9 ms·

EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

475 points by stavros 4mo ago

stavros 4mo ago
Please email your members of parliament: https://fightchatcontrol.eu https://fightchatcontrol.eu
wronex 4mo ago
So what platforms will this apply too? What platforms Dow sit already apply too? All SMS, large email providers (Gmail?), WhatsApp, Apple services?
- donmcronald 4mo ago
  There have been a few incidents that make me think Snapchat private chats are monitored. The one with the guy joking to his friends about blowing up a plane or something is the first that comes to mind. Tell me how private messaging gets you taken off a plane otherwise. It’s not private. Big tech has put a camera and microphone in everyone’s pocket and they’re monitoring everything. The government and big (American) tech are very likely lying to us IMO. How will anyone protest when mass surveillance becomes the law if it’s already in place and you can be labeled a bad actor that gets your life ruined if you dissent?
  - mdp2021 4mo ago
    > How will anyone protest when mass surveillance becomes the law if it’s already in place and you can be labeled a bad actor that gets your life ruined if you dissent With the pure awareness that Men do not act out of convenience, and that this whole situation of declining societies was born out of already-fascist-material that acted out of convenience, with complacency.
vb-8448 4mo ago
> Although the Council emphasizes that the *scans will be limited to the absolutely necessary extent* and that no general, indiscriminate surveillance will take place I'm 100% sure that this is the case and about the good intentions of the proposers. /s
sunshine-o 4mo ago
At that point it has become clear to most Europe is not a democracy anymore. It has lost any legitimacy.
- rixed 4mo ago
  At the end of the day, regimes do not depend on legitimacy but on force.
- cbg0 4mo ago
  Talk about overreacting.
  - mdp2021 4mo ago
    Many of us judge that the authoritativeness of most states and organizations is at a staggeringly low point. The reaction may not be tied to a single event.
- inigyou 4mo ago
  What percentage of people support Chat Control?
  - CGMthrowaway 4mo ago
    Far less than a majority. I believe that is the whole point
superkuh 4mo ago
The same as every other fascist control measure. Voted down. Voted down. Voted down. Then forced through through some obscure mechanism bypassing the will of the people and becoming law forever.
- flumpcakes 4mo ago
  > Then forced through through some obscure mechanism bypassing It was extending a recently expired law that has existed since 2011. I don't think your comment is reflecting on what has actually happened. "Chat Control" as people know it has not passed into law.
petcat 4mo ago
Am I crazy or is this website not allowing me to opt out of cookie tracking unless I sign up for a subscription? I know the EU cookie banners have basically ruined the internet, but this seems like a whole 'nother level of obnoxious.
- stavros 4mo ago
  Wow, yeah, that seems... illegal, no?
  - wronex 4mo ago
    Im pretty sure it is illegal. In my understanding, it must be equally easy to reject and accept. And the website MUST continue working under either choice. Which is not the case here. I think the lawmakers should have made all forms of tracking illegal instead. That would make law writing and following easier. And closer to the spirit of what they are trying to accomplish and what everyone wants (except you Silicon Valley O.o)
    - briandear 4mo ago
      I hate the tracking too. But how to websites monetize free content otherwise? Advertising doesn’t work if you can’t price it. Without tracking, everything becomes a paywall.
      - wronex 4mo ago
        It seems a lot of people are doing amazing things with Patreon. Share some things for free (free as in beer) then have a paid tier for those who want more. Convince us you’re worthy, then we’ll give you money willingly.
  - Carbon1603 4mo ago
    Nope, completely legal.
- esafak 4mo ago
  You Reject the undesirable ones (all!) and click Agree to Selected.
sph 4mo ago
This is democracy manifest. What a joke.
- stavros 4mo ago
  We have been enjoying a succulent Chinese meal.
  - Lio 4mo ago
    Yeah and Peter Hummelgaard is about to touch you on the penis. > "We must break with the totally erroneous perception that it is everyone's civil liberty to communicate on encrypted messaging services," What an arsehole. https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/danish-justice-minister-we-must-break-perception-of-right-to-private-messaging/ar-AA1MA98T https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/danish-justice...
    - sph 4mo ago
      What is it with Danish Social Democrats and wanting to enact mass surveillance at any cost?
      - Ray20 4mo ago
        Isn't this natural for any "Social" ideologies? They imply a system of centralized redistribution, which implies a powerful repressive apparatus and an omnipresent surveillance system.
        deleted 4mo ago
        [deleted]
        int_19h 4mo ago
        No, it is not, and no, they do not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
    - mdp2021 4mo ago
mattrighetti 4mo ago
They're not going to stop, are they?
- stavros 4mo ago
  It certainly seems like they'll stop after they pass it.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
- flumpcakes 4mo ago
  Who is they? These pithy remarks don't really extend the debate or have any nuance - they just sound conspiratorial. There are plenty of reasons to "scan" communications. There are plenty of reasons to have limits on communication "scanning". What part of the spectrum do you fall on?
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  - julienreszka 4mo ago
    no there is no reason to scan communications.
    - flumpcakes 4mo ago
      The most obvious answer: to stop CSAM being shared on large platforms. Cloudflare has a tool that does it for some of their services.
      - Double_a_92 4mo ago
        Just because it's criminal, it doesn't mean that every private entity has to help to prevent it at costs of your privacy. If there are people that host parties in their homes to share CSAM, does that mean that it should be mandatory to install surveillance cameras in your house? Also as if people that are seriously sharing CSAM, wouldn't encrypt the data before sharing it.
