16 ms·

Initiatives like Chat Control makes me pessimistic. They keep on coming in all sort of variations and we defend. Given enough of such iterations, at some point

Initiatives like Chat Control makes me pessimistic. They keep on coming in all sort of variations and we defend. Given enough of such iterations, at some point though they’ll eventually be lucky and god knows how long it will take to revert things. And what I don’t get is that this sort of proposed legislation is more than Stasi could've ever wished. And yet it’s openly discussed as if it’s good idea. And note that “they” are supposed to represent “us”. It freaks me out to the point that I rather have my country leave the EU.

hef19898 3y ago
Because leaving the EU worked out so well last time someone tried.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Speaking as a Remain voter, I think that 2023 would look the almost the same post-Covid and Russia invading Ukraine. Brexit is a distant third in terms of damage done.
  - justinclift 3y ago
    It's probably made the nation more fragile / less resilient to externals shocks though, such as Covid and the Ukraine invasion.
  - devjab 3y ago
    Brexit didn’t really help in terms of privacy though, the UK being one of the leading western anti-encryption countries politically. At least within the EU you have the chance of having at least one member state be an adult about it and realise that mass surveillance won’t work out the way they hope.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      Well, the UK government could still introduce a law of their own anyway. Unless you're saying the EU would've created an EU-wide law that mandated that member states couldn't do it, but that seems very unlikely based on what we know of the EU.
      - sakjur 3y ago
        They kind of have one. The charter of fundamental rights of the EU contains privacy protections that has been used to shoot down at least the data retention directive and IIRC the EU-US data transfer frameworks. It’s possible that the CJEU strikes down a chat control-style law based on that charter, but preferably we don’t have to test that.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
hutzlibu 3y ago
Luckily governments are not a monolithic and coherent block. France for example was an early backer of matrix.. So if the worst happens and a mandatory chat control will gets implemented by the government, then it is a good thing that other parts of the government helped making sure, there are working alternatives avaiable, that are not so easy to regulate.
- MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
  But isn't that precisely the problem with large supranational orgs like the EU, to which its member countries cede some of their sovereignty. Countries often HAVE to implement EU policy in their own laws, or else face sanctions. They can't just pick and choose.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    Yes, but we as a society can then choose and pick decentral end to end encrypted solutions like matrix over centralised ones like whatsapp. And then they will have to back off, if enough people and companies are doing it (likely legal, through loopholes, only big services have to implement it). Or being fine to only censor whatsapp and the mainstream.
  - Moldoteck 3y ago
    for some issues it's the other way around: not all eu laws can be passed bc some countries vote against them. That's also the reason you can't vote out a country so you need to find compromises
- Moldoteck 3y ago
  AFAIK germany too uses some app with signal protocol
- kmlx 3y ago
  > France for example https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/data-retention-france-illegally-extends-blanket-mass-surveillance-of-the-entire-population/ https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/data-retention-france-illeg... > In a decree made public today [18. October 2022], French Prime Minister Élisabeth Borne has extended the temporary retention of communications data of all citizens in France for another year. The blanket retention obligation concerns identity data (surname, first name, date and place of birth, postal address(es), e-mail address(es), telephone number(s)) as well as payment information, connection data (IP addresses, port numbers, identification numbers of users and their devices, date, time and duration of each communication, data on supplementary services and their providers)
ko27 3y ago
You should be glad EU exists not wishing to leave it. More than half of countries support this kind of control, and yet it probably won't pass because of a minority of countries. Seems like EU will actually end up preventing this from spreading across the continent.
- mannerheim 3y ago
  Does the law require unanimity, or just a majority? This page[0] seems to suggest only a majority is necessary, but I can't find anything else to back that up; but I suppose we'll find out in a week or two. [0]: https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/chat-control-2-0-eu-governments-set-to-approve-the-end-of-private-messaging-and-secure-encryption/ https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/chat-control-2-0-eu-governm...
  - gmerc 3y ago
    It’s not gonna pass against Germany.
    - chopin 3y ago
      How do you know? Faeser is not known to be fond of our constitution.
      - petre 3y ago
        Maybe they still remember Stasi.
  - tankenmate 3y ago
    The law will first have to pass the EU parliament which is a simple majority of the plenary (i.e. all MEPs). Then it needs to pass the Council which in this case would probably require qualified majority at the least and unanimity at the most. Qualified majority would be at the least 55% of Council countries and Council representation from at least 65% of the population. Unanimity is obvious; all EU Council members would have to agree.
mrtksn 3y ago
>It freaks me out to the point that I rather have my country leave the EU. What makes you think that your country’s politicians don’t want that but some people in Brussels are forcing it? Those people in Brussels are just people from all the countries, including yours. You also vote them in. The desire of governments controlling the population is universal.
- HHC-Hunter 3y ago
  Eh, while I agree with the comments around desire. I think it compounds the bigger the governing body. Look at the five eyes for example.
- mannerheim 3y ago
  Because some of the governments in TFA have given positions opposing it?
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    And they can keep opposing it if they really don't want it. However I agree that EU can also be used as a scapegoat when implementing unpopular policies, unfortunately. They can claim that they totally didn't want it but EU mede them accept it.
    - mannerheim 3y ago
      Can the EU sanction countries for not complying?
      - izacus 3y ago
        Yes. But having local polititians whine against EU regulation and then vote for it is a common pattern to get easy wins with easily led people like the original posters here.
        mannerheim 3y ago
gman83 3y ago
It seems like the EU is gridlocked on implementing any regulations here. It's a buffer against national governments going ahead and implementing this.
honzabe 3y ago
It's not like the EU is some separate entity endowed by special stupidity. It's just "us", humans - some of us smart/informed, some of us less so. If you remove your country from the whole, one time you might be out of reach of some stupid idea from the outside, the other time you will be out of reach of the reasonable voices outside, fully exposed to your home-grown bad ideas. And that is ignoring the fact that if your country left, you would in practice still adhere to those stupid rules because half of your country does business with the EU. You would just lose influence on those rules. At least being a part of a large entity has some advantages on the world stage.
anovikov 3y ago
But well, we all know that in the end this law will not be obeyed anyway? Everyone will blatantly violate it. It will only be used to punish political "wrongdoers" (say the social network that refuses to mute opposition to the ruling party).
rdm_blackhole 3y ago
The worst part of Chat Control is that they know this will be a privacy nightmare, but get this, some people most likely in the inner circles of the EU elites will have exemptions so that it doesn't breach their own security or confidentiality. Rules for thee not for me.
js8 3y ago
I would suggest support more direct democracy movements in Europe, such as DiEM25.
jeltz 3y ago
My country, Sweden, is one of the ones pushing for this to be implemented so I am very happy to have the EU block it. What is the position of politicians in your country?
- throwaway60722 3y ago
  My country is one of the ones pushing for this to not be implemented, so I am very unhappy to have the EU force it.
zoobab 3y ago
"And note that 'they' are supposed to represent 'us'." 'They' in the Council of Ministers do not represent us, they are not elected by 'us', and their names sometimes are not even on polls. They also have a conflict of interests, as Minister of Interior wants more power for himself and his services.
hcfman 3y ago
If the governments vote laws that are aggressive towards the people, then the software developers need to make licenses for their software disallow government use until they start to be more citizen friendly. There are a lot of software developers in this forum.
- hcfman 3y ago
  At a certain point you have to say enough is enough. The same for the cyber resilience act that spits in the face of millions of open source developers who collectively are the only reason governments have all their nice toys to play with.

