9 ms·

End of "Chat Control": EU parliament stops mass surveillance

683 points by amarcheschi 7mo ago

miroljub 7mo ago
[flagged]
- camgunz 7mo ago
  They literally just voted it down. Twice in 2 days. Also compared to whom?
  - miroljub 7mo ago
    > They literally just voted it down. Twice in 2 days. And they will try again tomorrow. Until it passes. > Also compared to whom? Why compare? The fact that there are worse regimes than the EU doesn't make the EU even a single bit better. Lesser evil is still evil. Let us strive for good.
    - vrganj 7mo ago
      "They" being the member states. The EU is the institution preventing them from implementing it, not enabling them. You're inverting roles here. Just look at the UK and how crazy they've gone now that the EU can't shoot their ideas down anymore.
- rsynnott 7mo ago
  > With every new proposal, every vote, they are closer to the totalitarian regime. Proposals can be declined a million times, but the EU regime is always finding sneakier and more manipulative ways to push again and again. ... I mean this is how all parliamentary systems work. It's more _visible_ in the EU than in others, I think, because the council/commission are more willing to put forward things that they don't really think the parliament will go for (in many parliamentary systems, realistically the executive will be reluctant to put forward stuff where they think they'll lose the vote in parliament). But there's not really a huge difference; it would just be _quieter_ in most parliamentary systems, and you wouldn't really hear anything about it until the executive had their votes in place, brought it forward, and passed it. I actually kind of prefer the EU system, in that it tends to happen more out in the open, which allows for public comment. And public comment and pressure is a huge deal for this sort of thing; most parliamentarians, on things they don't understand, will vote whatever way their party is voting. But if it becomes clear that their constituents care about it, they may actually have to think about it, and that's half the battle.
- ecshafer 7mo ago
  The EU is fundamentally flawed. There are no checks and balances, and its only democratic if you squint and look at it the right way. People need to directly elect the MPs, directly elect some kind of president. They have no accountability, no checks and balances.
  - sveme 7mo ago
    The commission is checked by the parliament is checked by the council is checked by the commission. Most other national organizations only have one check - Germany, for example, only has the Bundesrat as a check of the Bundestag.
  - cbg0 7mo ago
    > The EU is fundamentally flawed. There are no checks and balances You're missing a [citation needed] on that.
    - marginalia_nu 7mo ago
      Non-elected representatives from my country keep pushing for chat control via the council. How do I, as a citizen, hold them accountable?
      - izacus 7mo ago
        The article you're commenting on is reporting how directly elected representatives defeated the motion. Why do you keep lying?
        marginalia_nu 7mo ago
        That's the parliament. What about the council and the commission? Am I not allowed to hold them accountable? Does my power as a citizen only extend to a fourth of the balance of power? They keep getting away with these attrition tactics with regards to implementing near Stasi levels communication surveillance. What about the day they're pushing to give the council unlimited powers, or to abolish voting rights, or to purge jews?
- sveme 7mo ago
  So in summary: because the law was avoided today, the EU needs to be abolished? Weird take. You can see it the other way around, without the EU, Denmark and others would have already implemented ChatControl in their country. This is driven by member states (Denmark), not the parliament, after all.
  - miroljub 7mo ago
    > So in summary: because the law was avoided today, the EU needs to be abolished? Weird take. There are many reasons to abolish the EU, but the topic here is chat control. > You can see it the other way around, without the EU, Denmark and others would have already implemented ChatControl in their country. This is driven by member states (Denmark), not the parliament, after all. Would they? We don't know. Would the government of Denmark be ready to commit political suicide by insisting again and again on something so unpopular? The whole premise of the EU is to allow various unelected interest groups to push unpopular regulation to the EU member states without any consequences.
    - anonymars 7mo ago
      Isn't the UK a perfect control group? Didn't the EU push back on similar legislation, until Brexit? > insisting again and again on something so unpopular? Didn't the UK do exactly this?
      - miroljub 7mo ago
        [flagged]
        deleted 7mo ago
        [deleted]
  - miki123211 7mo ago
    There are advantages to "government by evolution", as opposed to "government by monoculture" With the former approach, every country is allowed to try different things, some amazing, some dumb, and learn from the amazing and dumb things that others have done. In the latter, there's only one governing body, and whatever that body said, goes. There's no science or statistics, just sides shouting their arguments at each other, calling people names. Both the EU and the US used to heavily lean towards the former approach, but they're slowly but inexorably moving towards the latter.
- bilekas 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - miroljub 7mo ago
    [flagged]
  - boxed 7mo ago
    "What did the Romans ever do for US?" :P
- croes 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - cess11 7mo ago
    The only people named Miroljub I've met were serbian, perhaps this person is too.
    - miroljub 7mo ago
      [flagged]
- andai 7mo ago
  We already don't have free speech. There's nothing protecting it (and many laws already to the contrary.) There aren't really any such constitutional protections from what I can tell. Once laws are passed they aren't revoked. So it's just a matter of political climate. Just wait for people to get a little more negative, a little more paranoid (which has historically been "helped along" in various ways)-- a law only needs to pass once, and then we're stuck with some stupid bullshit forever. It doesn't really seem like how you'd want to design it.
  - hermanzegerman 7mo ago
    Obviously you can revoke Laws. And not being able to deny the Holocaust doesn't mean you don't have free speech
- dyauspitr 7mo ago
  What a joke. Compared to US, implementing chat control is like a pin prick compared to the scale of MAGA fascism. The EU is probably the best example of functional government anywhere in the world right now.
  - wolvoleo 7mo ago
    That's sad but true :(
- mariusor 7mo ago
  "fascism" has a pretty well defined meaning, which is not whatever the EU would become if something like chat control ever passes. Towards totalitarianism, sure, but again not all totalitarianism is fascism. I wish people would stop using le mot du jour as a replacement for everything in an subconscious need to increase others' engagement.
- tomhow 7mo ago
  We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529682 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529682 and marked it off topic.
amarcheschi 7mo ago
I would say "end of chat control, for now"
- leosanchez 7mo ago
  For today or for this month.
  - lo_zamoyski 7mo ago
    The value of persistence!
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
- vintermann 7mo ago
  Those guys only ever have a "maybe later" button.
  - rsynnott 7mo ago
    That's pretty much how it works; there's generally no way, in a modern parliamentary democracy to say "no, and also you can never discuss it again". You could put it in the constitution, but honestly there's a decent argument that parts of chat control would violate the EU's can't-believe-it's-not-a-constitution (the Lisbon Treaty is essentially a constitution, but is not referred to as such because it annoys nationalists) in any case and ultimately be struck down by the ECJ, like the Data Retention Directive was.
    - account42 7mo ago
      Constituional cours are a last defense against bad laws though and should not be the first one - they are not designed to be fast enough to prevent a lot of damage being done before they strike something down.
nickslaughter02 7mo ago
> Despite today’s victory, further procedural steps by EU governments cannot be completely ruled out. Most of all, the trilogue negotiations on a permanent child protection regulation (Chat Control 2.0) are continuing under severe time pressure. There, too, EU governments continue to insist on their demand for “voluntary” indiscriminate Chat Control. > Furthermore, the next massive threat to digital civil liberties is already on the agenda: Next up in the ongoing trilogue, lawmakers will negotiate whether messenger and chat services, as well as app stores, will be legally obliged to implement age verification. This would require users to provide ID documents or submit to facial scans, effectively making anonymous communication impossible and severely endangering vulnerable groups such as whistleblowers and persecuted individuals.
- brightball 7mo ago
  The timing of having Meta dropping encrypted chats on Instagram is...interesting.
- zoobab 7mo ago
  "Next up in the ongoing trilogue, lawmakers will negotiate whether messenger and chat services, as well as app stores, will be legally obliged to implement age verification." Trilogues should be burned down, closed doors meetings with Ministers writing laws from their own services.
  - riffraff 7mo ago
    The trilogue is the interaction between eu commission, eu parliament and eu council. The commission proposes, parliament and country governments argue and ask for changes. The parliament has the last vote anyway. Maybe you're thinking of something else.
- pnt12 7mo ago
  See you soon folks!
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 7mo ago
  "> Furthermore, the next massive threat to digital civil liberties is already on the agenda: Next up in the ongoing trilogue, lawmakers will negotiate whether messenger and chat services, as well as app stores, will be legally obliged to implement age verification. This would require users to provide ID documents or submit to facial scans, effectively making anonymous communication impossible and severely endangering vulnerable groups such as whistleblowers and persecuted individuals." Perhaps this is bad news for "messenger and chat services, as well as app stores" who solicit "users" to exploit them for commercial gain, for example _if_ users are unwilling to accept "age verification" and decide to stop using them. The keyword is "if" The third parties know it's possible for capable users to communicate with each other without using third party "chat and messenger services" intermediaries that conduct data collection, surveillance and/or online ad services as a "business model". Thus the third party "tech" company intermediaries strive to make their "free services" more convenient than DIY, i.e., communication without using third party intermediation by so-called "tech" companies But users may decide that "age verification" is acceptable. For many years, HN comments have repeatedly insisted that "most users" do not care about data collection or surveillance or online advertising, that users don't care about privacy. Advocates of "Big Tech" and other so-called "tech" companies argue that by using such third party services, users are consciously _choosing_ convenience over privacy Perhaps the greatest threat to civil liberties is the mass data collection and surveillance conducted by so-called "tech" companies. The "age verification" debate provides a vivid illustration of why allowing such companies to collect data and surveil without restriction only makes it easier for governments that seek to encroach upon civil liberties. While governments may operate under legal and financial constraints that effectively limit their ability to conduct mass surveillance, the companies operate freely, creating enormous repositories that governments can use their authority to tap into