mdp2021 4mo ago
Do also see: # Italy warns against Chat Control mass surveillance, but votes in favour of it (digitalcourage.social) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48783340 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48783340 Do, because already there nuances (towards the better or worse) are revealed, which are not evident in journalism as we have it. The whole story needs more investigation than the stubs. But the way they are managing it in the workflow does not seem too linear...
- stavros 4mo ago
  "We are in favour of this law, so long as it is not used for its intended purpose."
  - mdp2021 4mo ago
    You should elaborate. And explain what you understood as "its intended purpose". My understanding of the vote last Friday was about protracting the 2021 temporary compromise (scan voluntarily until we have a full law), which was suspended at the beginning of April. It is not clear how they proceeded that way. It seems some vertices imposed that they would not accept a legal vacuum there. So, it's not a "law". What ran for the past five years was an "exception to privacy laws" (I am not informed of the mandated guardrails).
    - pessimizer 4mo ago
      I regret to inform you that a temporary exception to a law is also a law. edit: > It seems some vertices imposed that they would not accept a legal vacuum there. I find this sentence unintelligible. Can you come up with another wording? And who are these "vertices" who have been given approval rights over EU legislation?
      - mdp2021 4mo ago
        > to inform you that What would that entail. > who are these "vertices" Apparently metsola, to some source. The eu parliament refused to renew the temporary licence to private message monitoring, which had the "speaker" complain that this would just leave the union with a normative vacuum - apparently insisting that one non-temporary regulation has to be decided. So I read.
m132 4mo ago
The central bank, council, and commission have to get thoroughly investigated. The amount of questionable decisions coming from those three in the recent (15) years is extremely unsettling. The parliament and courts are practically the only institutions preventing things from hitting the fan at this point, and struggling to do so, it seems.
- kingleopold 4mo ago
  they dont investigate themselves, I hope you understand those details some day.
  - m132 4mo ago
    They do, albeit it's a slow process: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizergate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizergate - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-secret-group-chat-zelensky-trump-b3002834.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-secret-gr... Ironically, those are two separate cases of one high-profile EU politician (in fact, the very head of the same parliament that pushes for mass scanning of private messages) BOTH involving secret text messages that the mentioned politician refuses to reveal.
    - deleted 4mo ago
      [deleted]
- junto 4mo ago
  I’m convinced of widespread corruption here. We need to follow the money. Who is funding and pushing this agenda to blanket spy on all Europeans? I guess my question is rhetorical.
  - joe_mamba 4mo ago
    >Who is funding and pushing this agenda to blanket spy on all Europeans? Why are we ignoring the other side of the transaction? The side responsible for taking the money. Giving bribes for lobbying is bad, but that would not be an issue if those found taking the bribes would be guillotined or hanged.
mdp2021 4mo ago
What frightens me is, as usual, the assumption of conformism that may just remove people from services. "Present a document" // "No, certainly not to you" // "Do without then" The straight will say "no", but their lives will be extremely complicated, possibly in the unawareness of those that just take compliance to the absurd for granted - as the weak call survival paramount and cannot see that their modus is subjective. That we won't have it is something that they cannot even conceive. Adults are noise to them.
LePetitPrince 4mo ago
[dead]
kingleopold 4mo ago
it will %100 pass at some point. no way around it.
- mdp2021 4mo ago
  The problem is /what/ will pass. What is this clothing limit? Pink, shocking, lime? Long sleeves, above the wrist or below? In the city center, in the suburbs, where? The issue is all in the details. And in the decision process, before that, of course.
SilverElfin 4mo ago
Governments don’t work for people. Yet they use terms like democracy all the time. The repeated attempts at chat control are so blatantly anti civil rights but also disrespectful of democratic principles. Why do EU citizens tolerate this? Are they okay being made a fool of or is this just not an issue for them after all?
- stavros 4mo ago
  Well, we don't tolerate it, that's why it hasn't passed yet. They keep trying, though.
  - mr_toad 4mo ago
    The power of the European Commission to propose legislation needs to be curbed or removed entirely. Executive agencies shouldn’t be writing legislation. It’s far to easy for them to propose laws that benefit the the European Commission, rather than benefiting Europeans.
    - munksbeer 4mo ago
      You're blaming the wrong people and making this worse. The article is literally about the EU Council, the elected heads of states of all the EU nations. The elected leaders of the EU nations really, really want chat control. The Commission has nothing to do with this.
      - mr_toad 4mo ago
        The Council might be involved, but it’s the commission that drafts legislation, and they’re unelected. Either way, drafting legislation should be the responsibility of the legislature (i.e the parliament), not the commission or the council.
- theodric 4mo ago
  How do you suggest people be intolerant? Essentially all the parties work toward these goals, so voting is ineffective. Speech is (more-or-less) allowed until it turns into strident protest, at which point the water cannons are brought out and a few token agitators are prosecuted for their instigation. I wouldn't want to call this tyranny, because I might get a knock on the door.
abroszka33 4mo ago
