11 ms·

Chat Control faces blocking minority in the EU

403 points by miohtama 1y ago

Bender 1y ago
Chat Control repelled 4th time in the EU Nice! They will keep trying until they wear people down. Keep up the great battle!
- eloisant 1y ago
  We have to win every time, they only have to win once
  - SiempreViernes 1y ago
    No? If they win it mostly flips who pushes the proposal to change the law and who opposes it.
    - s1mplicissimus 1y ago
      I think the implication was that there's something like a tipping point after which the surveillance leads to people not daring to oppose it in an organized way anymore. Which, at least to me, is a way more realistic danger than, for example, AGI.
    - Sharlin 1y ago
      It's usually much easier to pass a law than to get rid of it once passed.
    - oytis 1y ago
      What kind of government will on its own initiative want to give citizens more privacy not to say actively push for it against other governments? EU parliament cannot propose laws, so it would be nearly impossible to grassroor such an initiative
  - rsynnott 1y ago
    Well, realistically, if this were to pass, it would likely run into trouble with the courts. There's a bit of a history of this; in particular the Data Protection Directive got struck down by the ECJ for violating fundamental rights.
    - some_random 1y ago
      Never trust the courts to protect your rights, even if you think that a law obviously infringes on obviously well enshrined rights that still is no guarantee of victory.
    - orwin 1y ago
      That's probably the plan anyway. The plan is to defang the courts, and especially the ECHR, since the beginning. The AfD explicitely said it was their plan, the National front in France didn't, but would be very happy if it didn't had any power, and a lot of media close to the neolib/conservative/nationalist are more than happy to shit on the ECHR (Pericles project is only from one of those). Each time the courts disqualify a parliamentary law or executive decision, it has to spend political power. If the decisions or laws it stop are all from the same side, that side can start chipping the courts power away. The reason for the legislative part to exist is to avoid a dictatorship of the majority (basically X is arrested for something, Y is not even though he did the same thing, because Y is from the majority group). Having the ECHR censoring the law would have been sold by a lot of media as "the ECHR is supporting pedophiles" and "those non-elected judges wants to keep abusing children", and hopefully after a dozen years of similar attemps, the court would be either defanged or totally partisan.
  - spwa4 1y ago
    Except ... where do you get the idea that the police forces will respect the law? If you want to get an indication of that just read the judgements here: https://www.echr.coe.int/ https://www.echr.coe.int/ Note, especially, how many judgements are about the state already getting convicted a first time and then immediately violating the judgement, and in some cases the size of the convictions tells you something: https://www.echr.coe.int/w/judgment-concerning-t%C3%BCrkiye-7 https://www.echr.coe.int/w/judgment-concerning-t%C3%BCrkiye-... (over 6000 very serious individual violations by law enforcement) Or take https://www.echr.coe.int/w/judgment-concerning-greece-9 https://www.echr.coe.int/w/judgment-concerning-greece-9 where the Greek state illegally abducted 2 children and moved the to the US. Obviously this court provides no recourse, and the Greek state is entirely free to just totally ignore the judgement. So where do you get this idea that law enforcement or the state will respect the law when they don't get what they want?
NeutralForest 1y ago
Great! Crazy that it can be brought back every time though, it makes me very uncomfortable.
- rsynnott 1y ago
  I mean, how else could to work? Beyond a new EU treaty (Lisbon treaty replacement) banning discussion of it, I'm not sure that there's any way to prevent it coming back.
  - m000 1y ago
    Voting should be on specific clauses, and if anything is rejected there should be a cooling period before it can be brought up for voting again. The cooling period does not preclude discussion of course. That's why we pay the MEPs: They are actually expected to show up in the EP and discuss. Not only show up on voting day and follow what their party dictated.
jacknews 1y ago
Just ridiculous how authorities are perservering with this. The ruling should come with a timeout period; they're not allowed to try anything similar again for 20 years or whatever, and even then only if circumstances have changed.
- vladms 1y ago