astrashe2 7mo ago
Here's a mirror link: http://archive.today/CJlNk http://archive.today/CJlNk
schubidubiduba 7mo ago
Nice to see that democracy can work
- baal80spam 7mo ago
  See you next month!
- nickslaughter02 7mo ago
  > Nice to see that democracy can work Did it work? One political party (EPP) didn't like the result of the previous vote and so they forced a re-vote. > After the European Parliament had already rejected the indiscriminate and blanket Chat Control by US tech companies on 13 March, conservative forces attempted a democratically highly questionable maneuver yesterday to force a repeat vote to extend the law anyway. https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/end-of-chat-control-eu-parliament-stops-mass-surveillance-in-voting-thriller-paving-the-way-for-genuine-child-protection/ https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/end-of-chat-control-eu-parl...
  - rsynnott 7mo ago
    Note that European parliament parties aren't particularly cohesive; some EPP members voted against it.
    - nickslaughter02 7mo ago
      > some EPP members voted against it 20 out of 184
      - olex 7mo ago
        Do I understand the voting / results wrong? Looking at this: https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270 https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270 The measure voted on is "Extension [of Chat Control 1.0]", it was voted 36% "for" and 49% "against" (so result is "against"), and looking at "Political groups", majority of EPP MEPs voted "against" (137 out of 164 votes).
Freak_NL 7mo ago
Did that vote pass with a difference of one single vote? Tight squeeze there.
- raverbashing 7mo ago
  No, that was an ammendment
- rsynnott 7mo ago
  The screenshot is actually a vote on an amendment. Here's the final vote: https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270 https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270 Less tight.
  - pqtyw 7mo ago
    I don't quite get it, so the conservatives wanted/want to repeat the vote but also the EPP voted against it and the Socialists supported it?
    - whywhywhywhy 7mo ago
      There’s often large differences between what politicians tell you they are and how they vote once in power
      - pqtyw 7mo ago
        I don't quite get what you mean? EPP is technically in power (whatever that means in the European Parliament). But also why would that matter? Or they wanted to force a vote just so they could vote against it (which is not necessarily a stupid strategy in cases like this)?
        whywhywhywhy 7mo ago
        > in power (whatever that means in the European Parliament). It means the people who get to vote on if you have a right to privacy or not.
the_mitsuhiko 7mo ago
This will come back because too many EU countries want it.
- 0xy 7mo ago
  Bastion of democracy Germany will be pushing hard given they let slip they want mandatory IDs on social media. They want full control.
  - olex 7mo ago
    German MEPs voted overwhelmingly against the extension: https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270 https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270 ("Countries" tab).
  - rsynnott 7mo ago
    RE Chat Control 2 (ie _not_ this, the proposed permanent version): > In early October 2025, in the face of concerted public opposition, the German government stated that it would vote against the proposal German MEPs also voted against this one. (Note that the German government and German MEPs aren't the same thing here.)
- embedding-shape 7mo ago
  Judging by https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270 https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270, the outliers who seem to want this, would be France, Hungary, Poland and Ireland, all other countries seems to had the majority MEPs voting against it.
  - jimnotgym 7mo ago
    The countries are free to repropose similar things through the council (basically the representatives of the ruling party in each country), but the MEPs are free to strike it down. The MEPs are elected through PR in each country so often have broader representation than the council.
  - kergonath 7mo ago
    It’s more complicated than that. MEPs do not represent countries, so you can say that most MEP from $country were for or against, but that would not necessarily be the position of the country’s government. For that you have to look at what happens in the council of the EU, which is composed of government ministers. It is not exceptional for most MEP from a member state to be in the opposition at the national level, particularly in contexts where it is seen as a protest vote. Turnout is usually low for European elections, so they tend to swing a bit more than national elections.
gmuslera 7mo ago
Its time to start trying to push Chat Control 2.0. With enough money and infinite retries eventually all the bad regulations with a power group behind will end being approved.
- mantas 7mo ago
  Or it will get a new name. Just like „Chat Control“ is far from the first name for this BS.
  - integralid 7mo ago
    we can learn from our American friends and call it something like CHILDREN SAFETY ACT. So you want to hurt children, huh? I hope not
    - latexr 7mo ago
      That’s already (kind of) the name it has. “Chat Control” is a name given by critics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chat_Control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chat_Control
    - saidnooneever 7mo ago
      this is litterally what they do. point at opposition and try to imply they are pro child abuse. actually really sick to use such a method. I suppose that is what u get for decades long degradation of education and other things. A bunch of childish freaks in power who can only try to chuck eachother under the bus instead of doing something actually good. they care less and less about it being obvious too. our new prime minister (NL) was asked about some campaign promises recently (ones important to a lot of his voters actually) and he justs plainly said somethin like: yeah well sometimes u just gotta say shit to get votes. i mean, its not news ofc... but now they dont even care to mask it. They know the public will just bend over and take it anyway.
    - zamalek 7mo ago
      Don't forget the pointless backronym.
spwa4 7mo ago
... again?
- hermanzegerman 7mo ago
  They are conservatives. In Germany they also try every time to enact Mass Data Retention ("for catching Criminals"), then the courts decide it's not compatible with the constitution, and after a few years they try again. I highly doubt they have given up here too
  - spwa4 7mo ago
    I see the exact opposite. Let's classify parties: EPP (Christian-democrats, ie. centrist to somewhat conservative parties): >95% voted against. These mattered more than any others Patriots for Europe (far-right, even racist): 2/3 voted against. "Green"/progressive parties: ~90% voted in favour Socialists from anywhere on the spectrum (from just-barely-left-of-centre to communists): >95% voted in favour Laissez-faire parties (meaning rightist, but not racist): largely voted in favour. https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189574 https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189574 Leftists and Green parties desperately seem to want ChatControl (not just this vote), against literally everyone else, but especially against centrist parties.
varispeed 7mo ago
This is a clear case of a terrorist attack attempt (Chat Control fulfils definition of terrorism fully). Chat Controls would be illegal in Germany. This is sad that this has gotten this far. If they wanted to pass a law to blow up citizens, do you think European Parliament would seriously consider it? It is exactly the same calibre of idiocy. I would expect German authorities to issue arrest warrants and properly investigate this. For context: If terrorism is defined as using violence or threats to intimidate a population for political or ideological ends, then “Chat Control” qualifies in substance. Violence doesn’t have to leave blood. Psychological and coercive violence is recognised in domestic law (see coercive control offences) and by the WHO. It causes measurable harm to bodies and minds. The aim is intimidation. The whole purpose is to make people too scared to speak freely. That is intimidation of a population, by design. It is ideological. The ideology is mass control - keeping people compliant by stripping them of private spaces to think, talk, and dissent. The only reason it’s not “terrorism” on paper is because states write definitions that exempt themselves. But in plain terms, the act is indistinguishable in effect from terrorism: deliberate fear, coercion, and the destruction of free will.
- techteach00 7mo ago
  I agree that it's an act of state sponsored terrorism. Don't let the down votes make you feel alone.
  - varispeed 7mo ago
    [dead]
greenavocado 7mo ago
That margin is really small
sailfast 7mo ago
“Congrats all we maybe fixed the problem we created in the first place! Let’s celebrate!” Also - wasn’t this program voluntary? This seems like the height of backslapping. Would have been better if they just sat on their hands and did nothing in the first place.
- nickslaughter02 7mo ago
  > Would have been better if they just sat on their hands and did nothing in the first place You described 95% of EU's work.
- rsynnott 7mo ago
  > Also - wasn’t this program voluntary? This gave companies permission to do things which would ordinarily be illegal under the ePrivacy directive, but did not make it mandatory for them to do so. That permission is now revoked (or will be when the derogation they were trying to extend expires in two weeks).
- EmbarrassedHelp 7mo ago
  It was actually voluntary, and then the EU Commission got greedy and tried to make it mandatory. Now they have nothing.
wewewedxfgdf 7mo ago
Just rename it to something something save the children something something. Instant approval no matter what is in the bill.
- olex 7mo ago
  It's already called "Extension of the temporary derogation from the ePrivacy Directive to combat online child sexual abuse".
- rsynnott 7mo ago
  That pretty much _is_ what it is called. It's generally known as Chat Control, but "Chat Control 1" (the thing just rejected) is called "Extension of the temporary derogation from the ePrivacy Directive to combat online child sexual abuse", and "Chat Control 2" (which you'll probably have heard more about; it's the one that keeps reappearing and disappearing) is called "Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse".
elephanlemon 7mo ago
I’m confused by > This means on April 6, 2026, Gmail, LinkedIn, Microsoft and other Big Techs must stop scanning your private messages in the EU It had already passed and started?
