22 ms·
EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0
- spwa4 3mo agoMajority AGAINST, passes anyway: 314 against, 276 in favor, 17 abstentions In case anyone wants to know: stopping it would have required 361 against.
- hananova 3mo agoAnd more than a hundred did not vote, if they wanted to vote no they could have. But they didn’t so they’re implicitly in favor. The fact that governments worldwide do not force either a vote for or against is a much greater issue as it allows representatives to launder their beliefs through inaction.
- spwa4 3mo agoWell they explicitly hid the fact that there was going to be a vote, AND they had already said they were going to override parliament using more drastic procedures if it didn't pass here. So once again, it's the "democratic" EU council fixing things when all those pesky "deimos" don't behave and vote incorrectly. I mean, yeah, I'd love for the EU parliament to put up more of a fight, but they were never going to win this fight, or the Chat Control 2.0 fight for that matter. Or the social media fight. Or ... I mean, I don't know if you've ever seen this, but EU commission politicians often can't even hold their laughter in situations like this. Recently, after laughing, Ursula Von der Leyen declared that social services legislation isn't about denying children access to social media, but about denying social media access to young people. (in other words, it's about EU politicians controlling the news young people see, not about protecting them. Oh and it's legislation because EU politicians want that control without giving anything in return)
- miroljub 3mo agoAnd so, step by step, in the name of child protection and similar excuses, we lose liberties and rights one by one. Welcome to the Brave New 1984 We World. Big Brother loves us. We are living through the time best described by Zamyatin, Orwell, and Huxley.
- Otek 3mo agoSlippery slope is fine and all but do you have any constructive argument?
- ywvcbk 3mo agoSlippery slope is not a "fallacy" by default. It can be occasionally but its a perfectly reasonably argument in plenty of cases.
- yladiz 3mo agoSure, it's not a fallacy, but it does erode nuanced conversations and so it shouldn't be used without caution.
- inigyou 3mo agoIt is a fallacy by default. The existence and slipperiness of the slope must be justified to make it not a fallacy.
- budududuroiu 3mo agoThe slipperiness comes from the fact that the EU already admits that scanning of private messages didn't improve the catching and prosecution of perpetrators. Also, the biggest lobbyists for breaking E2EE argue that criminals are moving to encrypted platforms, and targeting encrypted platforms is actually the thing we need to finally put a dent in stopping the dissemination of CSAM
- ywvcbk 3mo agoIn plenty of cases it's absolutely self evident (especially when there are plenty of historical precedents for similar or analogous situations). Yes you can get involved in extended arguments with people arguing in bad faith or whose world view is fundamentally incompatible with your but that's usually just a waste of time (I mean you wouldn't argue with Nazis either just the same as with people trying to institute a Stasi style surveillance apparatus through slow boiling)
- petcat 3mo agoI don't want to hear about the EU's "strong digital privacy" laws and protections ever again.
- Fizz43 3mo agoDo you think people should have privacy from the government? That exists in a completely different realm than privacy against a private company.
- Squarex 3mo agoSecrecy of correspondence is a pretty old concept.
- Y-bar 3mo agoMultiple things can be true at the same time. There can exist strong consumer protections against misuse of their personal data by various entities. And there can simultaneously also exist governmental overreach against citizens private data. The world is complex, few things are truly binary.
- 3997531578 3mo agoNo, "strong digital privacy" and "governmental overreach against citizens private data" is mutually exclusive.
- yorwba 3mo agoThey're strong protections relative to most other jurisdictions, where there is no need to pass laws exceptionally allowing certain uses of private data, since such uses were never forbidden and sometimes are mandatory beyond what Chat Control 2.0 would mandate.
- BSDobelix 3mo agoBut now you have governmental overreach and legalized spying on European Citizens by (mostly) US Companies, so i would say that Law is truly binary bad. Also how the Law was forced is extremely bad. But hey it's once more proof that the EU is not a democratically spirited institution.
- budududuroiu 3mo agoRoberta Metsola's actions this week jeopardise the legitimacy of the EU project as a whole. It's clear that member countries use the EU as a blame-laundering mechanism to pass domestically unpopular laws, but the forcing of this vote under the urgency procedure that requires absolute majority to reject, on the last EP session before summer break is so blatant that it might awaken people that might've overlooked the structural failures of the EU and finally radicalise them EDIT: bad wording, it's not that the urgency procedure causes the voting to require absolute majority, it's that an absolute majority second-reading is forced through an emergency procedure which is designed for first readings of legislation that's the implied meaning above
- miroljub 3mo agoYes, this basically means the EU pushed a new censorship regulation using lawfare tricks without ever having a majority vote for the proposal. If it's not a dictatorship, a regime, a shithole, a kleptocracy, or whatever name they use for a government they don't like, I don't know what it is.
- budududuroiu 3mo agoThe regulation was rejected today with 314 votes against, 276 in favor, and 17 abstentions, but because of Metsola's lawfare that classified this regulation as under an "urgent procedure", an absolute majority was required to reject.