  I prefer a simpler system if possible, adding further rules ("don't try anything similar for X years") seems to me that will make matters worse (who decides if it is similar enough? can you challenge that? at what stage you have to decide? etc.) Also, are you sure most population is against ? I did not see a poll on that. I know enough people that like "authoritarian" governments and laws, so I think we (the ones that don't agree) should make an effort to convince people that too much "authority" is not the most efficient/smart way. Some of those people are in fact just afraid even if they would not admit it...
  - jacknews 1y ago
    Yes you are right, the people and the authorities should be better informed. The problem is that these kinds of laws tend to be one-way streets. Once systems are in place, they are hard to remove, so there should be some protection against unenlightened authorities just trying again and again and 'getting lucky'.
elenchev 1y ago
see you next year
kamil55555 1y ago
I know normal ordinary people that were defending this...
m000 1y ago
There should be sorts of an exponential backoff mandated for the contents of bills. Now, every lobby group keeps pushing their sketchy agenda, knowing well that they will eventually pass it. Worst case, it will be passed bit by bit.
- zenmac 1y ago
  Good idea. yeah at this point, law making every were just seems like brute force attack at this point. We need some kind of security assure to keep out these 'law making crackers'
- mariusor 1y ago
  I doubt that this can be actually done as intended because the wording of a bill can be changed enough to pretend it's not the same as the previous versions. I can't really think of a way to make this work, but indeed it would be a great addition to law passing.
- nickslaughter02 1y ago
  It exists but the proposal must be voted on. These people will not put the proposal to vote if they know it will not pass. That's why they ask countries' positions up front.
- arlcode 1y ago
  That's also problematic. Currently the same proposal is being discussed over and over again but if that wouldn't be possible it's easy introduce "similar" ideas. Ultimately law makers need to be able to pass new laws, even controversial ones, or the power to so slowly shifts to someone else (e.g. the executive in the USA) Not having a majority is the only way to stop the process and if the population is in favor, doesn't care or can't be bothered any law will pass.
  - mariusor 1y ago
    I disagree on this one. In the same way you can't be prosecuted twice for the same crime in the US system under the "double jeopardy" clause, there should be an equivalent system where the same law can't be pushed over and over until it passes.
nickslaughter02 1y ago
All this means there's a blocking minority (supposedly) which can go away immediately if Germany flips. The debate is happening today. Nothing is repelled. The title needs to be corrected. It's borderline maliciously incorrect.
- miohtama 1y ago
  Edited, thank you
HelloUsername 1y ago
Discussed yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45209366 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45209366
PanoptesYC 1y ago
What is the UI from in the twitter screenshot? I'd like to read the positions of the Supporting/Undecided countries.
- twsted 1y ago
  https://fightchatcontrol.eu/ https://fightchatcontrol.eu/ (And I need to understand why the hell my country, Italy, supports the motion)
  - wizzwizz4 1y ago
    Contact them, and ask!
  - phtrivier 1y ago
    Well, if you will allow the steelmanning, I can think of a couple of reasons why the authorities of _Italy_, of all countries, would want to follow organized groups conducting illegal activities. I mean, "organized crime" and "Italy" probably appears in a couple of n-grams in LLMs index, right ? Maybe even if you narrow it down to reviews of movie trilogies from the 70s ? That being said, I'm sure you will disagree. The whole discussion on those topics is about mistrust: - law enforcement claims to need tools to prosecute organized crime (which does exists), and claims any opponents is just mafias masquerading as concerned citizens. - opponents claims the new tool is only meant for surveillance, and claims any opponent is just an autocrat masquerading as concerned parents. - fun fact 1 : both autocrats and mafias exist - fun fact 2 : reading some messages mean reading all messages Which is why we have the debate every few years. Meanwhile law enforcements use other tools (they have been for years), mafias are still out there, organized crime is still harming lots of people, and encrypted messages are relatively safe - but people use unencrypted FB's messaging because it's easier.
    - miohtama 1y ago
      Mafia has been around in Italy for more than 200 years, even before messengers were invented. It's likely this won't change it. Meanwhile Meloni has deployed NSO against Italian journalists.
thw_9a83c 1y ago