There is no way to stop these so just lets get going. The sooner we have age and ID verification on every single website and app the sooner we will have a working decentralised internet that avoids it.
- m132 4mo ago
  It's a strong signal to start building such an Internet and slowly withdraw from using anything centralized.
- vlian2088 4mo ago
  governments can (and will) shut down or fine the detractors.
  - abroszka33 4mo ago
    I doubt that. They cannot stop me from downloading movies and series. They cannot stop me from betting or using crypto. It's kinda hard to find a single thing they are able to stop me from doing online and I'm not even trying that hard.
- quikoa 4mo ago
  > There is no way to stop these so just lets get going. Except for the times they've tried before and public outrage stopped it. So this defeatist attitude works against us.
neobrain 4mo ago
For context, this refers to "Chat Control 1.0", allowing facebook and other messaging providers to scan chats for harmful content (which they had been temporarily allowed to do by a recently expired law). This is still problematic, but the far more dangerous Chat Control 2.0 that would weaken end-to-end-encrypted messengers like Signal is not being discussed here. Not to diminish the gravity of the new development, but the defeatist "no way to prevent this" narratives that are already popping up here are getting old -- when in fact it looks like 2.0 is off the table for good because protest against it has proven effective.
- flumpcakes 4mo ago
  Isn't this something they already do? I would be utterly shocked if facebook et al. were not scanning all of your messages (either in transit or at terminus to get around 'E2E' claims).
  - neobrain 4mo ago
    Yes, this had been temporarily permitted until recently, and AFAIK they continue doing so illegally at the moment.
    - flumpcakes 4mo ago
      Why is it currently illegal? If I have a service that let's users communicate, why is it illegal to look through those communications? (especially after they've signed my 400 page EULA). It would make moderation impossible otherwise. Or are we saying this is being used for something specific that happens to be illegal?
      - masfuerte 4mo ago
        Because the EU passed a law making it illegal and the temporary exemption recently expired.
      - a2128 4mo ago
        Why should you have any right to look through everyone's private communications? Nobody really has any choice to reject your EULA if they want to stay in contact with someone on your service. I could force you to sign a ToS that includes "By using our service you owe us $10 million and agree to donate your kidney to our CEO" in order to reach your overseas grandma, but that doesn't mean it's actually enforceable or legal...
ascotan 4mo ago
i thought apple is already doing this on all it's devices?
spwa4 4mo ago
This means the council has systematically overridden the will of both EU parliaments and states' objections in pushing this legislation. TLDR: there are, roughly and not 100% accurately speaking, 4 ways to make legislation at the EU level 1) commission + parliament (meaning the EU commission has initiative (veto rights over any law, like the US president), and parliament can only "propose amendments", which pass with 50% of votes, or deny). This is what normally happens. Parliament denied the law. Twice. Member states vetoed the legislation at least 3 times (it doesn't technically work like this but member states can force the commission to veto legislation, and Belgium, Hungary and Denmark have done so) (technically member states can force the EU commission not to introduce legislation and because nobody else can do so either, this is normally effectively a veto) 2) council + parliament. This is where we are. If the executives of the member states (NOT parliaments) want to push through a vote, they can use this path. The difference is that only 2/3 majority of parliament can stop the law from passing or put in amendments. Technically, this is meant for bypassing the EU commission. But of course, in reality it is for getting past the Danish and potential Belgian and Hungarian and other's vetoes. The commission really wants this. 3) council + commission. This completely overrides any legislative involvement in ... well, legislation. They have already threatened to do this. 4) the council can just force legislation through without anyone's approval Normally "democracy" in the EU means that legislation requires BOTH a majority of Europeans to agree (Parliament) AND no executive government. Both have already been bypassed. This refers to "Chat Control 1.0", allowing facebook and other messaging providers to scan chats for harmful content (which they had been temporarily allowed to do by a recently expired law). It means current scanning is illegal. Just so we're clear, this basically means that all messengers (not any specific one) will have to intercept everyone's messages, scan for specific words, and if found report the whole chat history to the police. Of course, it already turned out "BTW carrousel" (an illegal tax avoidance strategy) is one of the sentences they scan for to "protect the children". The article itself also contains evidence against the idea that this protects children (that child protection investigations keep increasing despite the scanning not taking place anymore)
- munksbeer 4mo ago
  >Technically, this is meant for bypassing the EU commission. But of course, in reality it is for getting past the Danish and potential Belgian and Hungarian and other's vetoes. The commission really wants this. Excuse me? That is quite an assertion. You're saying the EU Commission, the civil servants appointed by the EU Council, are somehow controlling the EU Council to push this agenda? I don't believe that is true. Please provide evidence. In the article, it talks explicitly about this being driven by the heads of state.
redsocksfan45 4mo ago
[dead]
bitcurious 4mo ago
Hn is a goofy place. It feels like on odd days we see posts like this, about the EU creating this legal framework for the destruction of privacy. On even days we see posts about quitting American saas in favor of Europeans on the basis of privacy. Somehow the dots never connect.
- vanviegen 4mo ago