- raverbashing 3mo agoI wonder if the abstentions are counting "missing MEPs" or MEPs present but who did not vote
- b3orn 3mo agoThe EU parliament has 720 representatives (at the moment 719, one seat is vacant apparently), so 113 representatives didn't show up for the vote. The absolute majority would've been reached with 361 votes.
- largbae 3mo agoThis article seems to make good points about how useless and invasive Chat Control 1.0 is, but then posits Chat Control 2.0 as the answer. Is the latter not also terrible for privacy, demanding backdoors in all encrypted chat tech?
- londons_explore 3mo agoThe proponents argue that those backdoors are a good thing because then the government can keep you safe from people saying nasty things.
- bigyabai 3mo agoYou're asking a community that couldn't decide if Client Side Scanning was safe and private at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28068741 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28068741 Surveillance is a branding issue. If you wrap a shit in crepe paper and Corinthian leather, most people will admire what an artist you are.
- londons_explore 3mo agoThe defence against this is widespread truly peer to peer messaging services, where there is no company at the middle to tell you add backdoors. Who is working on that? I suspect the main challenge is not technical, but human - persuading users to switch messenger apps is almost impossible.
- hsuduebc2 3mo agoOr you can just host your own server like IRC. This is beyond idiotic, if they think that pedophiles will begin to suddenly use WhatsApp then I very much doubt about their basic literacy. Such a weak reasoning and method which they used to push this is ridiculous agenda lead me to strongly suspect there must be something else behind it.
- inigyou 3mo agoSession was recently shut down due to lack of funding. True P2P implies knowing the IP addresses of the people you're talking to.
- Stagnant 3mo agoSession was supposed to be shut down at start of July but looks like they got enough funding from donations to keep going for now.
- londons_explore 3mo agoOr it can be many-server, with tens of thousands of server operators and one selected at random. Only the server operators then know your IP, and they don't know who you are or what you're saying.
- inigyou 3mo agoYes, Session was shut down due to lack of funding for those servers.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- mrtksn 3mo agoFTA: What changes with the return of Chat Control 1.0—and what stays the same: *What is coming back:* US tech companies are once again allowed to scan private messages without a warrant or prior suspicion. This affects direct messages on platforms like Instagram, Discord, Snapchat, Skype, and Xbox, as well as emails via Google’s Gmail and Apple’s iCloud. *What remains unchanged:* Public social media posts and files hosted in cloud storage could already be scanned without this law. Furthermore, private messages can always be reported by users, or monitored by authorities using targeted, court-ordered wiretapping. *What is still NOT being scanned:* End-to-end encrypted chats, such as those on WhatsApp, have always been exempt from these scans. Additionally, European providers of messaging and email services have never implemented chat control measures. So, E2E is unaffected?
- lrae 3mo agoYes. Chat Control 2.0 was the big one in those regards. (Also, LOL @ Skype mention.)
- mrtksn 3mo agoThen I'm not very moved about this. I always assumed that anything unencrypted is scanned one way or another. What I care is not having a backdoor for E2E, i.e. like client-side scanning telling me what I am allowed to talk about like with the LLMs. CSAM excuse is a great excuse to turn every conversation to what we have with AI today.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- pelagicAustral 3mo agoRest assured, someone is already working on circumventing this. Necessity is the mother on invention.
- one33seven 3mo agoSure. The criminals and political enemies of the EU will just use illegal chat apps and hardened phones. What about the others though?
- attila-lendvai 3mo agothe rest? they comply, or get labeled a criminal. innocent men cannot be ruled over. authoritarians want a population of such "criminals", because then their power becomes the choice of which law is executed on whom.
- Pazzaz 3mo agoThey don't need to use "illegal chat apps". They can just use Signal or Telegram, or any of the other ways that exist to send encrypted messages.
- Pazzaz 3mo agoYou don't need to do any work to circumvent this. This law is just continuing the status queue that's existed in the EU for 5 years. To avoid being affected by this law, you can just download Signal, or use any other encrypted messaging service.
- make_it_sure 3mo agowhat are the actual consequences of that? they can read any Whatsapp encrypted chat? What changes?
- hsuduebc2 3mo agoAs far as I understand this. It basically gives the company providing chat services the possibility to scan your messages.
- simiones 3mo agoFTA: > What changes with the return of Chat Control 1.0—and what stays the same: > What is coming back: US tech companies are once again allowed to scan private messages without a warrant or prior suspicion. This affects direct messages on platforms like Instagram, Discord, Snapchat, Skype, and Xbox, as well as emails via Google’s Gmail and Apple’s iCloud. > What remains unchanged: Public social media posts and files hosted in cloud storage could already be scanned without this law. Furthermore, private messages can always be reported by users, or monitored by authorities using targeted, court-ordered wiretapping. > What is still NOT being scanned: End-to-end encrypted chats, such as those on WhatsApp, have always been exempt from these scans. Additionally, European providers of messaging and email services have never implemented chat control measures.
