I can kinda understand how and why crime happens, but I never understood the motives or way of thought of the people who want this kind of stuff implemented.uch less the ones who vote for it.

aksss 5y ago
Yeah, it's pretty funny how we have the government literally wiretapping and spying on journalists, and that's okay, but when it comes home to roost, the representatives don't like it when it happens to them. Funny probably isn't the right word. Obama: https://www.wired.com/2013/05/doj-got-reporter-phone-records/ https://www.wired.com/2013/05/doj-got-reporter-phone-records... Trump: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/05/trump-doj-reporter-surveillance https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/05/trump-doj-reporter-s... Surveillance for thee but not for me: https://www.rt.com/usa/nsa-probably-congress-greenwald-arrest-651/ https://www.rt.com/usa/nsa-probably-congress-greenwald-arres...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

NumberCruncher 5y ago

Every time a surveillance system and violation of privacy rights is advertised in the EU as a solution against child abuse and trafficking I ask myself how such a system could have changed the outcome of a case like Dutroux. Would have been the dozens of witnesses and police officers involved in the investigation suicided a way sooner, later, more silently, or at all? We will never know...

Lapsa 5y ago

RIP internet

unnouinceput 5y ago

Hopefully Switzerland won't become member of EU any time soon. I started to move my e-mail accounts to protonmail in 2018, and still not done as old friends/business partners like to use my old accounts. Human habits, a hard death.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

shrubble 5y ago

Reminder that even Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols knew 25 years ago that Jimmy Savile was abusing children and the BBC upper management must have known many more details about their star, than Johnny Rotten. Not only was nothing done but BBC's upper management escaped any responsibility for the protection they gave Savile. One could mention the Dutroux affair, British PM Ted Heath, and many more scandals... yet it does seem that the European elite excuse themselves and instead invade everyone else's privacy instead.

swiley 5y ago
Facebook fails to go after child pornography despite it's insane panopticon.

hungryforcodes 5y ago

Well it's nice the EU makes it so easy to choose to live anywhere world wide. If it's going to implement a draconian surveillance state that will converge towards corrupted abuse by its officials and member states, then why not live in any number of totalitarian like countries elsewhere with cheap out of living and a nice beach instead? There is no functional difference anyways.

CryptoPunk 5y ago

Being democratic does not ensure having a free society. It takes active democratic participation, by people who believe in the principles of a free society, for democracies to institute laws that establish free societies.

jaimex2 5y ago

OK Boomers, good luck with that. It's fun watching old people legislate on things they don't understand.

test_epsilon 5y ago

I hear lots of amazing sounds (and accompanying self congratulation) from the EU when it comes to "human rights". Time and time again though, they prove they're not actually interested in human rights or interests of their own citizens. Which means all their other cries of human rights about other issues are empty crocodile tears. Even when it may happen that the side they take is a good one from a human rights perspective, that's obviously purely by coincidence that it happens to align with their agenda. Horrifying.

hkai 5y ago

Does it mean I can take out my enemies by sending them child porn?

rurban 5y ago

The Koehntoppsche Idiotenfalle or news:de.alt.binaries.sex.children proposal to discuss usenet and web censorship is actually 25 years old. http://web.archive.org/web/20040618062603/http://kris.koehntopp.de/inkomploehntopp/00078.html http://web.archive.org/web/20040618062603/http://kris.koehnt... (German)