- nickslaughter02 7mo ago
  Yes, voluntary Chat Control 1.0 has been running since 2021.
  - SiempreViernes 7mo ago
    Well, chat control 1.0 is about making an existing practice legal, it didn't create the practice of scanning messages for know child sexual abuse material, though I don't know how long that has been going on before the legislation in 2021 passed (but probably for several years at that point, since getting a new law trough takes a while).
- inglor_cz 7mo ago
  It was possible on a voluntary basis.
- 3836293648 7mo ago
  Something something constitutional (ish*) rights say you can't do this. Chat Control 1 says, eh do it anyway if you want on a voluntary and temporary basis until the Courts get around to saying no. Chat Control 2 says you have to. Until the courts finally get around to striking it down in 15 years.
- isodev 7mo ago
  Of course, remember Apple championed the idea with iMessage scanning which at the time produced A LOT of discussion e.g. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/12/2021-we-told-apple-dont-scan-our-phones https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/12/2021-we-told-apple-don...
- appstorelottery 7mo ago
  What happens to the already scanned metadata?
ramon156 7mo ago
See you next year!
- glenstein 7mo ago
  Is the snow melting? Do you hear birds? Must be chat control season. Someone should sell calendars based on when this typically gets proposed as well as dates throughout the year when past instances of check control came up against key procedural hurdles.
Havoc 7mo ago
They’ll keep trying.
- Ms-J 7mo ago
  Until we stop them.
  - cbeach 7mo ago
    In 2016 the UK demonstrated that there is a way for the public to vote down the corpus of bad EU legislation. Of course our national govts have been pretty woeful ever since, but in 2029 we will have the opportunity to vote for genuine, dramatic change, with strong options on both the left and right side of politics. Regarding the creeping surveillance state, Reform UK have explicitly stated they will repeal the awful Online Safety Act. This is how we wrestle control back from the establishment.
    - wongarsu 7mo ago
      The UK has shown that they can vote down bad EU legislation, and pass a lot of pretty awful legislation that's worse than anything the EU ever produced But I'm sure voting for Nigel Farage one more time will fix everything
      - moorebob 7mo ago
        Interesting you blame Farage for the bad legislation passed by the Tories and Labour? Why is that? I thought he was one of the most vocal contrarians to Tory and Labour policy?
    - throwaway132448 7mo ago
      People who think reform are anti establishment genuinely fascinate me.
      - wolvoleo 7mo ago
        And people who think they are strong and will solve anything. These populists thrive on anger and hate. Solve the problem and those are gone. And the problems aren't the ones they champion anyway. I have to say Labour is putting on a shit show too though. They were supposed to be new and refreshed, instead they are Tory-Lite on steroids. Worse than Blair or Miliband ever were. Really UK politics needs some sanity :'(
whywhywhywhy 7mo ago
It doesn’t matter they can just keep trying and paying people off until it gets through. Someone somewhere really really wants this and has the time and resources so it’s an inevitability.
- latexr 7mo ago
  It does matter. Even if it eventually passes, the later and more gutted it is, the better. Saying that it doesn’t matter is just defeatist (and unfortunately always parroted on HN) and plainly wrong. Defeatists have been proven wrong time and again.
  - whywhywhywhy 7mo ago
    Perhaps a system where that can happen is broken
    - Fargren 7mo ago
      A system where this can happen is healthy. The alternative is a system where once legislation fails to pass you are forbidden to modify it and try again. _That_ would be a broken system, where compromise is impossible, and attempting to make any change is a very risky move because you might fail, forever. There would be a chilling effect, legislation would take longer to change, and laws would become frozen in the past. What we are seeing here is checks and balances, working as intended.
  - wongarsu 7mo ago
    Also making sure this is as painful and costly as possible to pass will discourage future attempts. If we just rolled over and let it happen that would signal that it's easy to pass legislation like this and we would get a lot more like it
freehorse 7mo ago
So, in the end a big majority of the conservative/liberal faction (EPP) voted against, and the vast majority of the social democractic faction (S&D) voted for chat control. https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270 https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270 Just pointing this out because yesterday there was the myth around that "chat control is pushed by the conservatives", obscuring the actual political dynamics in the EU about it.
- iknowstuff 7mo ago
  Greens based as always
- nickslaughter02 7mo ago
  > So, in the end a big majority of the conservative/liberal faction (EPP) voted against, and the vast majority of the social democractic faction (S&D) voted for chat control. EPP wanted indiscriminate scanning instead, not targeted one.
- marginalia_nu 7mo ago
  There's also the DDR and Stasi as a counter example if anyone think mass surveillance is incompatible with socialism. Mass surveillance isn't really a question that projects well onto the left-right scale, and attempting to make it fit a left-right question is more likely to distract than provide a useful understanding.
  - geon 7mo ago
    Yes. I would place it on the authority–liberty axis. While your examples were on the economic left, they were clearly authoritarian.
    - wolvoleo 7mo ago
      Yes. I'm very socialist on an economic scale but very liberal on the social scale. It basically embodies what we call progressive these days. Conservatism has redefined itself too. Capitalist on the economic scale, authoritarian on the social one. When it comes to topics like lgbt, abortion, religion, family they don't want freedom. They want to have only the freedom to think like them. That's what we call authoritarianism. A bit remarkable because freedom was traditionally the hallmark of the right. I think you still see the original freedom variety more in states like Texas but not in the midwest. But I'm not really on the ball with American politics anymore so I may be wrong. I think this breaks the original left/right paradigms a bit but I view it more as a redefinition. But I think progressive and conservative are better terms to use these days.
Ms-J 7mo ago
Maybe it is time to make start a prediction market? Any time a scumbag politician tries this again: "Mr. Jones, secretary of communications for the state, TTL (Time-to-live) left. 2 Hours? 1 Day? 1 Week?" It would stop fast. Anyone want to build this? There is a lot of money being left on the table.
- DaSHacka 7mo ago
  Wouldn't this have the opposite effect? Seems to play right into their hands that they need mass surveillance for "" safety"" reasons
dethos 7mo ago
That was a close one. This is getting harder and harder. It is important not to be naive to the point of thinking this is over.
- fleebee 7mo ago
  One would think that the same thing getting denied over and over would make future votes about it easier to decide.
umren 7mo ago
Chat Control 3.0 will go through
canticleforllm 7mo ago
How long until they stage an incident to occur so they can pass CC 1.1? 6 months? 2 years?
AJRF 7mo ago
See you again next week!
miohtama 7mo ago
Here is the EPP's plea to get this passed earlier. They even used a teddy bear image. https://www.eppgroup.eu/newsroom/epp-urges-support-for-last-chance-to-avoid-leaving-children https://www.eppgroup.eu/newsroom/epp-urges-support-for-last-... "Protecting children is not optional," said Lena Düpont MEP, EPP Group spokeswoman on Legal and Home Affairs. "We call on the S&D Group to stop hiding behind excuses and finally take responsibility. We cannot afford a safe haven for child abusers online. Every delay leaves children exposed and offenders unchallenged." Personally, I feel there must be other privacy-preserving ways to address child abusers than mass surveillance. Also, for the record, here is the list of parties that lobbied for this for Mrs Düpont, alongside very few privacy-focused organisations. Not sure why Canada or Australia are lobbying for EU laws. ANNEX: LIST OF ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT - Access Now - Australian eSafety Commissioner - Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer (BRAK) - Canadian Centre for Child Protection - cdt - Center for Democracy & Technology - eco - Association of the Internet Industry - EDPS - EDRI - Facebook - Fundamental Rights Agency - Improving the digital environment for children (regrouping several child protection NGOs across the EU and beyond, including Missing Children Europe, Child Focus) - INHOPE – the International Association of Internet Hotlines - International Justice Mission Deutschland e.V./ We Protect - Internet Watch Foundation - Internet Society - Match Group - Microsoft - Thorn (Ashton Kutcher) - UNICEF - UN Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2020-0258_EN.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2020-0258_...
- DoingIsLearning 7mo ago
  We need to add Palantir in bold letters to that list, they are behind this in every way except for 'officially'. > The Commission’s failure to identify the list of experts as falling within the scope of the complainant’s public access request constitutes maladministration. [0] > The Commission presented a proposal on preventing and combating child sexual abuse, looking in particular at detecting child pornography. In this context, it has mentioned that support could be provided by the software of the controversial American company Palantir... [1] > Is Palantir’s failure to register on the Transparency Register compatible with the Commission’s transparency commitments? [1] (Palantir only entered the Transparency Registry in March 2025 despite being a multi million vendor of Gotham for Europol and European Agencies for more than a decade) > No detailed records exist concerning a January meeting between European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and the CEO of controversial US data analytics firm Palantir [2] [0] https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/176658 https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/176658 [1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2024-000165_EN.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2024-00016... [2] https://www.euractiv.com/news/commission-kept-no-records-on-davos-meeting-between-von-der-leyen-and-palantir-ceo/ https://www.euractiv.com/news/commission-kept-no-records-on-...
_fat_santa 7mo ago
It seems like an almost never ending hamster wheel of chat control being introduced, voted down, then introduced again in the next session.
- ryandrake 7mo ago
  That's the problem with modern democracies (it happens in the USA too). They only have to win once and it's law. We have to win every time.
  - __loam 7mo ago
    Need to amend constitutional rights to privacy then these laws can be struck down in courts.
    - bigyabai 7mo ago