- inigyou 3mo agoDiscord recently had an AI malfunction that resulted in square grids getting detected as CSAM and reported to cops.
- Pazzaz 3mo agoLiterally nothing changes. This is the continuation of a temporary law that already existed.
- like_any_other 3mo ago> In these talks, the EU Parliament is pushing for a paradigm shift in how we approach online child safety, demanding: [..] Strict security standards for messaging apps (“Security by Design”) to prevent cyber grooming. It's dispiriting to see a supposedly pro-privacy politician launder backdoors as "strict security standards".
- vrganj 3mo agoI think they mean local scanning for CSAM - which feels like a reasonable solution that preserves privacy, but still addresses the real problem of, y'know, child abuse?
- simiones 3mo agoWhat is the false positive rate that you would be comfortable with such a scan having? What would be the risk of your personal photos and videos being recognized as CSAM and reported to your local police (and thus being shown to your local police) that you would be happy to accept? Would you also be ok with not being allowed to send any mail unless you first scan the contents of everything in that envelope and include a generated signature that might tell the post office that you're sending CSAM? And then having the envelope delivered directly to police if the scan did indicate that?
- like_any_other 3mo agoWeaponizing our own property against us, mandating that it spies and tattles on us, turning inanimate objects into policemen to construct the most total surveillance dystopia, is not in any way "reasonable". In no way does it "preserve privacy". And let's not pretend there are not already many other ways in which child abuse is detected and fought. When schoolteachers or doctors or neighbors or other family members notice something is amiss, when a CSAM group is infiltrated by police, or when a predator falls for a honeypot. This triggers an investigation, and at that point no digital lock can withstand modern targeted covert surveillance. But we are supposed to pretend none of this exists, and that encryption is an unassailable castle, and play along with the "going dark" lie, despite being more surveilled than at literally any point in history, including under the Stasi. They only don't address child abuse, if by "child abuse" is meant a photo existing in some private shared-with-nobody hard drive, and not an actual human child being abused.
- vrganj 3mo agoBrought to you - as always - by the Conservatives. Conservatism is just fascism with a slightly nicer image.
- marginalia_nu 3mo agoEh, the commies are pretty good at this too. Best analogy for Chat Control is really a digital Stasi.
- vrganj 3mo agoI mean sure, but there's no meaningful commie contingent in the EU. The war on privacy at the EU level always comes from conservatives.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- IlikeMadison 3mo agoNot true. A lot of the left voted in favor for it. Ylva Johansson, the person behind all this who introduced Chat Control since the very beginning, is a literal ex-Communist and she's now at the left wing of the Social Democrats in Sweden and EU parliament.
- weberer 3mo agoThis was overwhelmingly approved by "The Left in the European Parliament" (that's their actual coalition name) as well as the Greens. It was overwhelmingly rejected by the European People's Party (AKA "The Right"). And mixed among other groups (S&D and Conservatives). https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/195775 https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/195775
- mizaru 3mo agoNo, it's the other way around. Quoting another comment: >"Yes" means stop control, because it's a "proposition de rejet" we're looking at. rejet = reject
- Avicebron 3mo agoI'm curious where I can go to see real regularpeople who support this, is there like a different side of reddit, comments section? I don't know anyone who is blatantly anti-privacy and I want to hear their reasoning. Otherwise this just seems to be the EU rolling into a weird distributed autocracy without anyone blinking an eye.
- xienze 3mo agoIt's not so much "support" as "not caring." Most "regular" people, when they hear about measures like this, say "oh no, the government can see my boring text messages to grandma, who cares", much they same way they shrug off the dangers of having a robot vacuum live-streaming the inside of their house to China ("there's nothing interesting in my house, who cares").
- expedited123 3mo agoThe thing is... It's not even reported on the news here (Lithuania). Just now I scrolled through our most popular news sites. 0 mentions. Wasn't on TV either. The vast majority of the population didn't even have a clue that the vote was happening. I checked the top 5 most popular local news sites. There was one article about chat control in April and then 2 more from 2025. That's it. Imagine an issue as big as this and it's not even reported. Yeah I don't feel confident about the future at all.