  A rational person could argue both against EU surveillance laws and in favour of more EU digital independence.
- stavros 4mo ago
  Doesn't the mere fact that the EU is trying to pass laws to erode privacy indicate that there is privacy to erode? The US doesn't need to pass such laws because there are no protections.
  - pessimizer 4mo ago
    > The US doesn't need to pass such laws because there are no protections. The US desperately needs fundamental definitions and protections in regard to privacy, but the fact that it is extremely common for European countries to prosecute illegal speech and associations is a big difference. Americans are trying to defend themselves against the secondary effects of surveillance. Europeans can just jail you for saying magic words, or associating with organizations that have been proscribed. Also, as of a day or two ago, Europeans can be prosecuted for sharing any RT (Russia Today) content, even in private, regardless of content. These are things that the Bill of Rights makes unthinkable in the US. We can bring assault rifles to anti-government protests; if they're seized we can sue to get them back, and to be compensated for being bothered. The constitutional documents of European countries and supranational institutions might have been largely cribbed from the US's set, but anything like the Bill of Rights in them is virtually never written as an absolute right. It's stuff like Citizens are guaranteed freedom of expression except in cases where it is necessary to prevent expression to maintain safety or the public order.
    - 4mo ago
Grollicus 4mo ago
The main argument for this seems to be that they catch many pedos by using image recognition tech on facebook etc. Thus, discontinuing the permit to use these techniques did have enforcement numbers of those crimes found drop significantly. I'm wondering if they've given up real policing of these crimes completely?! Spreading pedo content on Facebook, those people have to be the dumbest of the dumb? Everyone spending even a single critical thought on their crimes won't be caught by this. And they say enforcement numbers drop significantly? Meaning they don't catch many other people? What the fuck are they even doing? Did they completely give up trying to find the real criminals, and instead fall back on sugar-coated figures to conceal that failure?
- wartywhoa23 4mo ago
  These pro-surveillance narratives don't even attempt to look plausible, they are aimed at the average Joe/Mohammed/whoever with attention span of 10ms and IQ of a guppy.
  - inigyou 4mo ago
    How many pedos does Facebook catch by scanning DMs?
    - wartywhoa23 4mo ago
      Less than it could by scanning Epstein files.
varispeed 4mo ago
This would be illegal in Germany. I wonder why law enforcement is not looking into this. It is similar to having abusive husband control wife's communication - just at scale and for ideological reason. This is a violent act against whole population, applied indiscriminately. It fulfils updated definition of terrorism in Germany and it is exploiting legislative apparatus of the EU to enact this violent act. German people should report this and these people behind it should be investigated and presumably arrested.
- mdp2021 4mo ago
  Don't you also have it in the Constitution? In your case, it could probably construed as part of Article 1 (I may be confused). For others, it is explicit in the Articles. > these people behind it should be investigated and presumably arrested Are you talking about the eu organs? (Because it does seem linear, but paradoxical, and surely not outside a thought legal framework.)
  - varispeed 4mo ago
    Whoever is responsible for it.
hdgvhicv 4mo ago
EU council is 27 individual governments each elected by their members. It’s like the US senate pre 17th ammendemnt.
- jeroenhd 4mo ago
  Sort of, if the EU were a country. But the council doesn't consist of separate senators to determine the weight of the vote. And there's also the Commission and Parliament, which are closer to the American government structure as it stands now. The three bodies have different procedures or different decisions and law making processes. But generally, the council represents the governments currently ruling the EU member states. A council of member states pushing for laws the comission opposes makes for a very interesting but confusing situation, where the EU is opposed to this legislation but the individual member states are not.
rdm_blackhole 4mo ago
As always the EU does not disappoint regarding it's stance on privacy. What a joke.
anthk 4mo ago
This is illegal in Spain.
grg0 4mo ago
The politicians voting for this are either thoroughly stupid or corrupt. From the linked site: > The position adopted by the Council today paves the way for providers of Internet services to resume their efforts to detect and report material on child sexual abuse to the police. - Jim O’Callaghan, Irish Minister of Justice, Interior and Migration Except that many of those providers are not European. Good job handling all of your citizens' data to foreign entities, Jim. Way to go, champ. I don't know how to put it nicely, but some members of the Council need to cease operations, or be ceased.
glenstein 4mo ago
Just saying I would buy a chat control legislation calendar, where each month of the calendar has significant meeting days of deliberation bodies, elections/nominations of people to relevant boards, as well as historical dates of previous attempts to pass chat control. Just so the cycle is easily knowable.
budududuroiu 4mo ago
I used to think Varoufakis' critique of the EU being a structurally anti-democratic union was just coming from the angle of an edgy leftist that was forced by the Troika to do austerity. Day in and day out, the EU proves Varoufakis right.
- inigyou 4mo ago
  The Troika is a pet name for the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. Calling it the Troika makes it sound like it's some separate thing.
  - budududuroiu 4mo ago
    > Calling it the Troika makes it sound like it's some separate thing. It was because of the Troika that the Tsipras ignored the result of the referendum and continued with more austerity, no? So in this case, pointing at the Troika is right? Am I misunderstanding something?