I would really like to know from a perspective of an informed Danish citizen, why the Denmark chose to focus on the Chat Control legislation as one of their priorities during its EU presidency. It somehow doesn't fit with my view of the Scandinavians as a technically competent people. The proposed solution is absurd and can easily be overcome by the real offenders.
- speckster 1y ago
  Can't speak for the danish, but at least in Sweden i think its more of a "moral police" issue. Our politicians just scream about catching pedophiles and then close their eyes to any privacy issues. Lots of "well if you have nothing to hide then what is the problem?". The people pushing the issue are not really that technically competent either.
- nickslaughter02 1y ago
  Choose: - Lobbying. Thorn and other "NGOs" are shaking in excitement about new revenue streams by providing the surveillance software. https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/25/who-benefits-inside-the-eus-fight-over-scanning-for-child-sex-content/ https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/25/who-benefits-inside-the... - Scanning of your emails and storage etc. is illegal in EU. The EU parliament voted for an exception which allows it (https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/167712 https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/167712). It has been extended twice and is set to expire in April 2026. EU parliament threatened to not extend it again. This proposal should become a law which permanently replaces it and is revised every 3 years. A nice opportunity to include scanning of your encrypted communication too.
- rand846633 1y ago
  This fits the Nordic society and political style. If police can stop pedestrians (not vehiclists) just for having red eyes and then draw their blood to fine them for THC use, that’s already a direct violation of personal freedom and bodily autonomy. Once that’s normalized, extending similar logic to monitoring communications is hardly surprising, it treats both your body and your mind as open to state inspection. Src: https://wfad.se/blogs/per-johansson/drug-testing-for-swedish-police-officers/ https://wfad.se/blogs/per-johansson/drug-testing-for-swedish...
ysofunny 1y ago
meanwhile more and more public schools roll out cameras and surveiled environments for the students when those students enter the workforce, they expect the surveilance. they grew up under chat control so they're used to it. get with the times to live and die another day
- Ylpertnodi 1y ago
  > meanwhile more and more public schools roll out cameras and surveiled environments for the students ...for the school shooters, i presume.?
  - kiicia 1y ago
    And how camera is supposed to prevent shooter from firing bullets? You think like shooter cares if they are filmed or not? If anything it will encourage them to shoot because there will be more permanent record of their actions…
- Ylpertnodi 1y ago
  > meanwhile more and more public schools roll out cameras and surveiled environments for the students ...for the school shooters, i presume?
- immibis 1y ago
  This is illegal in Germany at least.
varispeed 1y ago
Chat Controls will inevitably lead to concentration camps and mass killings once the power learns what people actually talk about. They become paranoid and afraid. They will try to nip dissent and perceived threat in the bud. We are on the slippery slope and people should stop seeing EU as roses and fluffy bunnies. They are corrupt autocrats and if you think they are not, you are rejecting evidence of your eyes and ears.
sensanaty 1y ago
The most depressing and disgusting - though not surprising - part is that the politicans want to draw out exemptions for themselves with these laws, under supposed "professional secrecy" rules. What do they have to hide, exactly? After all, their logic tells us that they shouldn't worry if they have nothing to hide, right? And if anyone should have their chats publicly available, the number 1 people should be the scumbags that are pushing for this so adamantly. Let's see them lead by example, then maybe I would consider this as anything other than a draconian power grab.
- bxsioshc 1y ago
  [dead]
hereme888 1y ago
Am I correct to understand that the amount of arrests thanks to end-user backdoors for CSAM, ever, is zero?
- buyucu 1y ago
  If really implemented, this thing would generate so many false positives that it would force law enforcement to waste a lot of money going through them.
coldtea 1y ago
With the EU being only nominally democratic in operation, the minority will face pressures on unrelated fields (EU funds, etc) by Brussels and larger dogs, until it yields. Happened time and again.
cobbaut 1y ago
I get strong "Office Open XML" vibes from this one. There will be a day when this passes, and again it will be a loss for humans and a win for (American) tech giants.