- zelphirkalt 3mo agoState owned news will follow orders or people be removed. Arrrrr! They will have their incentives, even if people at the top of news reporting institutions are highly paid. Wouldn't want that dirt they have hidden be uncovered, now would they? Better dance to the tune and keep an overpaid job living by leeching off the tax payers. Example: Look at Germany and how many Rundfunk Intendanten there are and how much they make a year, plus how little coverage such topics get.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- ben_w 3mo ago(Based on https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/07/07/eu-to-extend-temporary-message-scanning-regime-to-detect-child-sexual-abuse-online https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/07/07/eu-to-extend-t... and https://www.euractiv.com/news/how-the-epp-pushed-the-chat-scanning-law-back-to-parliament/ https://www.euractiv.com/news/how-the-epp-pushed-the-chat-sc... as well as the stuff in the link). Here's a quote from the article itself, which works for both pro and con arguments: "What is still NOT being scanned: End-to-end encrypted chats, such as those on WhatsApp, have always been exempt from these scans. Additionally, European providers of messaging and email services have never implemented chat control measures." As I'm not trained in law, I have no strong opinions on if this proposal is a net positive or negative, almost any big name LLM will do a better job than I can manage by looking at the legal text, stroking my goatee and saying "I recon…". But what I can say that I've just seen a headline about a class action lawsuit in the USA due to grok making CSAM and the company failing to assist the police in their investigations, and another about Meta facing a lawsuit in India for delivering advertising for CSAM on Instagram. My steelman in favour of the legislation: The regulation closes a legal gap that would otherwise force platforms to stop using existing CSAM detection systems; it's a temporary framework that doesn't require universal mandatory scanning or ban E2EE, just keeps the legal basis for companies which choose to use detection/scanners while lawmakers continue negotiating a more comprehensive longterm solution. My steelman against the legislation: Scanning private communications, even allowing companies to "voluntary" do this, sets the precedent that the confidentiality of private correspondence is conditional rather than fundamental. Also, automated scanning inevitably has false positives. Also, has chilling effect on free speech, undermines trust in encrypted messaging. Also, situationally, that it's "voluntary" means offenders can migrate to platforms which don't "voluntarily" do this.
- u8080 3mo ago>CSAM detection systems Blackboxes which scan your messages and photos for anything 3rd party want with undisclosed criteria.
- ben_w 3mo agoYes, indeed. In principle "for anything 3rd party want" would be illegal in the EU. However, Big Tech clearly doesn't care what's illegal in the EU. Pertinent to this case: https://stateofsurveillance.org/news/big-tech-defies-eu-law-csam-scanning-eprivacy-violation-2026/ https://stateofsurveillance.org/news/big-tech-defies-eu-law-... Previously: https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/french-sa-cookies-and-advertisements-inserted-between-emails-google-fined-325-000-000-eur-by_en https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/french-sa-cookies-and-advert... Even earlier, when they cared about the law: https://www.trtworld.com/article/13092354 https://www.trtworld.com/article/13092354
- teekert 3mo agoThis is a nice piece of democracy right here: "a measure it had rejected twice in March. Although a majority of voting Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) actually opposed the regulation (314 against, 276 in favor, 17 abstentions), the motion to reject it failed to secure the required absolute majority of 361 votes. As a result, mass scanning is now permitted again until 2028." "Oh no we can't get a majority to pass the law!" "Have you tried getting a majority to not pass the law?" "Worth a shot!" "It worked, should we also do this multiple times?" "Of course not! Pass the law, quickly!"
- xaitv 3mo agoWhat I don't understand, based on this: https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/195775 https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/195775 the votes are the other way around, with the majority being for. I'm guessing that site has it reversed then or I don't fully understand the proposal? Looking at which politicians from my country voted "no" on this site it seems to be mostly the ones that I'd expect to vote "yes", so that would support this site just having the options reversed.
- dmichulke 3mo agoFound this, source: https://fightchatcontrol.eu/ https://fightchatcontrol.eu/ On 7 July, MEPs voted 331–303 to fast-track the return of Chat Control 1.0 mass scanning. A binding vote follows Thursday, 9 July, where an absolute majority of 361 MEPs is needed to stop it. Take action now to demand they defend your private messages. "Yes" means stop control, because it's a "proposition de rejet" we're looking at. rejet = reject. Parties in favor of chat control were: - European People’s Party and - Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats. Countries in favor of chat control were: Spain, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Hungary, Portugal, Greece, Ireland, Lithuania, Latvia, Cyprus If you look at the initial vote from July 7, there are a few countries who actually wanted to make it an "urgent decision" (other than the countries above): France, Czechia, Finland, Croatia, Luxembourg
- thisOtterBeGood 3mo agoThe selection of countries seems so random. The poorer countries seem to be in favor, no judgment there... It looks like a pay-off list, though.
- truthbe 3mo agoOnce you realise the age group that are in that bracket of european law making you realise it's gen X AKA the helicopter parent generation and it all becomes less shocking.
- betaby 3mo agoMore interesting that that mostly childless politicians are in favor of such things. That's makes sense since those legislations are NOT about children.
- pmontra 3mo ago> apps that are safe by design for children How do we design such apps? Let's rule out age attestation (to allow only some age ranges) or scan of content because they are orthogonal to apps. What are the design patterns that prevent adults to meet kids? No messaging?
- mattstir 3mo agoDepending on the app, you could also get away with limited messaging such as a wheel of predefined callouts in a team game.
- wiradikusuma 3mo agoFrom Google: "The law seeks to require digital platforms and messaging services (like WhatsApp and Gmail) to automatically scan users' private messages, emails, and photos to detect and report illegal content" -- EU policy makers are really honest people, hats off to them. There's no way politicians in my country allow their chats to be scanned, because they're very corrupt.
- carlesfe 3mo agoEU politicians are exempt from this measure. They thought it all the way through. (Edit: seems that the statement above applies to ChatControl 2.0, not the approved text. Apologies.)