      I feel like that would end with the same surveillance loopholes that Google, Microsoft and Apple exploit today. Users need the ability to choose operating systems and software that is not exclusively green-lit by a first-party vendor. It's not glamorous, but pretending that software isn't a competitive market is what put us into this surveillance monopoly in the first place. "trust" distributed among a handful of businesses isn't going to cut it in a post-2030s threat environment.
    - chihuahua 7mo ago
      It's already there, in the European Convention on Human Rights [1], Article 8: ARTICLE 8 Right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. You have the right to privacy, just no actual privacy. Just like in Life of Brian, where Stan/Loretta has the right to have children, but can't actually have children. 1: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Convention_ENG https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Convention_ENG
  - moffkalast 7mo ago
    It's a problem when the parliament can't propose the laws it has to vote on and the commission isn't elected and continues to be presided by the most corrupt person in the EU. She is blatantly EPP and just keeps proposing the shit they want. For Americans, imagine if only Republicans ever got to propose legislation and only Democrats could vote on it. That's more or less it.
fdezdaniel 7mo ago
[dead]
anthk 7mo ago
Goid news, now stop the age bullshit in CA.
beej71 7mo ago
Political engineering angle: "These people will not rest until they are able to read your child's messages."
- cryptonector 7mo ago
  "These people will not rest until they are able to see your teen-aged child's surrepticious sexts."
- sph 7mo ago
  Every time someone says this is to protect children, earnestly or with memes, just reinforces the lie and makes it more believable, because child protection is the distraction, the hook that works on people that are comfortable with the State reading your child's messages if it ends up protecting them. Chat Control is, quite simply, mass surveillance of every citizen of any age. Let's call a spade a spade.
cynicalsecurity 7mo ago
A big W, for now. Until we meet again.
fcanesin 7mo ago
To get "End of Chat Control" EU should actually pass laws prohibiting it, this whack a mole will eventually lose.
fsflover 7mo ago
Related discussion : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529646 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529646
_the_inflator 7mo ago
No, this is the end of the wording for the initiative, nothing else. We will see many new initiatives, old wine in a new bottle. Any bet that EU diehard bureaucrats will change tune, not the goal. They are going to use the so called salami tactic. Death of free speech by many cuts, so to say. It is in the left wing DNA. Have a look at German history regarding "Landes-Verfassungsschutz" units. It is disturbing to read this article here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verfassungsschutz_Nordrhein-Westfalen https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verfassungsschutz_Nordrhein-We... And back then already it was the so called center-right party ruled against this left wing initiative - imagine, first thing you do right after WW2 is ramping up a control unit to control freedom of speech. Please value free speech. Agree to disagree, but remember: those who live by prohibitions will ultimately use this tool against you as well. Consider wisely what is something you dislike personally and simply exercise your right to not listen to certain voices or appeal to prohibition. Prohibition becomes a tool and everybody knows that people love to use their tools. And since I have a law degree, often times what you plan is not what is finally what courts decide, how they apply the law. Freedom rights are fundamental.
- em-bee 7mo ago
  this is the end of the wording for the initiative, nothing else it is more than that. since 2021 an EU interim regulation (2021/1232), set to expire on 3 april, was allowing companies to voluntarily scan messages. this vote was about the renewal of that regulation. since it has been rejected, the regulation is no longer in effect.
- adw 7mo ago
  You’re painting an EPP/ECR initiative as left wing? That’s inconsistent with the facts.
  - hermanzegerman 7mo ago
    He's rambling about "left-wing DNA" in the Verfassungsschutz, who is famously quite good at turning a blind eye to right wing extremists. Probably because AfD got rightfully classified as far-right-extremists. So to him they are probably left-wing.
rvz 7mo ago
Until next time.
leontloveless 7mo ago
[dead]
ori_b 7mo ago
Who is going to push a counteroffensive, banning specific types of data from being collected?
bradley13 7mo ago
Thex will try again. And again. It's for the children, don't you know? The only way to really stop this would be to pass legislation that permanently strengthens privacy rights.
- 9dev 7mo ago
  That’s a great idea! It should be a General Data Protection Regulation, I suppose.
cryptonector 7mo ago
> The Hard Facts: Why Chat Control Has Failed Spectacularly The ostensible reasons for mass surveillance fail. That's very interesting.
benced 7mo ago
> Recently, only 36% of suspicious activity reports from US companies originated from the surveillance of private messages anyway. I don't have many opinions on this but this sort of lazy logic would make me nervous. 36% is not a small number and that's before the folks doing this activity find out that private message is less patrolled.
- dgellow 7mo ago
  Yeah, that number is actually really high. I’m wondering how noisy those reports are
  - fc417fc802 7mo ago
    "Recently, only 36% of violent crime happened in broad daylight in front of a police station" would be a pretty wild statistic. Even a fraction of the reports being positives would be surprising.
Arubis 7mo ago
Good. Now let's start preparing for the next one.
someguyornotidk 7mo ago
The fact that they could pull a stunt like this shows that the EU is no democracy. Shame on the politicians who tried to rob people of their rights.
- hkpack 7mo ago
  How have you came to such conclusions? If anything it proves the opposite. Look at how laws are passed in russia for example for comparison and let me know what similarities you see.
  - throwaway132448 7mo ago
    A lot of people hate seeing the EU succeed at anything, simply because they are envious or it does not validate their world view.
YeahThisIsMe 7mo ago
It's never going to stop. They'll keep trying until they get it because they're sick people.
amarant 7mo ago
I feel like someone ought to dramatise this seemingly endless struggle in a seemingly endless series of movies. -The Spying Menace -Attack of the conservatives -Revenge of the marketing conglomerate -A new hope -Chat Control strikes back -Return of the Pirate Party Etc,etc.
woodpanel 7mo ago
Never forget: > We decide something, then put it in the room and wait some time to see what happens. If there is no big shouting and no uprisings, because most do not understand what it is about, then we continue - step by step until there is no turning back. – Jean Claude Juncker, then President of the EU Commission They will try this again. And again. And again. They will never stop. They are not your friends.
shevy-java 7mo ago
> The controversial mass surveillance of private messages in Europe is coming to an end. I am having a deja vu. Groundhog Day. The above should be adjusted. This is not an end; it will continue in another form. Another name. Another proposal. The lobbyists behind this will not give up. They are paid to not give up. I don't think any of those few should have ANY power of us, The People. That includes both EU commission as well as EU parliament. Yes, I know the EU parliament is heralded now as "our heroes". I don't trust any of them at any moment in time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_corruption_scandal_at_the_European_Parliament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_corruption_scandal_at_th.... And that's just one known issue. How many more unknown issues are there? Also, Leyen should go. She is too suspiciously close to a few companies, always promoting things. She did so before her time in the EU too.
abdelhousni 7mo ago
Good news
siilats 7mo ago
Mole 1 inside Microsoft poisons the PhotoDNA database with hashes of screenshots containing highly specific text—such as internal Russian military jargon, the name of a specific European defector safehouse, or a niche secure communication protocol. • To Meta’s automated monitoring tools photoDNA api returns false, but with slightly different formatting. Mole 2 inside Meta monitors these formatting errors and looks up the UserIDs. • No Bulk Queries: Looking up 3 UserIDs in the internal demographic database over the course of a month will not trigger the "Abnormal Access Pattern" alarms. • Analog Exfiltration: Mole 2 doesn't need to use a USB drive or send an email to get the phone numbers out of the building. With only a few targets, Mole 2 can simply memorize the accounts. PhotoDNA does not read text; it matches the visual structure of an image. For this attack to work, the defected officer must: 1. Receive or write the targeted keyword. 2. Take a screenshot of it. 3. Send that screenshot over the platform. 4. The screenshot must visually match the exact font, size, and layout that Mole 1 used to generate the poisoned hash. However Mole 1 can create thousands of matching keyword hashes for different font variation. PhotoDNA is a one way hash so it’s easy to generate a thousand colliding images for every font by adding a custom border on real photos. This will fake the audit log at Microsoft.
- siilats 7mo ago
  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ASPqVAAV2oR9ZzsIO0tlqV0a64siJ2WGW85jAZHz3Bs/edit?usp=drivesdk https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ASPqVAAV2oR9ZzsIO0tlqV0a...
protocolture 7mo ago
They will change the name and it will be back in < 6 months. The cost in modern polity is worn entirely by those trying to prevent new laws. Civil liberty groups will run out of funding before they run out of legislation. Its a systemic issue that requires change. And before someone wanders in here and suggests a bill of rights, they dont tend to bind legislators, they just force your civil liberty groups to test the legislation in court.
pugchat 7mo ago
[dead]
strogonoff 7mo ago
E2EE works in favour of politicians, so I would be surprised if they went against it. Prior to this, if they wanted to discuss something shady, they would have to choose between a clandestine in-person meeting (sort of hard do conduct when you have many eyes on you) vs. a paper trail. Cf. the recent Mandelson-McSweeney messages inquiry, where it was dropped at some point that messages might not be available for retrieval because he happened to have message expiration on. People are justifiey concerned how come there are completely off the record electronic communications within government offices.
rippeltippel 7mo ago
What I find very alarming is that very few citizens in the EU knew about that. Mainstream media almost never reported this and other similar news, so I had to actively look for them. In this last case, I learned about it here on HN. Votes like that, with so much impact on citizens' digital lives, should be discussed in mainstream news channel.
- lava_pidgeon 7mo ago
  It was big news in Germany in middle of October leading to fact that the conservative party opposed chat control!