hef19898 3y ago

Because leaving the EU worked out so well last time someone tried.

robertlagrant 3y ago
Speaking as a Remain voter, I think that 2023 would look the almost the same post-Covid and Russia invading Ukraine. Brexit is a distant third in terms of damage done.
- justinclift 3y ago
  It's probably made the nation more fragile / less resilient to externals shocks though, such as Covid and the Ukraine invasion.
- devjab 3y ago
  Brexit didn’t really help in terms of privacy though, the UK being one of the leading western anti-encryption countries politically. At least within the EU you have the chance of having at least one member state be an adult about it and realise that mass surveillance won’t work out the way they hope.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    Well, the UK government could still introduce a law of their own anyway. Unless you're saying the EU would've created an EU-wide law that mandated that member states couldn't do it, but that seems very unlikely based on what we know of the EU.
    - sakjur 3y ago
      They kind of have one. The charter of fundamental rights of the EU contains privacy protections that has been used to shoot down at least the data retention directive and IIRC the EU-US data transfer frameworks. It’s possible that the CJEU strikes down a chat control-style law based on that charter, but preferably we don’t have to test that.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

hutzlibu 3y ago

Luckily governments are not a monolithic and coherent block. France for example was an early backer of matrix.. So if the worst happens and a mandatory chat control will gets implemented by the government, then it is a good thing that other parts of the government helped making sure, there are working alternatives avaiable, that are not so easy to regulate.

MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
But isn't that precisely the problem with large supranational orgs like the EU, to which its member countries cede some of their sovereignty. Countries often HAVE to implement EU policy in their own laws, or else face sanctions. They can't just pick and choose.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  Yes, but we as a society can then choose and pick decentral end to end encrypted solutions like matrix over centralised ones like whatsapp. And then they will have to back off, if enough people and companies are doing it (likely legal, through loopholes, only big services have to implement it). Or being fine to only censor whatsapp and the mainstream.
- Moldoteck 3y ago
  for some issues it's the other way around: not all eu laws can be passed bc some countries vote against them. That's also the reason you can't vote out a country so you need to find compromises
Moldoteck 3y ago
AFAIK germany too uses some app with signal protocol
kmlx 3y ago
> France for example https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/data-retention-france-illegally-extends-blanket-mass-surveillance-of-the-entire-population/ https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/data-retention-france-illeg... > In a decree made public today [18. October 2022], French Prime Minister Élisabeth Borne has extended the temporary retention of communications data of all citizens in France for another year. The blanket retention obligation concerns identity data (surname, first name, date and place of birth, postal address(es), e-mail address(es), telephone number(s)) as well as payment information, connection data (IP addresses, port numbers, identification numbers of users and their devices, date, time and duration of each communication, data on supplementary services and their providers)

ko27 3y ago

You should be glad EU exists not wishing to leave it. More than half of countries support this kind of control, and yet it probably won't pass because of a minority of countries. Seems like EU will actually end up preventing this from spreading across the continent.

mannerheim 3y ago
Does the law require unanimity, or just a majority? This page[0] seems to suggest only a majority is necessary, but I can't find anything else to back that up; but I suppose we'll find out in a week or two. [0]: https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/chat-control-2-0-eu-governments-set-to-approve-the-end-of-private-messaging-and-secure-encryption/ https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/chat-control-2-0-eu-governm...
- gmerc 3y ago
  It’s not gonna pass against Germany.
  - chopin 3y ago
    How do you know? Faeser is not known to be fond of our constitution.
    - petre 3y ago
      Maybe they still remember Stasi.
- tankenmate 3y ago
  The law will first have to pass the EU parliament which is a simple majority of the plenary (i.e. all MEPs). Then it needs to pass the Council which in this case would probably require qualified majority at the least and unanimity at the most. Qualified majority would be at the least 55% of Council countries and Council representation from at least 65% of the population. Unanimity is obvious; all EU Council members would have to agree.

mrtksn 3y ago

>It freaks me out to the point that I rather have my country leave the EU. What makes you think that your country’s politicians don’t want that but some people in Brussels are forcing it? Those people in Brussels are just people from all the countries, including yours. You also vote them in. The desire of governments controlling the population is universal.

HHC-Hunter 3y ago
Eh, while I agree with the comments around desire. I think it compounds the bigger the governing body. Look at the five eyes for example.
mannerheim 3y ago
Because some of the governments in TFA have given positions opposing it?
- mrtksn 3y ago
  And they can keep opposing it if they really don't want it. However I agree that EU can also be used as a scapegoat when implementing unpopular policies, unfortunately. They can claim that they totally didn't want it but EU mede them accept it.
  - mannerheim 3y ago
    Can the EU sanction countries for not complying?
    - izacus 3y ago
      Yes. But having local polititians whine against EU regulation and then vote for it is a common pattern to get easy wins with easily led people like the original posters here.
      - mannerheim 3y ago

gman83 3y ago

It seems like the EU is gridlocked on implementing any regulations here. It's a buffer against national governments going ahead and implementing this.

honzabe 3y ago

It's not like the EU is some separate entity endowed by special stupidity. It's just "us", humans - some of us smart/informed, some of us less so. If you remove your country from the whole, one time you might be out of reach of some stupid idea from the outside, the other time you will be out of reach of the reasonable voices outside, fully exposed to your home-grown bad ideas. And that is ignoring the fact that if your country left, you would in practice still adhere to those stupid rules because half of your country does business with the EU. You would just lose influence on those rules. At least being a part of a large entity has some advantages on the world stage.

anovikov 3y ago

But well, we all know that in the end this law will not be obeyed anyway? Everyone will blatantly violate it. It will only be used to punish political "wrongdoers" (say the social network that refuses to mute opposition to the ruling party).

rdm_blackhole 3y ago

The worst part of Chat Control is that they know this will be a privacy nightmare, but get this, some people most likely in the inner circles of the EU elites will have exemptions so that it doesn't breach their own security or confidentiality. Rules for thee not for me.

js8 3y ago

I would suggest support more direct democracy movements in Europe, such as DiEM25.

jeltz 3y ago

My country, Sweden, is one of the ones pushing for this to be implemented so I am very happy to have the EU block it. What is the position of politicians in your country?

throwaway60722 3y ago
My country is one of the ones pushing for this to not be implemented, so I am very unhappy to have the EU force it.

zoobab 3y ago

"And note that 'they' are supposed to represent 'us'." 'They' in the Council of Ministers do not represent us, they are not elected by 'us', and their names sometimes are not even on polls. They also have a conflict of interests, as Minister of Interior wants more power for himself and his services.

hcfman 3y ago

If the governments vote laws that are aggressive towards the people, then the software developers need to make licenses for their software disallow government use until they start to be more citizen friendly. There are a lot of software developers in this forum.

hcfman 3y ago
At a certain point you have to say enough is enough. The same for the cyber resilience act that spits in the face of millions of open source developers who collectively are the only reason governments have all their nice toys to play with.