- preisschild 3mo agoCan you cite the text where it says this?
- BSDobelix 3mo agoIn Chatcontrol 2.0 not this one: >*EU politicians exempt themselves from this surveillance under "professional secrecy" rules. They get privacy. You and your family do not. https://8bitsecurity.com/posts/chat-control-2-0-%E2%80%93-how-the-european-union-wants-to-get-rid-of-privacy-and-what-we-can-do-to-stop-it/ https://8bitsecurity.com/posts/chat-control-2-0-%E2%80%93-ho...
- dabber21 3mo agobasically admitting they are pedos
- sebastiennight 3mo agoWhat are the criteria to be covered by this "secrecy" exemption?
- flanked-evergl 3mo ago[flagged]
- dTal 3mo agoConversely, declaring a space "politics-free" tramples a hell of a lot more than curiosity. Incidentally, the comment immediately below this one begins with the words "I'm curious". So I think we're good.
- tomhow 3mo agoThe passing of laws that affect technology platforms has always been on topic on HN. That shouldn't be surprising on a site that's specifically for people interested in technology and tech industry topics.
- EGreg 3mo agoI do not believe solutions to these issues will be found with government regulators. I believe they can be enabled by new technology that is designed to balance interests on all sides and actually enforce the guarantees IN CODE AND PROTOCOLS. Having said that, I don’t think the tech industry is what it once was, dominated by cypherpunks working to create a better world. It has been captured by greed and “moving fast and breaking things”, as well as infighting. Greed (both in the form of web3 numbers go up, and benefiting from the greater fool while delivering no utility) and moving fast (web2 facebook / VC / dump shares on the public / lock in / extract rents). So no wonder the government eventually steps in, when the industry spends a decade without adults steering the ship. We have giant platforms controlling everything, and the rest has devolved into zero sum games and memecoins. The tech industry hasn’t led or even organized enough to get behind technology that can liberate users. Instead it’s been captured by for-profit interests. Mozilla and Apache are rounding errors. Here is what open source can do when it comes to mass surveillance, and this would also solve the Flock problem here in the States, too: https://community.qbix.com/t/balancing-privacy-and-accountability/215 https://community.qbix.com/t/balancing-privacy-and-accountab... More broadly, here is what needs to be done across the board: https://www.laweekly.com/restoring-healthy-communities/ https://www.laweekly.com/restoring-healthy-communities/
- tryauuum 3mo ago> new technology that is designed to balance interests on all sides and actually enforce the guarantees IN CODE AND PROTOCOLS. They will just call your code illegal in law. And if you will run it anyway, use deep packet inspection to drop your protocol packets, like they do in Russia
- EGreg 3mo agoUnless they have backdoors to absolutely every form of encryption, including https certificates, etc. you can always use that to tunnel through. https://www.reddit.com/r/privacytoolsIO/comments/cukcaf/google_mozilla_and_apple_blocked_the_kazakhstan/ https://www.reddit.com/r/privacytoolsIO/comments/cukcaf/goog...
- ChrisArchitect 3mo agoRelated: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48818311 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48818311 Chat Control passed first round in EU Parliament https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48819008 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48819008
- thomas_witt 3mo agoIf the EU just were to redirect the resources they're currently allocating to regulations like AI and Chat Control rather towards developing a genuinely competitive OpenAI or Anthropic alternative …
- drnick1 3mo agoNo, it's easier to put a tax on American AI companies.
- pietmichal 3mo agoSo much effort and emotions wasted. EU should have a mechanism that disallows repeatedly pushing for things until they are greenlit. Lack of this type of measure renders whole governance incapable of being taken seriously.
- codedokode 3mo agoThere are at least two options to verify age without humiliating procedure of taking a selfie with a passport like a porn actor. First, there are USB tokens that can hold a private key and sign messages. Such tokens could be sold at places accessible only to adults and verify that they are indeed adult. Obviously every token should hold the same private key. Second, OS could implement "parent mode" which allows installing only white-listed, government approved apps (no Telegram or Whatsapp or other dangerous apps, but school apps are ok) and opening only white-listed government-approved websites. Put in jail the parents who did not set up a parent mode. Problem solved without passports and verifications. If, however, the government insists on selfies, it means they just want to identify users and compile lists of "untrustworthy", "rebelious" and other persons of interest. Also, employees who do verification, sometimes create internal chats where they post pictures of clients and mock their appearance. We had such case with Alfa-Bank in Russia, where the photo of a funny client with a passport and third-grader level comments leaked to Instagram account of employee's friend. The bank paid approximately $20 as a compensation.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- Telaneo 3mo agoI want to like the EU. In many ways I do. They're making it really easy to not like them. All for a safe and secure society.
- attila-lendvai 3mo agoexcept it's hardly safe or secure anymore...
- throw-the-towel 3mo agoSomething something essential liberty, something something temporary safety.