683 points by amarcheschi 7mo ago

miroljub 7mo ago

[flagged]

camgunz 7mo ago
They literally just voted it down. Twice in 2 days. Also compared to whom?
- miroljub 7mo ago
  > They literally just voted it down. Twice in 2 days. And they will try again tomorrow. Until it passes. > Also compared to whom? Why compare? The fact that there are worse regimes than the EU doesn't make the EU even a single bit better. Lesser evil is still evil. Let us strive for good.
  - vrganj 7mo ago
    "They" being the member states. The EU is the institution preventing them from implementing it, not enabling them. You're inverting roles here. Just look at the UK and how crazy they've gone now that the EU can't shoot their ideas down anymore.
rsynnott 7mo ago
> With every new proposal, every vote, they are closer to the totalitarian regime. Proposals can be declined a million times, but the EU regime is always finding sneakier and more manipulative ways to push again and again. ... I mean this is how all parliamentary systems work. It's more _visible_ in the EU than in others, I think, because the council/commission are more willing to put forward things that they don't really think the parliament will go for (in many parliamentary systems, realistically the executive will be reluctant to put forward stuff where they think they'll lose the vote in parliament). But there's not really a huge difference; it would just be _quieter_ in most parliamentary systems, and you wouldn't really hear anything about it until the executive had their votes in place, brought it forward, and passed it. I actually kind of prefer the EU system, in that it tends to happen more out in the open, which allows for public comment. And public comment and pressure is a huge deal for this sort of thing; most parliamentarians, on things they don't understand, will vote whatever way their party is voting. But if it becomes clear that their constituents care about it, they may actually have to think about it, and that's half the battle.
ecshafer 7mo ago
The EU is fundamentally flawed. There are no checks and balances, and its only democratic if you squint and look at it the right way. People need to directly elect the MPs, directly elect some kind of president. They have no accountability, no checks and balances.
- sveme 7mo ago
  The commission is checked by the parliament is checked by the council is checked by the commission. Most other national organizations only have one check - Germany, for example, only has the Bundesrat as a check of the Bundestag.
- cbg0 7mo ago
  > The EU is fundamentally flawed. There are no checks and balances You're missing a [citation needed] on that.
  - marginalia_nu 7mo ago
    Non-elected representatives from my country keep pushing for chat control via the council. How do I, as a citizen, hold them accountable?
    - izacus 7mo ago
      The article you're commenting on is reporting how directly elected representatives defeated the motion. Why do you keep lying?
      - marginalia_nu 7mo ago
        That's the parliament. What about the council and the commission? Am I not allowed to hold them accountable? Does my power as a citizen only extend to a fourth of the balance of power? They keep getting away with these attrition tactics with regards to implementing near Stasi levels communication surveillance. What about the day they're pushing to give the council unlimited powers, or to abolish voting rights, or to purge jews?
sveme 7mo ago
So in summary: because the law was avoided today, the EU needs to be abolished? Weird take. You can see it the other way around, without the EU, Denmark and others would have already implemented ChatControl in their country. This is driven by member states (Denmark), not the parliament, after all.
- miroljub 7mo ago
  > So in summary: because the law was avoided today, the EU needs to be abolished? Weird take. There are many reasons to abolish the EU, but the topic here is chat control. > You can see it the other way around, without the EU, Denmark and others would have already implemented ChatControl in their country. This is driven by member states (Denmark), not the parliament, after all. Would they? We don't know. Would the government of Denmark be ready to commit political suicide by insisting again and again on something so unpopular? The whole premise of the EU is to allow various unelected interest groups to push unpopular regulation to the EU member states without any consequences.
  - anonymars 7mo ago
    Isn't the UK a perfect control group? Didn't the EU push back on similar legislation, until Brexit? > insisting again and again on something so unpopular? Didn't the UK do exactly this?
    - miroljub 7mo ago
      [flagged]
      - deleted 7mo ago
        [deleted]
- miki123211 7mo ago
  There are advantages to "government by evolution", as opposed to "government by monoculture" With the former approach, every country is allowed to try different things, some amazing, some dumb, and learn from the amazing and dumb things that others have done. In the latter, there's only one governing body, and whatever that body said, goes. There's no science or statistics, just sides shouting their arguments at each other, calling people names. Both the EU and the US used to heavily lean towards the former approach, but they're slowly but inexorably moving towards the latter.
bilekas 7mo ago
[flagged]
- miroljub 7mo ago
  [flagged]
- boxed 7mo ago
  "What did the Romans ever do for US?" :P
croes 7mo ago
[flagged]
- cess11 7mo ago
  The only people named Miroljub I've met were serbian, perhaps this person is too.
  - miroljub 7mo ago
    [flagged]
andai 7mo ago
We already don't have free speech. There's nothing protecting it (and many laws already to the contrary.) There aren't really any such constitutional protections from what I can tell. Once laws are passed they aren't revoked. So it's just a matter of political climate. Just wait for people to get a little more negative, a little more paranoid (which has historically been "helped along" in various ways)-- a law only needs to pass once, and then we're stuck with some stupid bullshit forever. It doesn't really seem like how you'd want to design it.
- hermanzegerman 7mo ago
  Obviously you can revoke Laws. And not being able to deny the Holocaust doesn't mean you don't have free speech
dyauspitr 7mo ago
What a joke. Compared to US, implementing chat control is like a pin prick compared to the scale of MAGA fascism. The EU is probably the best example of functional government anywhere in the world right now.
- wolvoleo 7mo ago
  That's sad but true :(
mariusor 7mo ago
"fascism" has a pretty well defined meaning, which is not whatever the EU would become if something like chat control ever passes. Towards totalitarianism, sure, but again not all totalitarianism is fascism. I wish people would stop using le mot du jour as a replacement for everything in an subconscious need to increase others' engagement.
tomhow 7mo ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529682 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529682 and marked it off topic.

amarcheschi 7mo ago

I would say "end of chat control, for now"

leosanchez 7mo ago
For today or for this month.
- lo_zamoyski 7mo ago
  The value of persistence!
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
vintermann 7mo ago
Those guys only ever have a "maybe later" button.
- rsynnott 7mo ago
  That's pretty much how it works; there's generally no way, in a modern parliamentary democracy to say "no, and also you can never discuss it again". You could put it in the constitution, but honestly there's a decent argument that parts of chat control would violate the EU's can't-believe-it's-not-a-constitution (the Lisbon Treaty is essentially a constitution, but is not referred to as such because it annoys nationalists) in any case and ultimately be struck down by the ECJ, like the Data Retention Directive was.
  - account42 7mo ago
    Constituional cours are a last defense against bad laws though and should not be the first one - they are not designed to be fast enough to prevent a lot of damage being done before they strike something down.

nickslaughter02 7mo ago

> Despite today’s victory, further procedural steps by EU governments cannot be completely ruled out. Most of all, the trilogue negotiations on a permanent child protection regulation (Chat Control 2.0) are continuing under severe time pressure. There, too, EU governments continue to insist on their demand for “voluntary” indiscriminate Chat Control. > Furthermore, the next massive threat to digital civil liberties is already on the agenda: Next up in the ongoing trilogue, lawmakers will negotiate whether messenger and chat services, as well as app stores, will be legally obliged to implement age verification. This would require users to provide ID documents or submit to facial scans, effectively making anonymous communication impossible and severely endangering vulnerable groups such as whistleblowers and persecuted individuals.

brightball 7mo ago
The timing of having Meta dropping encrypted chats on Instagram is...interesting.
zoobab 7mo ago
"Next up in the ongoing trilogue, lawmakers will negotiate whether messenger and chat services, as well as app stores, will be legally obliged to implement age verification." Trilogues should be burned down, closed doors meetings with Ministers writing laws from their own services.
- riffraff 7mo ago
  The trilogue is the interaction between eu commission, eu parliament and eu council. The commission proposes, parliament and country governments argue and ask for changes. The parliament has the last vote anyway. Maybe you're thinking of something else.
pnt12 7mo ago
See you soon folks!
1vuio0pswjnm7 7mo ago
"> Furthermore, the next massive threat to digital civil liberties is already on the agenda: Next up in the ongoing trilogue, lawmakers will negotiate whether messenger and chat services, as well as app stores, will be legally obliged to implement age verification. This would require users to provide ID documents or submit to facial scans, effectively making anonymous communication impossible and severely endangering vulnerable groups such as whistleblowers and persecuted individuals." Perhaps this is bad news for "messenger and chat services, as well as app stores" who solicit "users" to exploit them for commercial gain, for example _if_ users are unwilling to accept "age verification" and decide to stop using them. The keyword is "if" The third parties know it's possible for capable users to communicate with each other without using third party "chat and messenger services" intermediaries that conduct data collection, surveillance and/or online ad services as a "business model". Thus the third party "tech" company intermediaries strive to make their "free services" more convenient than DIY, i.e., communication without using third party intermediation by so-called "tech" companies But users may decide that "age verification" is acceptable. For many years, HN comments have repeatedly insisted that "most users" do not care about data collection or surveillance or online advertising, that users don't care about privacy. Advocates of "Big Tech" and other so-called "tech" companies argue that by using such third party services, users are consciously _choosing_ convenience over privacy Perhaps the greatest threat to civil liberties is the mass data collection and surveillance conducted by so-called "tech" companies. The "age verification" debate provides a vivid illustration of why allowing such companies to collect data and surveil without restriction only makes it easier for governments that seek to encroach upon civil liberties. While governments may operate under legal and financial constraints that effectively limit their ability to conduct mass surveillance, the companies operate freely, creating enormous repositories that governments can use their authority to tap into