475 points by stavros 4mo ago

Please email your members of parliament: https://fightchatcontrol.eu https://fightchatcontrol.eu

So what platforms will this apply too? What platforms Dow sit already apply too? All SMS, large email providers (Gmail?), WhatsApp, Apple services?

donmcronald 4mo ago
There have been a few incidents that make me think Snapchat private chats are monitored. The one with the guy joking to his friends about blowing up a plane or something is the first that comes to mind. Tell me how private messaging gets you taken off a plane otherwise. It’s not private. Big tech has put a camera and microphone in everyone’s pocket and they’re monitoring everything. The government and big (American) tech are very likely lying to us IMO. How will anyone protest when mass surveillance becomes the law if it’s already in place and you can be labeled a bad actor that gets your life ruined if you dissent?
- mdp2021 4mo ago
  > How will anyone protest when mass surveillance becomes the law if it’s already in place and you can be labeled a bad actor that gets your life ruined if you dissent With the pure awareness that Men do not act out of convenience, and that this whole situation of declining societies was born out of already-fascist-material that acted out of convenience, with complacency.

vb-8448 4mo ago

> Although the Council emphasizes that the *scans will be limited to the absolutely necessary extent* and that no general, indiscriminate surveillance will take place I'm 100% sure that this is the case and about the good intentions of the proposers. /s

sunshine-o 4mo ago

At that point it has become clear to most Europe is not a democracy anymore. It has lost any legitimacy.

rixed 4mo ago
At the end of the day, regimes do not depend on legitimacy but on force.
cbg0 4mo ago
Talk about overreacting.
- mdp2021 4mo ago
  Many of us judge that the authoritativeness of most states and organizations is at a staggeringly low point. The reaction may not be tied to a single event.
inigyou 4mo ago
What percentage of people support Chat Control?
- CGMthrowaway 4mo ago
  Far less than a majority. I believe that is the whole point

superkuh 4mo ago

The same as every other fascist control measure. Voted down. Voted down. Voted down. Then forced through through some obscure mechanism bypassing the will of the people and becoming law forever.

flumpcakes 4mo ago
> Then forced through through some obscure mechanism bypassing It was extending a recently expired law that has existed since 2011. I don't think your comment is reflecting on what has actually happened. "Chat Control" as people know it has not passed into law.

petcat 4mo ago

Am I crazy or is this website not allowing me to opt out of cookie tracking unless I sign up for a subscription? I know the EU cookie banners have basically ruined the internet, but this seems like a whole 'nother level of obnoxious.

stavros 4mo ago
Wow, yeah, that seems... illegal, no?
- wronex 4mo ago
  Im pretty sure it is illegal. In my understanding, it must be equally easy to reject and accept. And the website MUST continue working under either choice. Which is not the case here. I think the lawmakers should have made all forms of tracking illegal instead. That would make law writing and following easier. And closer to the spirit of what they are trying to accomplish and what everyone wants (except you Silicon Valley O.o)
  - briandear 4mo ago
    I hate the tracking too. But how to websites monetize free content otherwise? Advertising doesn’t work if you can’t price it. Without tracking, everything becomes a paywall.
    - wronex 4mo ago
      It seems a lot of people are doing amazing things with Patreon. Share some things for free (free as in beer) then have a paid tier for those who want more. Convince us you’re worthy, then we’ll give you money willingly.
- Carbon1603 4mo ago
  Nope, completely legal.
esafak 4mo ago
You Reject the undesirable ones (all!) and click Agree to Selected.

sph 4mo ago

This is democracy manifest. What a joke.

stavros 4mo ago
We have been enjoying a succulent Chinese meal.
- Lio 4mo ago
  Yeah and Peter Hummelgaard is about to touch you on the penis. > "We must break with the totally erroneous perception that it is everyone's civil liberty to communicate on encrypted messaging services," What an arsehole. https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/danish-justice-minister-we-must-break-perception-of-right-to-private-messaging/ar-AA1MA98T https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/danish-justice...
  - sph 4mo ago
    What is it with Danish Social Democrats and wanting to enact mass surveillance at any cost?
    - Ray20 4mo ago
      Isn't this natural for any "Social" ideologies? They imply a system of centralized redistribution, which implies a powerful repressive apparatus and an omnipresent surveillance system.
      - deleted 4mo ago
        [deleted]
      - int_19h 4mo ago
        No, it is not, and no, they do not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
  - mdp2021 4mo ago

mattrighetti 4mo ago

They're not going to stop, are they?

stavros 4mo ago
It certainly seems like they'll stop after they pass it.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
flumpcakes 4mo ago
Who is they? These pithy remarks don't really extend the debate or have any nuance - they just sound conspiratorial. There are plenty of reasons to "scan" communications. There are plenty of reasons to have limits on communication "scanning". What part of the spectrum do you fall on?
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- julienreszka 4mo ago
  no there is no reason to scan communications.
  - flumpcakes 4mo ago
    The most obvious answer: to stop CSAM being shared on large platforms. Cloudflare has a tool that does it for some of their services.
    - Double_a_92 4mo ago
      Just because it's criminal, it doesn't mean that every private entity has to help to prevent it at costs of your privacy. If there are people that host parties in their homes to share CSAM, does that mean that it should be mandatory to install surveillance cameras in your house? Also as if people that are seriously sharing CSAM, wouldn't encrypt the data before sharing it.