- drybjed 3mo agoList of votes per MEP: https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/195775 https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/195775
- anthk 3mo agoTo hell with children. Create a separate internet for them, no ICANN access unless they are parent-supervised until they hit 13 or so.
- tosti 3mo ago> To hell with children. Myeahno. To hell with draconian law disguised as child protection and to hell with the powers that be, who knowingly and willingly are ruining just about everything nice.
- bramhaag 3mo ago> Although a majority of voting Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) actually opposed the regulation (314 against, 276 in favor, 17 abstentions), the motion to reject it failed to secure the required absolute majority of 361 votes. This vote was urgently scheduled for today, the last day of parliament before the summer break. 113 MEPs were not present for this vote, likely having taken vacation days to extend their break. It's hard to believe choosing to do the vote today was done accidentally.
- mx7zysuj4xew 3mo agoIs there an EICAR file equivalent for CSAM? it seems like I'm going to busy preparing a mass messaging/mailing campaign to EU law makers
- bradley13 3mo agoStupid parliamentary trick: Hold the vote on the day before the summer break - ensuring that many people have already returned to their home countries. Then use a sort of "reverse" parliamentary trick: the default is that this legislation is accepted. They needed an absolute majority - not of voting members, but of all members - to reject it. Result: 314 against, 276 in favor, 17 abstentions, 113 absent The EU is well on the way to becoming a totalitarian government. ETA: It is shocking that 276 members of parliament would vote to support this. Are so many so naive? Or being paid off?
- Ylpertnodi 3mo ago>ensuring that many people have already returned to their home countries... Aren't they fucking paid to be there 'on the last day'?
- poszlem 3mo agoYeah, there are two scummy things happening here. This would not be possible if they did their job. What sort of weird example does it set, when they don't ever care enough to stay for all the voting?
- encom 3mo agoThe EU and corrupt politicians (that's most of them), will do what they want, regardless of your opinions. I have completely given up on participating in democracy. My country is going to hell, and I don't believe anyone is able to stop it.
- parineum 3mo ago> It is shocking that 276 members of parliament would vote to support this. Are so many so naive? Or being paid off? There are a lot of countries in the EU that aren't shining beacons of democracy. The EU makes sense as an economic block but some of the countries in it are politically unaligned with what people think of when they think of the EU.
- usrnm 3mo ago
- CrisMystik 3mo agoOne thing that should be noted is that, since the Parliament has been able to approve an amendment by absolute majority (which explicitly excludes E2E chats), the procedure is not over and the law is still not enacted, a third reading is still needed, after negotiations with the Council and the Commission, and in this case the Parliament will be able to reject the act by a simple majority
- sebastiennight 3mo agoI was looking for information about this. So this new reading and vote would happen after summer?
- CrisMystik 3mo agoThe new reading will happen if the Council rejects the amendment approved by the Parliament. When it does they have 6 weeks to negotiate, and then 6 weeks to approve the result of negotiations, if any. Basically, the hope is that the Council rejects that amendment in its second reading (but right, the probability of this is not really high, since it codifies what was already true). I should have explained it better in my comment
- elAhmo 3mo agoThis might get this control out, but people's anti-EU stance will just be increased by this and long-term this is a terrible move. Just fueling material for right wingers who will take advantage of this and push for secessionist stuff. EU is in dire need to have VERY POPULAR measures among people, not idiotic stuff like this which is a step in a wrong direction.
- budududuroiu 3mo agoYou're asking too much from bureaucrats that stand to directly gain post-mandate by consulting the companies they legislate for, and also believe that the legitimacy of the EU as a whole should be driven by output (economic prosperity, etc), rather than input (democratic mandates, political participation of their constituents)
- Gareth321 3mo agoEvery day I grow less enamoured with the EU project. More and more, the laws and regulations imposed upon citizens are hostile.
- budududuroiu 3mo ago> the laws and regulations imposed upon citizens are hostile. Let's not forget that these laws are supported and pushed for by national governments in the EU Council, there's no shadowy cabal that materializes these laws out of thin air, the EU is a blame-laundromat for domestically unpopular laws passed through backroom deals
- thisOtterBeGood 3mo agoApart from this law-trickery used here: The EU could be a thing that helps fixing the problems that the single nations cannot overcome, even if it becomes unpopular. Fixing climate change involves completely restricting fossil fuel AND harvesting existing greenhouse gases (which costs additional energy) until the atmosphere is back to 1800. No government of this world spoke this truth to its people, because after the next election that government would be no more.