403 points by miohtama 1y ago

Chat Control repelled 4th time in the EU Nice! They will keep trying until they wear people down. Keep up the great battle!

eloisant 1y ago
We have to win every time, they only have to win once
- SiempreViernes 1y ago
  No? If they win it mostly flips who pushes the proposal to change the law and who opposes it.
  - s1mplicissimus 1y ago
    I think the implication was that there's something like a tipping point after which the surveillance leads to people not daring to oppose it in an organized way anymore. Which, at least to me, is a way more realistic danger than, for example, AGI.
  - Sharlin 1y ago
    It's usually much easier to pass a law than to get rid of it once passed.
  - oytis 1y ago
    What kind of government will on its own initiative want to give citizens more privacy not to say actively push for it against other governments? EU parliament cannot propose laws, so it would be nearly impossible to grassroor such an initiative
- rsynnott 1y ago
  Well, realistically, if this were to pass, it would likely run into trouble with the courts. There's a bit of a history of this; in particular the Data Protection Directive got struck down by the ECJ for violating fundamental rights.
  - some_random 1y ago
    Never trust the courts to protect your rights, even if you think that a law obviously infringes on obviously well enshrined rights that still is no guarantee of victory.
  - orwin 1y ago
    That's probably the plan anyway. The plan is to defang the courts, and especially the ECHR, since the beginning. The AfD explicitely said it was their plan, the National front in France didn't, but would be very happy if it didn't had any power, and a lot of media close to the neolib/conservative/nationalist are more than happy to shit on the ECHR (Pericles project is only from one of those). Each time the courts disqualify a parliamentary law or executive decision, it has to spend political power. If the decisions or laws it stop are all from the same side, that side can start chipping the courts power away. The reason for the legislative part to exist is to avoid a dictatorship of the majority (basically X is arrested for something, Y is not even though he did the same thing, because Y is from the majority group). Having the ECHR censoring the law would have been sold by a lot of media as "the ECHR is supporting pedophiles" and "those non-elected judges wants to keep abusing children", and hopefully after a dozen years of similar attemps, the court would be either defanged or totally partisan.
- spwa4 1y ago
  Except ... where do you get the idea that the police forces will respect the law? If you want to get an indication of that just read the judgements here: https://www.echr.coe.int/ https://www.echr.coe.int/ Note, especially, how many judgements are about the state already getting convicted a first time and then immediately violating the judgement, and in some cases the size of the convictions tells you something: https://www.echr.coe.int/w/judgment-concerning-t%C3%BCrkiye-7 https://www.echr.coe.int/w/judgment-concerning-t%C3%BCrkiye-... (over 6000 very serious individual violations by law enforcement) Or take https://www.echr.coe.int/w/judgment-concerning-greece-9 https://www.echr.coe.int/w/judgment-concerning-greece-9 where the Greek state illegally abducted 2 children and moved the to the US. Obviously this court provides no recourse, and the Greek state is entirely free to just totally ignore the judgement. So where do you get this idea that law enforcement or the state will respect the law when they don't get what they want?

NeutralForest 1y ago

Great! Crazy that it can be brought back every time though, it makes me very uncomfortable.

rsynnott 1y ago
I mean, how else could to work? Beyond a new EU treaty (Lisbon treaty replacement) banning discussion of it, I'm not sure that there's any way to prevent it coming back.
- m000 1y ago
  Voting should be on specific clauses, and if anything is rejected there should be a cooling period before it can be brought up for voting again. The cooling period does not preclude discussion of course. That's why we pay the MEPs: They are actually expected to show up in the EP and discuss. Not only show up on voting day and follow what their party dictated.

jacknews 1y ago

Just ridiculous how authorities are perservering with this. The ruling should come with a timeout period; they're not allowed to try anything similar again for 20 years or whatever, and even then only if circumstances have changed.