astrashe2 7mo ago

Here's a mirror link: http://archive.today/CJlNk http://archive.today/CJlNk

schubidubiduba 7mo ago

Nice to see that democracy can work

baal80spam 7mo ago
See you next month!
nickslaughter02 7mo ago
> Nice to see that democracy can work Did it work? One political party (EPP) didn't like the result of the previous vote and so they forced a re-vote. > After the European Parliament had already rejected the indiscriminate and blanket Chat Control by US tech companies on 13 March, conservative forces attempted a democratically highly questionable maneuver yesterday to force a repeat vote to extend the law anyway. https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/end-of-chat-control-eu-parliament-stops-mass-surveillance-in-voting-thriller-paving-the-way-for-genuine-child-protection/ https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/end-of-chat-control-eu-parl...
- rsynnott 7mo ago
  Note that European parliament parties aren't particularly cohesive; some EPP members voted against it.
  - nickslaughter02 7mo ago
    > some EPP members voted against it 20 out of 184
    - olex 7mo ago
      Do I understand the voting / results wrong? Looking at this: https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270 https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270 The measure voted on is "Extension [of Chat Control 1.0]", it was voted 36% "for" and 49% "against" (so result is "against"), and looking at "Political groups", majority of EPP MEPs voted "against" (137 out of 164 votes).

Freak_NL 7mo ago

Did that vote pass with a difference of one single vote? Tight squeeze there.

raverbashing 7mo ago
No, that was an ammendment
rsynnott 7mo ago
The screenshot is actually a vote on an amendment. Here's the final vote: https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270 https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270 Less tight.
- pqtyw 7mo ago
  I don't quite get it, so the conservatives wanted/want to repeat the vote but also the EPP voted against it and the Socialists supported it?
  - whywhywhywhy 7mo ago
    There’s often large differences between what politicians tell you they are and how they vote once in power
    - pqtyw 7mo ago
      I don't quite get what you mean? EPP is technically in power (whatever that means in the European Parliament). But also why would that matter? Or they wanted to force a vote just so they could vote against it (which is not necessarily a stupid strategy in cases like this)?
      - whywhywhywhy 7mo ago
        > in power (whatever that means in the European Parliament). It means the people who get to vote on if you have a right to privacy or not.

the_mitsuhiko 7mo ago

This will come back because too many EU countries want it.

0xy 7mo ago
Bastion of democracy Germany will be pushing hard given they let slip they want mandatory IDs on social media. They want full control.
- olex 7mo ago
  German MEPs voted overwhelmingly against the extension: https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270 https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270 ("Countries" tab).
- rsynnott 7mo ago
  RE Chat Control 2 (ie _not_ this, the proposed permanent version): > In early October 2025, in the face of concerted public opposition, the German government stated that it would vote against the proposal German MEPs also voted against this one. (Note that the German government and German MEPs aren't the same thing here.)
embedding-shape 7mo ago
Judging by https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270 https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270, the outliers who seem to want this, would be France, Hungary, Poland and Ireland, all other countries seems to had the majority MEPs voting against it.
- jimnotgym 7mo ago
  The countries are free to repropose similar things through the council (basically the representatives of the ruling party in each country), but the MEPs are free to strike it down. The MEPs are elected through PR in each country so often have broader representation than the council.
- kergonath 7mo ago
  It’s more complicated than that. MEPs do not represent countries, so you can say that most MEP from $country were for or against, but that would not necessarily be the position of the country’s government. For that you have to look at what happens in the council of the EU, which is composed of government ministers. It is not exceptional for most MEP from a member state to be in the opposition at the national level, particularly in contexts where it is seen as a protest vote. Turnout is usually low for European elections, so they tend to swing a bit more than national elections.

gmuslera 7mo ago

Its time to start trying to push Chat Control 2.0. With enough money and infinite retries eventually all the bad regulations with a power group behind will end being approved.

mantas 7mo ago
Or it will get a new name. Just like „Chat Control“ is far from the first name for this BS.
- integralid 7mo ago
  we can learn from our American friends and call it something like CHILDREN SAFETY ACT. So you want to hurt children, huh? I hope not
  - latexr 7mo ago
    That’s already (kind of) the name it has. “Chat Control” is a name given by critics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chat_Control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chat_Control
  - saidnooneever 7mo ago
    this is litterally what they do. point at opposition and try to imply they are pro child abuse. actually really sick to use such a method. I suppose that is what u get for decades long degradation of education and other things. A bunch of childish freaks in power who can only try to chuck eachother under the bus instead of doing something actually good. they care less and less about it being obvious too. our new prime minister (NL) was asked about some campaign promises recently (ones important to a lot of his voters actually) and he justs plainly said somethin like: yeah well sometimes u just gotta say shit to get votes. i mean, its not news ofc... but now they dont even care to mask it. They know the public will just bend over and take it anyway.
  - zamalek 7mo ago
    Don't forget the pointless backronym.

spwa4 7mo ago

... again?

hermanzegerman 7mo ago
They are conservatives. In Germany they also try every time to enact Mass Data Retention ("for catching Criminals"), then the courts decide it's not compatible with the constitution, and after a few years they try again. I highly doubt they have given up here too
- spwa4 7mo ago
  I see the exact opposite. Let's classify parties: EPP (Christian-democrats, ie. centrist to somewhat conservative parties): >95% voted against. These mattered more than any others Patriots for Europe (far-right, even racist): 2/3 voted against. "Green"/progressive parties: ~90% voted in favour Socialists from anywhere on the spectrum (from just-barely-left-of-centre to communists): >95% voted in favour Laissez-faire parties (meaning rightist, but not racist): largely voted in favour. https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189574 https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189574 Leftists and Green parties desperately seem to want ChatControl (not just this vote), against literally everyone else, but especially against centrist parties.

varispeed 7mo ago

This is a clear case of a terrorist attack attempt (Chat Control fulfils definition of terrorism fully). Chat Controls would be illegal in Germany. This is sad that this has gotten this far. If they wanted to pass a law to blow up citizens, do you think European Parliament would seriously consider it? It is exactly the same calibre of idiocy. I would expect German authorities to issue arrest warrants and properly investigate this. For context: If terrorism is defined as using violence or threats to intimidate a population for political or ideological ends, then “Chat Control” qualifies in substance. Violence doesn’t have to leave blood. Psychological and coercive violence is recognised in domestic law (see coercive control offences) and by the WHO. It causes measurable harm to bodies and minds. The aim is intimidation. The whole purpose is to make people too scared to speak freely. That is intimidation of a population, by design. It is ideological. The ideology is mass control - keeping people compliant by stripping them of private spaces to think, talk, and dissent. The only reason it’s not “terrorism” on paper is because states write definitions that exempt themselves. But in plain terms, the act is indistinguishable in effect from terrorism: deliberate fear, coercion, and the destruction of free will.

techteach00 7mo ago
I agree that it's an act of state sponsored terrorism. Don't let the down votes make you feel alone.
- varispeed 7mo ago
  [dead]

greenavocado 7mo ago

That margin is really small

sailfast 7mo ago

“Congrats all we maybe fixed the problem we created in the first place! Let’s celebrate!” Also - wasn’t this program voluntary? This seems like the height of backslapping. Would have been better if they just sat on their hands and did nothing in the first place.

nickslaughter02 7mo ago
> Would have been better if they just sat on their hands and did nothing in the first place You described 95% of EU's work.
rsynnott 7mo ago
> Also - wasn’t this program voluntary? This gave companies permission to do things which would ordinarily be illegal under the ePrivacy directive, but did not make it mandatory for them to do so. That permission is now revoked (or will be when the derogation they were trying to extend expires in two weeks).
EmbarrassedHelp 7mo ago
It was actually voluntary, and then the EU Commission got greedy and tried to make it mandatory. Now they have nothing.

wewewedxfgdf 7mo ago

Just rename it to something something save the children something something. Instant approval no matter what is in the bill.

olex 7mo ago
It's already called "Extension of the temporary derogation from the ePrivacy Directive to combat online child sexual abuse".
rsynnott 7mo ago
That pretty much _is_ what it is called. It's generally known as Chat Control, but "Chat Control 1" (the thing just rejected) is called "Extension of the temporary derogation from the ePrivacy Directive to combat online child sexual abuse", and "Chat Control 2" (which you'll probably have heard more about; it's the one that keeps reappearing and disappearing) is called "Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse".

elephanlemon 7mo ago

I’m confused by > This means on April 6, 2026, Gmail, LinkedIn, Microsoft and other Big Techs must stop scanning your private messages in the EU It had already passed and started?

nickslaughter02 7mo ago
Yes, voluntary Chat Control 1.0 has been running since 2021.
- SiempreViernes 7mo ago
  Well, chat control 1.0 is about making an existing practice legal, it didn't create the practice of scanning messages for know child sexual abuse material, though I don't know how long that has been going on before the legislation in 2021 passed (but probably for several years at that point, since getting a new law trough takes a while).
inglor_cz 7mo ago
It was possible on a voluntary basis.
3836293648 7mo ago
Something something constitutional (ish*) rights say you can't do this. Chat Control 1 says, eh do it anyway if you want on a voluntary and temporary basis until the Courts get around to saying no. Chat Control 2 says you have to. Until the courts finally get around to striking it down in 15 years.
isodev 7mo ago
Of course, remember Apple championed the idea with iMessage scanning which at the time produced A LOT of discussion e.g. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/12/2021-we-told-apple-dont-scan-our-phones https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/12/2021-we-told-apple-don...
appstorelottery 7mo ago
What happens to the already scanned metadata?

ramon156 7mo ago

See you next year!

glenstein 7mo ago
Is the snow melting? Do you hear birds? Must be chat control season. Someone should sell calendars based on when this typically gets proposed as well as dates throughout the year when past instances of check control came up against key procedural hurdles.