- z3ratul163071 3mo ago> there's no shadowy cabal that materializes these laws out of thin air that's really cute
- geysersam 3mo agoIf there's no shadowy cabal then why do our politicians continue to pass domestically unpopular laws? I mean, there doesn't have to be a literal shadowy cabal, the effective "cabal" could be a combination of corruption, lobbying and pressure from security agencies.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- Fredkin 3mo agoMaybe a dumb question, but what's to stop people from communicating e2e encrypted over totally insecure channels using steganography techniques? You don't need a special app to do this, or maybe you just need a companion app that you type your message into and it gives you the thing you just paste into whatever messaging app / social media you use. The steganography makes it hard for the operator to determine that you're "abusing" the service by not transmitting your message in the clear so they can read it. 1) Alice uses steganography to embed her public key in an otherwise innocent or mundane looking image e.g their profile picture. 2) Bob uses the public key to encrypt a short message to send her. 3) Bob embeds the encrypted message in his own mundane looking image (could generate these from a pool of images or on the fly using stable diffusion) 4) Bob sends the image to Alice. 5) Alice recovers the encrypted message and decrypts using her private key. (Could also use the process to do key encapsulation too, instead of using the raw key pair)
- Micrococonut 3mo agoWell when it comes to ending encrypted traffic, I would assume if they can’t read your traffic you will be in violation and the police will show up at your door to kindly imprison you for a few years
- Fredkin 3mo agoIf they can't distinguish traffic containing hidden encrypted messages from humdrum non-encrypted traffic then they'd have to ban the whole thing for everyone.
- nullpoint420 3mo agoThe effort required to do it
- ajsnigrutin 3mo agoGetting the criminals is not the point here, mass control is. How many of your friends do this now? The criminals might do it, but why, when they can just meet in person and talk there, without a digital recording of what they talk? Combine the 'age verification' (show your ID when you register) with this (we can read what you type), add some AI (to profile the people), and you have all the info you'd ever want on anyone anywhere.
- AlanAzarkin 3mo ago[flagged]
- 0x_rs 3mo agoEPP is a corrupt, authoritarian regime that will hopefully not last long. It is not a coincidence the union took a massive, noticeable turn for the worse in 2019 -- the von der Leyen presidencies have done immeasurable damage it will never recover from. They have also been complicit in crime and corruption from Bulgaria, Serbia and Hungary, for years, and that is even if you exclude the Pfizer disaster nobody was held responsible for. They are giving the opposing parties ammunition they need to take them and the dream of a stronger union down, and the only way they can fight back is banning those parties outright, one of which voted completely against this utterly insane, already repeatedly rejected mass scanning. It's hard to think of the union as anything positive when this is the direction it is taking.
- petre 3mo agoWell anything with people's in its name is basicaly authoritarian, just like the DPRK or PRC. The EPP also gave us migrant quotas, chat control and punished Greece for its debt.
- hoppp 3mo agoGreat, so even if something is repeatedly voted down and doesn't get enough votes it can still pass. It's a joke. The system is hacked.
- lenerdenator 3mo agoSo, private companies can't track you, but the people with the state's monopoly on violence (which very much exists in the EU member nations) can? Is there any sort of warrant needed for accessing this sort of information on devices?
- Pazzaz 3mo agoIt's not accessed on devices. This is about people using messaging applications, like Messenger. Then, as the message isn't encrypted, Meta can read the message on their servers. And with this law they are allowed to scan and sometimes report it to the government.
- nirui 3mo agoI mean, even the victims themselves came out and explicitly emphasized that scanning chat messages does not help. I'm feeling these politicians was not doing it for the victims. Instead, it's almost like the victims are providing reasons to allow the politicians to expand their own power. The Accelerationism (see note below) part of me think it's a good thing, because a heavily regulated country is often also a backward country. Doing things like this long enough, then you get out competed by everyone else, your population shrinks to zero and your land gets reused. (Note: The word "Accelerationism" in the Chinese dissidents circle means that, if a bad future is certain and it trends to destroy itself eventually, we might as well just let it happen faster, so the pain maybe shorter. More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerator-in-Chief https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerator-in-Chief) Look, EU obviously have a few good regulations. But a regulation must be correctly designed and implemented, and it must not punish good people. Scanning private messages is a punishment to all. If EU must scan something, I'd say scanning all messages/phone calls sent out by the politicians might do more good, consider how much trust people put on them (maybe they shouldn't).
- tryauuum 3mo agoThat's cool and all but looks like we are running out of good countries And if they all have censorship, they are not failing (when comparing them to each other)
- shevy-java 3mo agoThe lobbyists won this round.
- tasn 3mo agoThis, and other similar legislation, serve as a constant reminder of why the American founding fathers had to revolt against tyranny, and why constitution amendments like the 1st and 4th exist. The 4th in particular was written as a response to a British law similar to Chat Control (writs of assistance).
- globular-toast 3mo agoSadly doesn't seem to make much difference, though. If anything the UK is less authoritarian than the US now.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- aliasxneo 3mo agoAt least I have still have a 2nd amendment - and, at least for now, still post on social media without getting a knock on my door.
- mrguyorama 3mo agoTens of millions of Americans, usually supporters of the 2nd, have openly declared that having a firearm on you while at a protest is a crime punishable by death, and have done nothing to stand up against Trump, who has openly declared his hostility to the 2nd amendment multiple times now. Bringing a rifle to a protest you expect to get hot, brandishing it about, and then shooting someone in self defense is perfectly fine, but having an every day carry firearm, getting held down by the president's personal paramilitary org, and being shot execution style is apparently fine. I'm sick and tired of the stupid claims about how important the 2nd is while the very advocates of it only bring it up to talk about how much they want to shoot democrats.