vladms 1y ago
I prefer a simpler system if possible, adding further rules ("don't try anything similar for X years") seems to me that will make matters worse (who decides if it is similar enough? can you challenge that? at what stage you have to decide? etc.) Also, are you sure most population is against ? I did not see a poll on that. I know enough people that like "authoritarian" governments and laws, so I think we (the ones that don't agree) should make an effort to convince people that too much "authority" is not the most efficient/smart way. Some of those people are in fact just afraid even if they would not admit it...
- jacknews 1y ago
  Yes you are right, the people and the authorities should be better informed. The problem is that these kinds of laws tend to be one-way streets. Once systems are in place, they are hard to remove, so there should be some protection against unenlightened authorities just trying again and again and 'getting lucky'.

elenchev 1y ago

see you next year

kamil55555 1y ago

I know normal ordinary people that were defending this...

m000 1y ago

There should be sorts of an exponential backoff mandated for the contents of bills. Now, every lobby group keeps pushing their sketchy agenda, knowing well that they will eventually pass it. Worst case, it will be passed bit by bit.

zenmac 1y ago
Good idea. yeah at this point, law making every were just seems like brute force attack at this point. We need some kind of security assure to keep out these 'law making crackers'
mariusor 1y ago
I doubt that this can be actually done as intended because the wording of a bill can be changed enough to pretend it's not the same as the previous versions. I can't really think of a way to make this work, but indeed it would be a great addition to law passing.
nickslaughter02 1y ago
It exists but the proposal must be voted on. These people will not put the proposal to vote if they know it will not pass. That's why they ask countries' positions up front.
arlcode 1y ago
That's also problematic. Currently the same proposal is being discussed over and over again but if that wouldn't be possible it's easy introduce "similar" ideas. Ultimately law makers need to be able to pass new laws, even controversial ones, or the power to so slowly shifts to someone else (e.g. the executive in the USA) Not having a majority is the only way to stop the process and if the population is in favor, doesn't care or can't be bothered any law will pass.
- mariusor 1y ago
  I disagree on this one. In the same way you can't be prosecuted twice for the same crime in the US system under the "double jeopardy" clause, there should be an equivalent system where the same law can't be pushed over and over until it passes.

nickslaughter02 1y ago

All this means there's a blocking minority (supposedly) which can go away immediately if Germany flips. The debate is happening today. Nothing is repelled. The title needs to be corrected. It's borderline maliciously incorrect.

miohtama 1y ago
Edited, thank you

HelloUsername 1y ago

Discussed yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45209366 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45209366

PanoptesYC 1y ago

What is the UI from in the twitter screenshot? I'd like to read the positions of the Supporting/Undecided countries.

twsted 1y ago
https://fightchatcontrol.eu/ https://fightchatcontrol.eu/ (And I need to understand why the hell my country, Italy, supports the motion)
- wizzwizz4 1y ago
  Contact them, and ask!
- phtrivier 1y ago
  Well, if you will allow the steelmanning, I can think of a couple of reasons why the authorities of _Italy_, of all countries, would want to follow organized groups conducting illegal activities. I mean, "organized crime" and "Italy" probably appears in a couple of n-grams in LLMs index, right ? Maybe even if you narrow it down to reviews of movie trilogies from the 70s ? That being said, I'm sure you will disagree. The whole discussion on those topics is about mistrust: - law enforcement claims to need tools to prosecute organized crime (which does exists), and claims any opponents is just mafias masquerading as concerned citizens. - opponents claims the new tool is only meant for surveillance, and claims any opponent is just an autocrat masquerading as concerned parents. - fun fact 1 : both autocrats and mafias exist - fun fact 2 : reading some messages mean reading all messages Which is why we have the debate every few years. Meanwhile law enforcements use other tools (they have been for years), mafias are still out there, organized crime is still harming lots of people, and encrypted messages are relatively safe - but people use unencrypted FB's messaging because it's easier.
  - miohtama 1y ago
    Mafia has been around in Italy for more than 200 years, even before messengers were invented. It's likely this won't change it. Meanwhile Meloni has deployed NSO against Italian journalists.