mdp2021 4mo ago

Do also see: # Italy warns against Chat Control mass surveillance, but votes in favour of it (digitalcourage.social) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48783340 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48783340 Do, because already there nuances (towards the better or worse) are revealed, which are not evident in journalism as we have it. The whole story needs more investigation than the stubs. But the way they are managing it in the workflow does not seem too linear...

stavros 4mo ago
"We are in favour of this law, so long as it is not used for its intended purpose."
- mdp2021 4mo ago
  You should elaborate. And explain what you understood as "its intended purpose". My understanding of the vote last Friday was about protracting the 2021 temporary compromise (scan voluntarily until we have a full law), which was suspended at the beginning of April. It is not clear how they proceeded that way. It seems some vertices imposed that they would not accept a legal vacuum there. So, it's not a "law". What ran for the past five years was an "exception to privacy laws" (I am not informed of the mandated guardrails).
  - pessimizer 4mo ago
    I regret to inform you that a temporary exception to a law is also a law. edit: > It seems some vertices imposed that they would not accept a legal vacuum there. I find this sentence unintelligible. Can you come up with another wording? And who are these "vertices" who have been given approval rights over EU legislation?
    - mdp2021 4mo ago
      > to inform you that What would that entail. > who are these "vertices" Apparently metsola, to some source. The eu parliament refused to renew the temporary licence to private message monitoring, which had the "speaker" complain that this would just leave the union with a normative vacuum - apparently insisting that one non-temporary regulation has to be decided. So I read.

m132 4mo ago

The central bank, council, and commission have to get thoroughly investigated. The amount of questionable decisions coming from those three in the recent (15) years is extremely unsettling. The parliament and courts are practically the only institutions preventing things from hitting the fan at this point, and struggling to do so, it seems.

kingleopold 4mo ago
they dont investigate themselves, I hope you understand those details some day.
- m132 4mo ago
  They do, albeit it's a slow process: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizergate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizergate - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-secret-group-chat-zelensky-trump-b3002834.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-secret-gr... Ironically, those are two separate cases of one high-profile EU politician (in fact, the very head of the same parliament that pushes for mass scanning of private messages) BOTH involving secret text messages that the mentioned politician refuses to reveal.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
junto 4mo ago
I’m convinced of widespread corruption here. We need to follow the money. Who is funding and pushing this agenda to blanket spy on all Europeans? I guess my question is rhetorical.
- joe_mamba 4mo ago
  >Who is funding and pushing this agenda to blanket spy on all Europeans? Why are we ignoring the other side of the transaction? The side responsible for taking the money. Giving bribes for lobbying is bad, but that would not be an issue if those found taking the bribes would be guillotined or hanged.

mdp2021 4mo ago

What frightens me is, as usual, the assumption of conformism that may just remove people from services. "Present a document" // "No, certainly not to you" // "Do without then" The straight will say "no", but their lives will be extremely complicated, possibly in the unawareness of those that just take compliance to the absurd for granted - as the weak call survival paramount and cannot see that their modus is subjective. That we won't have it is something that they cannot even conceive. Adults are noise to them.

LePetitPrince 4mo ago

[dead]

kingleopold 4mo ago

it will %100 pass at some point. no way around it.

mdp2021 4mo ago
The problem is /what/ will pass. What is this clothing limit? Pink, shocking, lime? Long sleeves, above the wrist or below? In the city center, in the suburbs, where? The issue is all in the details. And in the decision process, before that, of course.

SilverElfin 4mo ago

Governments don’t work for people. Yet they use terms like democracy all the time. The repeated attempts at chat control are so blatantly anti civil rights but also disrespectful of democratic principles. Why do EU citizens tolerate this? Are they okay being made a fool of or is this just not an issue for them after all?

stavros 4mo ago
Well, we don't tolerate it, that's why it hasn't passed yet. They keep trying, though.
- mr_toad 4mo ago
  The power of the European Commission to propose legislation needs to be curbed or removed entirely. Executive agencies shouldn’t be writing legislation. It’s far to easy for them to propose laws that benefit the the European Commission, rather than benefiting Europeans.
  - munksbeer 4mo ago
    You're blaming the wrong people and making this worse. The article is literally about the EU Council, the elected heads of states of all the EU nations. The elected leaders of the EU nations really, really want chat control. The Commission has nothing to do with this.
    - mr_toad 4mo ago
      The Council might be involved, but it’s the commission that drafts legislation, and they’re unelected. Either way, drafting legislation should be the responsibility of the legislature (i.e the parliament), not the commission or the council.
theodric 4mo ago
How do you suggest people be intolerant? Essentially all the parties work toward these goals, so voting is ineffective. Speech is (more-or-less) allowed until it turns into strident protest, at which point the water cannons are brought out and a few token agitators are prosecuted for their instigation. I wouldn't want to call this tyranny, because I might get a knock on the door.