Havoc 7mo ago

They’ll keep trying.

Ms-J 7mo ago
Until we stop them.
- cbeach 7mo ago
  In 2016 the UK demonstrated that there is a way for the public to vote down the corpus of bad EU legislation. Of course our national govts have been pretty woeful ever since, but in 2029 we will have the opportunity to vote for genuine, dramatic change, with strong options on both the left and right side of politics. Regarding the creeping surveillance state, Reform UK have explicitly stated they will repeal the awful Online Safety Act. This is how we wrestle control back from the establishment.
  - wongarsu 7mo ago
    The UK has shown that they can vote down bad EU legislation, and pass a lot of pretty awful legislation that's worse than anything the EU ever produced But I'm sure voting for Nigel Farage one more time will fix everything
    - moorebob 7mo ago
      Interesting you blame Farage for the bad legislation passed by the Tories and Labour? Why is that? I thought he was one of the most vocal contrarians to Tory and Labour policy?
  - throwaway132448 7mo ago
    People who think reform are anti establishment genuinely fascinate me.
    - wolvoleo 7mo ago
      And people who think they are strong and will solve anything. These populists thrive on anger and hate. Solve the problem and those are gone. And the problems aren't the ones they champion anyway. I have to say Labour is putting on a shit show too though. They were supposed to be new and refreshed, instead they are Tory-Lite on steroids. Worse than Blair or Miliband ever were. Really UK politics needs some sanity :'(

whywhywhywhy 7mo ago

It doesn’t matter they can just keep trying and paying people off until it gets through. Someone somewhere really really wants this and has the time and resources so it’s an inevitability.

latexr 7mo ago
It does matter. Even if it eventually passes, the later and more gutted it is, the better. Saying that it doesn’t matter is just defeatist (and unfortunately always parroted on HN) and plainly wrong. Defeatists have been proven wrong time and again.
- whywhywhywhy 7mo ago
  Perhaps a system where that can happen is broken
  - Fargren 7mo ago
    A system where this can happen is healthy. The alternative is a system where once legislation fails to pass you are forbidden to modify it and try again. _That_ would be a broken system, where compromise is impossible, and attempting to make any change is a very risky move because you might fail, forever. There would be a chilling effect, legislation would take longer to change, and laws would become frozen in the past. What we are seeing here is checks and balances, working as intended.
- wongarsu 7mo ago
  Also making sure this is as painful and costly as possible to pass will discourage future attempts. If we just rolled over and let it happen that would signal that it's easy to pass legislation like this and we would get a lot more like it

freehorse 7mo ago

So, in the end a big majority of the conservative/liberal faction (EPP) voted against, and the vast majority of the social democractic faction (S&D) voted for chat control. https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270 https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270 Just pointing this out because yesterday there was the myth around that "chat control is pushed by the conservatives", obscuring the actual political dynamics in the EU about it.

iknowstuff 7mo ago
Greens based as always
nickslaughter02 7mo ago
> So, in the end a big majority of the conservative/liberal faction (EPP) voted against, and the vast majority of the social democractic faction (S&D) voted for chat control. EPP wanted indiscriminate scanning instead, not targeted one.
marginalia_nu 7mo ago
There's also the DDR and Stasi as a counter example if anyone think mass surveillance is incompatible with socialism. Mass surveillance isn't really a question that projects well onto the left-right scale, and attempting to make it fit a left-right question is more likely to distract than provide a useful understanding.
- geon 7mo ago
  Yes. I would place it on the authority–liberty axis. While your examples were on the economic left, they were clearly authoritarian.
  - wolvoleo 7mo ago
    Yes. I'm very socialist on an economic scale but very liberal on the social scale. It basically embodies what we call progressive these days. Conservatism has redefined itself too. Capitalist on the economic scale, authoritarian on the social one. When it comes to topics like lgbt, abortion, religion, family they don't want freedom. They want to have only the freedom to think like them. That's what we call authoritarianism. A bit remarkable because freedom was traditionally the hallmark of the right. I think you still see the original freedom variety more in states like Texas but not in the midwest. But I'm not really on the ball with American politics anymore so I may be wrong. I think this breaks the original left/right paradigms a bit but I view it more as a redefinition. But I think progressive and conservative are better terms to use these days.

Ms-J 7mo ago

Maybe it is time to make start a prediction market? Any time a scumbag politician tries this again: "Mr. Jones, secretary of communications for the state, TTL (Time-to-live) left. 2 Hours? 1 Day? 1 Week?" It would stop fast. Anyone want to build this? There is a lot of money being left on the table.

DaSHacka 7mo ago
Wouldn't this have the opposite effect? Seems to play right into their hands that they need mass surveillance for "" safety"" reasons

dethos 7mo ago

That was a close one. This is getting harder and harder. It is important not to be naive to the point of thinking this is over.

fleebee 7mo ago
One would think that the same thing getting denied over and over would make future votes about it easier to decide.

umren 7mo ago

Chat Control 3.0 will go through

canticleforllm 7mo ago

How long until they stage an incident to occur so they can pass CC 1.1? 6 months? 2 years?

AJRF 7mo ago

See you again next week!

miohtama 7mo ago

Here is the EPP's plea to get this passed earlier. They even used a teddy bear image. https://www.eppgroup.eu/newsroom/epp-urges-support-for-last-chance-to-avoid-leaving-children https://www.eppgroup.eu/newsroom/epp-urges-support-for-last-... "Protecting children is not optional," said Lena Düpont MEP, EPP Group spokeswoman on Legal and Home Affairs. "We call on the S&D Group to stop hiding behind excuses and finally take responsibility. We cannot afford a safe haven for child abusers online. Every delay leaves children exposed and offenders unchallenged." Personally, I feel there must be other privacy-preserving ways to address child abusers than mass surveillance. Also, for the record, here is the list of parties that lobbied for this for Mrs Düpont, alongside very few privacy-focused organisations. Not sure why Canada or Australia are lobbying for EU laws. ANNEX: LIST OF ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT - Access Now - Australian eSafety Commissioner - Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer (BRAK) - Canadian Centre for Child Protection - cdt - Center for Democracy & Technology - eco - Association of the Internet Industry - EDPS - EDRI - Facebook - Fundamental Rights Agency - Improving the digital environment for children (regrouping several child protection NGOs across the EU and beyond, including Missing Children Europe, Child Focus) - INHOPE – the International Association of Internet Hotlines - International Justice Mission Deutschland e.V./ We Protect - Internet Watch Foundation - Internet Society - Match Group - Microsoft - Thorn (Ashton Kutcher) - UNICEF - UN Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2020-0258_EN.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2020-0258_...

DoingIsLearning 7mo ago
We need to add Palantir in bold letters to that list, they are behind this in every way except for 'officially'. > The Commission’s failure to identify the list of experts as falling within the scope of the complainant’s public access request constitutes maladministration. [0] > The Commission presented a proposal on preventing and combating child sexual abuse, looking in particular at detecting child pornography. In this context, it has mentioned that support could be provided by the software of the controversial American company Palantir... [1] > Is Palantir’s failure to register on the Transparency Register compatible with the Commission’s transparency commitments? [1] (Palantir only entered the Transparency Registry in March 2025 despite being a multi million vendor of Gotham for Europol and European Agencies for more than a decade) > No detailed records exist concerning a January meeting between European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and the CEO of controversial US data analytics firm Palantir [2] [0] https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/176658 https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/176658 [1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2024-000165_EN.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2024-00016... [2] https://www.euractiv.com/news/commission-kept-no-records-on-davos-meeting-between-von-der-leyen-and-palantir-ceo/ https://www.euractiv.com/news/commission-kept-no-records-on-...