thw_9a83c 1y ago

I would really like to know from a perspective of an informed Danish citizen, why the Denmark chose to focus on the Chat Control legislation as one of their priorities during its EU presidency. It somehow doesn't fit with my view of the Scandinavians as a technically competent people. The proposed solution is absurd and can easily be overcome by the real offenders.

speckster 1y ago
Can't speak for the danish, but at least in Sweden i think its more of a "moral police" issue. Our politicians just scream about catching pedophiles and then close their eyes to any privacy issues. Lots of "well if you have nothing to hide then what is the problem?". The people pushing the issue are not really that technically competent either.
nickslaughter02 1y ago
Choose: - Lobbying. Thorn and other "NGOs" are shaking in excitement about new revenue streams by providing the surveillance software. https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/25/who-benefits-inside-the-eus-fight-over-scanning-for-child-sex-content/ https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/25/who-benefits-inside-the... - Scanning of your emails and storage etc. is illegal in EU. The EU parliament voted for an exception which allows it (https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/167712 https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/167712). It has been extended twice and is set to expire in April 2026. EU parliament threatened to not extend it again. This proposal should become a law which permanently replaces it and is revised every 3 years. A nice opportunity to include scanning of your encrypted communication too.
rand846633 1y ago
This fits the Nordic society and political style. If police can stop pedestrians (not vehiclists) just for having red eyes and then draw their blood to fine them for THC use, that’s already a direct violation of personal freedom and bodily autonomy. Once that’s normalized, extending similar logic to monitoring communications is hardly surprising, it treats both your body and your mind as open to state inspection. Src: https://wfad.se/blogs/per-johansson/drug-testing-for-swedish-police-officers/ https://wfad.se/blogs/per-johansson/drug-testing-for-swedish...

ysofunny 1y ago

meanwhile more and more public schools roll out cameras and surveiled environments for the students when those students enter the workforce, they expect the surveilance. they grew up under chat control so they're used to it. get with the times to live and die another day

Ylpertnodi 1y ago
> meanwhile more and more public schools roll out cameras and surveiled environments for the students ...for the school shooters, i presume.?
- kiicia 1y ago
  And how camera is supposed to prevent shooter from firing bullets? You think like shooter cares if they are filmed or not? If anything it will encourage them to shoot because there will be more permanent record of their actions…
Ylpertnodi 1y ago
> meanwhile more and more public schools roll out cameras and surveiled environments for the students ...for the school shooters, i presume?
immibis 1y ago
This is illegal in Germany at least.

varispeed 1y ago

Chat Controls will inevitably lead to concentration camps and mass killings once the power learns what people actually talk about. They become paranoid and afraid. They will try to nip dissent and perceived threat in the bud. We are on the slippery slope and people should stop seeing EU as roses and fluffy bunnies. They are corrupt autocrats and if you think they are not, you are rejecting evidence of your eyes and ears.

sensanaty 1y ago

The most depressing and disgusting - though not surprising - part is that the politicans want to draw out exemptions for themselves with these laws, under supposed "professional secrecy" rules. What do they have to hide, exactly? After all, their logic tells us that they shouldn't worry if they have nothing to hide, right? And if anyone should have their chats publicly available, the number 1 people should be the scumbags that are pushing for this so adamantly. Let's see them lead by example, then maybe I would consider this as anything other than a draconian power grab.

bxsioshc 1y ago
[dead]

hereme888 1y ago

Am I correct to understand that the amount of arrests thanks to end-user backdoors for CSAM, ever, is zero?

buyucu 1y ago
If really implemented, this thing would generate so many false positives that it would force law enforcement to waste a lot of money going through them.

coldtea 1y ago

With the EU being only nominally democratic in operation, the minority will face pressures on unrelated fields (EU funds, etc) by Brussels and larger dogs, until it yields. Happened time and again.

cobbaut 1y ago

I get strong "Office Open XML" vibes from this one. There will be a day when this passes, and again it will be a loss for humans and a win for (American) tech giants.