abroszka33 4mo ago

There is no way to stop these so just lets get going. The sooner we have age and ID verification on every single website and app the sooner we will have a working decentralised internet that avoids it.

m132 4mo ago
It's a strong signal to start building such an Internet and slowly withdraw from using anything centralized.
vlian2088 4mo ago
governments can (and will) shut down or fine the detractors.
- abroszka33 4mo ago
  I doubt that. They cannot stop me from downloading movies and series. They cannot stop me from betting or using crypto. It's kinda hard to find a single thing they are able to stop me from doing online and I'm not even trying that hard.
quikoa 4mo ago
> There is no way to stop these so just lets get going. Except for the times they've tried before and public outrage stopped it. So this defeatist attitude works against us.

neobrain 4mo ago

For context, this refers to "Chat Control 1.0", allowing facebook and other messaging providers to scan chats for harmful content (which they had been temporarily allowed to do by a recently expired law). This is still problematic, but the far more dangerous Chat Control 2.0 that would weaken end-to-end-encrypted messengers like Signal is not being discussed here. Not to diminish the gravity of the new development, but the defeatist "no way to prevent this" narratives that are already popping up here are getting old -- when in fact it looks like 2.0 is off the table for good because protest against it has proven effective.

flumpcakes 4mo ago
Isn't this something they already do? I would be utterly shocked if facebook et al. were not scanning all of your messages (either in transit or at terminus to get around 'E2E' claims).
- neobrain 4mo ago
  Yes, this had been temporarily permitted until recently, and AFAIK they continue doing so illegally at the moment.
  - flumpcakes 4mo ago
    Why is it currently illegal? If I have a service that let's users communicate, why is it illegal to look through those communications? (especially after they've signed my 400 page EULA). It would make moderation impossible otherwise. Or are we saying this is being used for something specific that happens to be illegal?
    - masfuerte 4mo ago
      Because the EU passed a law making it illegal and the temporary exemption recently expired.
    - a2128 4mo ago
      Why should you have any right to look through everyone's private communications? Nobody really has any choice to reject your EULA if they want to stay in contact with someone on your service. I could force you to sign a ToS that includes "By using our service you owe us $10 million and agree to donate your kidney to our CEO" in order to reach your overseas grandma, but that doesn't mean it's actually enforceable or legal...

ascotan 4mo ago

i thought apple is already doing this on all it's devices?

spwa4 4mo ago

This means the council has systematically overridden the will of both EU parliaments and states' objections in pushing this legislation. TLDR: there are, roughly and not 100% accurately speaking, 4 ways to make legislation at the EU level 1) commission + parliament (meaning the EU commission has initiative (veto rights over any law, like the US president), and parliament can only "propose amendments", which pass with 50% of votes, or deny). This is what normally happens. Parliament denied the law. Twice. Member states vetoed the legislation at least 3 times (it doesn't technically work like this but member states can force the commission to veto legislation, and Belgium, Hungary and Denmark have done so) (technically member states can force the EU commission not to introduce legislation and because nobody else can do so either, this is normally effectively a veto) 2) council + parliament. This is where we are. If the executives of the member states (NOT parliaments) want to push through a vote, they can use this path. The difference is that only 2/3 majority of parliament can stop the law from passing or put in amendments. Technically, this is meant for bypassing the EU commission. But of course, in reality it is for getting past the Danish and potential Belgian and Hungarian and other's vetoes. The commission really wants this. 3) council + commission. This completely overrides any legislative involvement in ... well, legislation. They have already threatened to do this. 4) the council can just force legislation through without anyone's approval Normally "democracy" in the EU means that legislation requires BOTH a majority of Europeans to agree (Parliament) AND no executive government. Both have already been bypassed. This refers to "Chat Control 1.0", allowing facebook and other messaging providers to scan chats for harmful content (which they had been temporarily allowed to do by a recently expired law). It means current scanning is illegal. Just so we're clear, this basically means that all messengers (not any specific one) will have to intercept everyone's messages, scan for specific words, and if found report the whole chat history to the police. Of course, it already turned out "BTW carrousel" (an illegal tax avoidance strategy) is one of the sentences they scan for to "protect the children". The article itself also contains evidence against the idea that this protects children (that child protection investigations keep increasing despite the scanning not taking place anymore)

munksbeer 4mo ago
>Technically, this is meant for bypassing the EU commission. But of course, in reality it is for getting past the Danish and potential Belgian and Hungarian and other's vetoes. The commission really wants this. Excuse me? That is quite an assertion. You're saying the EU Commission, the civil servants appointed by the EU Council, are somehow controlling the EU Council to push this agenda? I don't believe that is true. Please provide evidence. In the article, it talks explicitly about this being driven by the heads of state.

redsocksfan45 4mo ago

[dead]

bitcurious 4mo ago

Hn is a goofy place. It feels like on odd days we see posts like this, about the EU creating this legal framework for the destruction of privacy. On even days we see posts about quitting American saas in favor of Europeans on the basis of privacy. Somehow the dots never connect.