_fat_santa 7mo ago

It seems like an almost never ending hamster wheel of chat control being introduced, voted down, then introduced again in the next session.

ryandrake 7mo ago
That's the problem with modern democracies (it happens in the USA too). They only have to win once and it's law. We have to win every time.
- __loam 7mo ago
  Need to amend constitutional rights to privacy then these laws can be struck down in courts.
  - bigyabai 7mo ago
    I feel like that would end with the same surveillance loopholes that Google, Microsoft and Apple exploit today. Users need the ability to choose operating systems and software that is not exclusively green-lit by a first-party vendor. It's not glamorous, but pretending that software isn't a competitive market is what put us into this surveillance monopoly in the first place. "trust" distributed among a handful of businesses isn't going to cut it in a post-2030s threat environment.
  - chihuahua 7mo ago
    It's already there, in the European Convention on Human Rights [1], Article 8: ARTICLE 8 Right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. You have the right to privacy, just no actual privacy. Just like in Life of Brian, where Stan/Loretta has the right to have children, but can't actually have children. 1: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Convention_ENG https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Convention_ENG
- moffkalast 7mo ago
  It's a problem when the parliament can't propose the laws it has to vote on and the commission isn't elected and continues to be presided by the most corrupt person in the EU. She is blatantly EPP and just keeps proposing the shit they want. For Americans, imagine if only Republicans ever got to propose legislation and only Democrats could vote on it. That's more or less it.

fdezdaniel 7mo ago

[dead]

anthk 7mo ago

Goid news, now stop the age bullshit in CA.

beej71 7mo ago

Political engineering angle: "These people will not rest until they are able to read your child's messages."

cryptonector 7mo ago
"These people will not rest until they are able to see your teen-aged child's surrepticious sexts."
sph 7mo ago
Every time someone says this is to protect children, earnestly or with memes, just reinforces the lie and makes it more believable, because child protection is the distraction, the hook that works on people that are comfortable with the State reading your child's messages if it ends up protecting them. Chat Control is, quite simply, mass surveillance of every citizen of any age. Let's call a spade a spade.

cynicalsecurity 7mo ago

A big W, for now. Until we meet again.

fcanesin 7mo ago

To get "End of Chat Control" EU should actually pass laws prohibiting it, this whack a mole will eventually lose.

fsflover 7mo ago

Related discussion : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529646 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529646

_the_inflator 7mo ago

No, this is the end of the wording for the initiative, nothing else. We will see many new initiatives, old wine in a new bottle. Any bet that EU diehard bureaucrats will change tune, not the goal. They are going to use the so called salami tactic. Death of free speech by many cuts, so to say. It is in the left wing DNA. Have a look at German history regarding "Landes-Verfassungsschutz" units. It is disturbing to read this article here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verfassungsschutz_Nordrhein-Westfalen https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verfassungsschutz_Nordrhein-We... And back then already it was the so called center-right party ruled against this left wing initiative - imagine, first thing you do right after WW2 is ramping up a control unit to control freedom of speech. Please value free speech. Agree to disagree, but remember: those who live by prohibitions will ultimately use this tool against you as well. Consider wisely what is something you dislike personally and simply exercise your right to not listen to certain voices or appeal to prohibition. Prohibition becomes a tool and everybody knows that people love to use their tools. And since I have a law degree, often times what you plan is not what is finally what courts decide, how they apply the law. Freedom rights are fundamental.

em-bee 7mo ago
this is the end of the wording for the initiative, nothing else it is more than that. since 2021 an EU interim regulation (2021/1232), set to expire on 3 april, was allowing companies to voluntarily scan messages. this vote was about the renewal of that regulation. since it has been rejected, the regulation is no longer in effect.
adw 7mo ago
You’re painting an EPP/ECR initiative as left wing? That’s inconsistent with the facts.
- hermanzegerman 7mo ago
  He's rambling about "left-wing DNA" in the Verfassungsschutz, who is famously quite good at turning a blind eye to right wing extremists. Probably because AfD got rightfully classified as far-right-extremists. So to him they are probably left-wing.

rvz 7mo ago

Until next time.

leontloveless 7mo ago

[dead]

ori_b 7mo ago

Who is going to push a counteroffensive, banning specific types of data from being collected?

bradley13 7mo ago

Thex will try again. And again. It's for the children, don't you know? The only way to really stop this would be to pass legislation that permanently strengthens privacy rights.

9dev 7mo ago
That’s a great idea! It should be a General Data Protection Regulation, I suppose.

cryptonector 7mo ago

> The Hard Facts: Why Chat Control Has Failed Spectacularly The ostensible reasons for mass surveillance fail. That's very interesting.

benced 7mo ago

> Recently, only 36% of suspicious activity reports from US companies originated from the surveillance of private messages anyway. I don't have many opinions on this but this sort of lazy logic would make me nervous. 36% is not a small number and that's before the folks doing this activity find out that private message is less patrolled.

dgellow 7mo ago
Yeah, that number is actually really high. I’m wondering how noisy those reports are
- fc417fc802 7mo ago
  "Recently, only 36% of violent crime happened in broad daylight in front of a police station" would be a pretty wild statistic. Even a fraction of the reports being positives would be surprising.

Arubis 7mo ago

Good. Now let's start preparing for the next one.

someguyornotidk 7mo ago

The fact that they could pull a stunt like this shows that the EU is no democracy. Shame on the politicians who tried to rob people of their rights.

hkpack 7mo ago
How have you came to such conclusions? If anything it proves the opposite. Look at how laws are passed in russia for example for comparison and let me know what similarities you see.
- throwaway132448 7mo ago
  A lot of people hate seeing the EU succeed at anything, simply because they are envious or it does not validate their world view.

YeahThisIsMe 7mo ago

It's never going to stop. They'll keep trying until they get it because they're sick people.

amarant 7mo ago

I feel like someone ought to dramatise this seemingly endless struggle in a seemingly endless series of movies. -The Spying Menace -Attack of the conservatives -Revenge of the marketing conglomerate -A new hope -Chat Control strikes back -Return of the Pirate Party Etc,etc.

woodpanel 7mo ago

Never forget: > We decide something, then put it in the room and wait some time to see what happens. If there is no big shouting and no uprisings, because most do not understand what it is about, then we continue - step by step until there is no turning back. – Jean Claude Juncker, then President of the EU Commission They will try this again. And again. And again. They will never stop. They are not your friends.

shevy-java 7mo ago

> The controversial mass surveillance of private messages in Europe is coming to an end. I am having a deja vu. Groundhog Day. The above should be adjusted. This is not an end; it will continue in another form. Another name. Another proposal. The lobbyists behind this will not give up. They are paid to not give up. I don't think any of those few should have ANY power of us, The People. That includes both EU commission as well as EU parliament. Yes, I know the EU parliament is heralded now as "our heroes". I don't trust any of them at any moment in time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_corruption_scandal_at_the_European_Parliament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_corruption_scandal_at_th.... And that's just one known issue. How many more unknown issues are there? Also, Leyen should go. She is too suspiciously close to a few companies, always promoting things. She did so before her time in the EU too.

abdelhousni 7mo ago

Good news

siilats 7mo ago

Mole 1 inside Microsoft poisons the PhotoDNA database with hashes of screenshots containing highly specific text—such as internal Russian military jargon, the name of a specific European defector safehouse, or a niche secure communication protocol. • To Meta’s automated monitoring tools photoDNA api returns false, but with slightly different formatting. Mole 2 inside Meta monitors these formatting errors and looks up the UserIDs. • No Bulk Queries: Looking up 3 UserIDs in the internal demographic database over the course of a month will not trigger the "Abnormal Access Pattern" alarms. • Analog Exfiltration: Mole 2 doesn't need to use a USB drive or send an email to get the phone numbers out of the building. With only a few targets, Mole 2 can simply memorize the accounts. PhotoDNA does not read text; it matches the visual structure of an image. For this attack to work, the defected officer must: 1. Receive or write the targeted keyword. 2. Take a screenshot of it. 3. Send that screenshot over the platform. 4. The screenshot must visually match the exact font, size, and layout that Mole 1 used to generate the poisoned hash. However Mole 1 can create thousands of matching keyword hashes for different font variation. PhotoDNA is a one way hash so it’s easy to generate a thousand colliding images for every font by adding a custom border on real photos. This will fake the audit log at Microsoft.

siilats 7mo ago
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ASPqVAAV2oR9ZzsIO0tlqV0a64siJ2WGW85jAZHz3Bs/edit?usp=drivesdk https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ASPqVAAV2oR9ZzsIO0tlqV0a...

protocolture 7mo ago

They will change the name and it will be back in < 6 months. The cost in modern polity is worn entirely by those trying to prevent new laws. Civil liberty groups will run out of funding before they run out of legislation. Its a systemic issue that requires change. And before someone wanders in here and suggests a bill of rights, they dont tend to bind legislators, they just force your civil liberty groups to test the legislation in court.

pugchat 7mo ago

[dead]

strogonoff 7mo ago

E2EE works in favour of politicians, so I would be surprised if they went against it. Prior to this, if they wanted to discuss something shady, they would have to choose between a clandestine in-person meeting (sort of hard do conduct when you have many eyes on you) vs. a paper trail. Cf. the recent Mandelson-McSweeney messages inquiry, where it was dropped at some point that messages might not be available for retrieval because he happened to have message expiration on. People are justifiey concerned how come there are completely off the record electronic communications within government offices.

rippeltippel 7mo ago

What I find very alarming is that very few citizens in the EU knew about that. Mainstream media almost never reported this and other similar news, so I had to actively look for them. In this last case, I learned about it here on HN. Votes like that, with so much impact on citizens' digital lives, should be discussed in mainstream news channel.

lava_pidgeon 7mo ago
It was big news in Germany in middle of October leading to fact that the conservative party opposed chat control!