vanviegen 4mo ago
A rational person could argue both against EU surveillance laws and in favour of more EU digital independence.
stavros 4mo ago
Doesn't the mere fact that the EU is trying to pass laws to erode privacy indicate that there is privacy to erode? The US doesn't need to pass such laws because there are no protections.
- pessimizer 4mo ago
  > The US doesn't need to pass such laws because there are no protections. The US desperately needs fundamental definitions and protections in regard to privacy, but the fact that it is extremely common for European countries to prosecute illegal speech and associations is a big difference. Americans are trying to defend themselves against the secondary effects of surveillance. Europeans can just jail you for saying magic words, or associating with organizations that have been proscribed. Also, as of a day or two ago, Europeans can be prosecuted for sharing any RT (Russia Today) content, even in private, regardless of content. These are things that the Bill of Rights makes unthinkable in the US. We can bring assault rifles to anti-government protests; if they're seized we can sue to get them back, and to be compensated for being bothered. The constitutional documents of European countries and supranational institutions might have been largely cribbed from the US's set, but anything like the Bill of Rights in them is virtually never written as an absolute right. It's stuff like Citizens are guaranteed freedom of expression except in cases where it is necessary to prevent expression to maintain safety or the public order.
  - 4mo ago

Grollicus 4mo ago

The main argument for this seems to be that they catch many pedos by using image recognition tech on facebook etc. Thus, discontinuing the permit to use these techniques did have enforcement numbers of those crimes found drop significantly. I'm wondering if they've given up real policing of these crimes completely?! Spreading pedo content on Facebook, those people have to be the dumbest of the dumb? Everyone spending even a single critical thought on their crimes won't be caught by this. And they say enforcement numbers drop significantly? Meaning they don't catch many other people? What the fuck are they even doing? Did they completely give up trying to find the real criminals, and instead fall back on sugar-coated figures to conceal that failure?

wartywhoa23 4mo ago
These pro-surveillance narratives don't even attempt to look plausible, they are aimed at the average Joe/Mohammed/whoever with attention span of 10ms and IQ of a guppy.
- inigyou 4mo ago
  How many pedos does Facebook catch by scanning DMs?
  - wartywhoa23 4mo ago
    Less than it could by scanning Epstein files.

varispeed 4mo ago

This would be illegal in Germany. I wonder why law enforcement is not looking into this. It is similar to having abusive husband control wife's communication - just at scale and for ideological reason. This is a violent act against whole population, applied indiscriminately. It fulfils updated definition of terrorism in Germany and it is exploiting legislative apparatus of the EU to enact this violent act. German people should report this and these people behind it should be investigated and presumably arrested.

mdp2021 4mo ago
Don't you also have it in the Constitution? In your case, it could probably construed as part of Article 1 (I may be confused). For others, it is explicit in the Articles. > these people behind it should be investigated and presumably arrested Are you talking about the eu organs? (Because it does seem linear, but paradoxical, and surely not outside a thought legal framework.)
- varispeed 4mo ago
  Whoever is responsible for it.

hdgvhicv 4mo ago

EU council is 27 individual governments each elected by their members. It’s like the US senate pre 17th ammendemnt.

jeroenhd 4mo ago
Sort of, if the EU were a country. But the council doesn't consist of separate senators to determine the weight of the vote. And there's also the Commission and Parliament, which are closer to the American government structure as it stands now. The three bodies have different procedures or different decisions and law making processes. But generally, the council represents the governments currently ruling the EU member states. A council of member states pushing for laws the comission opposes makes for a very interesting but confusing situation, where the EU is opposed to this legislation but the individual member states are not.

rdm_blackhole 4mo ago

As always the EU does not disappoint regarding it's stance on privacy. What a joke.

anthk 4mo ago

This is illegal in Spain.

grg0 4mo ago

The politicians voting for this are either thoroughly stupid or corrupt. From the linked site: > The position adopted by the Council today paves the way for providers of Internet services to resume their efforts to detect and report material on child sexual abuse to the police. - Jim O’Callaghan, Irish Minister of Justice, Interior and Migration Except that many of those providers are not European. Good job handling all of your citizens' data to foreign entities, Jim. Way to go, champ. I don't know how to put it nicely, but some members of the Council need to cease operations, or be ceased.

glenstein 4mo ago

Just saying I would buy a chat control legislation calendar, where each month of the calendar has significant meeting days of deliberation bodies, elections/nominations of people to relevant boards, as well as historical dates of previous attempts to pass chat control. Just so the cycle is easily knowable.

budududuroiu 4mo ago

I used to think Varoufakis' critique of the EU being a structurally anti-democratic union was just coming from the angle of an edgy leftist that was forced by the Troika to do austerity. Day in and day out, the EU proves Varoufakis right.

inigyou 4mo ago
The Troika is a pet name for the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. Calling it the Troika makes it sound like it's some separate thing.
- budududuroiu 4mo ago
  > Calling it the Troika makes it sound like it's some separate thing. It was because of the Troika that the Tsipras ignored the result of the referendum and continued with more austerity, no? So in this case, pointing at the Troika is right? Am I misunderstanding something?