- aliasxneo 3mo agoThere's idiots on all sides. Plenty of sane people who are too busy working and raising families instead of loudly participating in politics that still hold a balanced view on the subject. I can hold the situation you cited as an example that should be shown in training in how not to handle a situation like that while at the same time vehemently pushing back against the bureaucrats trying to disarm me. It's why I've always identified as an independent my whole life.
- daraosn 3mo ago[dead]
- aw124 3mo agoInstead of solving real problems, the EU Parliament supports the globalists' agenda for privacy and human rights violations — our fundamental rights
- tjwebbnorfolk 3mo ago[flagged]
- bigyabai 3mo agoTo be fair, lack of regulation didn't stop us in America from passing the Patriot Act.
- steinvakt2 3mo agoUSA allows overreach from both government and corporations. But pretends to hate a strong government. EU allows overreach from government, but limits corporations. And pretends for it to be about rights, but in practice it's about keeping the overreach to themselves (the government).
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- goldenarm 3mo agoThe US built mass surveillance by bypassing congress, at least in the EU we do it democratically /s
- akimbostrawman 3mo ago>EU Parliament supports the globalists' agenda word. thats the entire point of the existence of the EU
- 37374848 3mo agofree healthcare o algo
- dejournal 3mo agoWhat can we do to try and stop this?
- holoduke 3mo agoReally the west is currently at the wrong side of history. With the US bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in the last decade. Europe with its hypocrite stance in literally everything. Slowly the west is becoming a much less free place to live than a Russia. And propoganda in the west makes people think they are free. It's bullshit. They are not free. You got more freedom to move around, start businesses, own stuff in China and Russia than in any western European country.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- speedgoose 3mo agoThis is a very disappointing news. It weakens democracy and makes the EU hypocrite. Why should one care about GDPR or some privacy shield thingy when this is going through ?
- Razengan 3mo agoGod..why.. Do the citizens have no say in this??
- redsocksfan45 3mo ago[dead]
- Pazzaz 3mo agoThe citizens do have a say: they vote in elections. This is a temporary law that was implemented 5 years ago so everyone had a chance to vote in the 2024 EU election and vote out those who supported this law. But most people don't care if a company like Meta is allowed to scan their messages. For those who care, they can always use an encrypted messaging service like Signal or Telegram.
- krick 3mo agoYeah, right, this is just complete bullshit. Let's just put it this way: so, given that you more aware than "most people", did you at least vote against those who support it, and did you try to persuade your friends to do that, but they just didn't listen? I really don't feel like I can affect anything at all. First of all, even if we assume for the sake of argument that voting for MEPs is important, it's really hard to judge what you are voting for. It's not like they come with clear agendas that people carefully evaluate before they decide how to vote. It's a long running joke how USA elections are choosing between "a giant douche and a turd sandwich", and whatever you choose doesn't even matter because they won't keep their promises, but, hey, at least everyone knows their promises. This one is blue, that one is red, both will let you down in the end, but you kinda know what their general vibe is. Voting for MEPs on the other hand — they are all kinda grey and I couldn't tell you how'd they vote on this particular issue. Depends on your country, but in my case many of them simply weren't MEPs on 2023 vote. And I'm kinda surprised by some of the choices. Second, I don't really feel that MEPs are that important. They impact almost nothing. All real work is done behind the closed doors by some unknown people, and half of them all happen to be Maltese for some reason (0.1% of EU population, by the way). Parliament in the majority of cases just votes "for all good things and against all bad things" and the actual things that will come to haunt us are usually some small details in the Appendix that were never even explicitly put on the vote. And when MEP's vote does matter, well, we get something like in this case. The majority objected, but that doesn't matter. By the way, a couple of years ago I was asking myself, how could it be that we choose von der Leyen to be the President of EC? Well, I don't think we ever did. I surely didn't. MEPs barely did. Never once in all of the history EP rejected a candidate proposed by Council. Whatever each member of the Council did we'll never know, this is not disclosed. And to add the cherry on top, in this particular case it was a record number of MEPs who actually voted against her. It doesn't matter. Here we all are.
- justafewwords 3mo ago[dead]
- TomK32 3mo agoWouldn't it be fun if those who are in favour of such measures were the first to behave their messages scanned?
- sndgndgndgndy 3mo agoIf you so much as mention that this bill was passed to censor criticism of Israel, you will yourself be censored. Our politicians don't actually represent us.
- drnick1 3mo agoUnhinged rant, this has nothing to do with Israel.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- sndgndgndgndy 3mo agoWow, I guess governments of the whole western world just woke up one morning and decided to clamp down on the free exchange of information on the internet at the precise moment their citizenry was up in arms over Israel committing mass genocide and blackmailing their politicians. What a coincidence!
- mattstir 3mo agoAlthough it would be much more exciting to have some world conspiracy, try to consider what that would mean. That conspiracy's so powerful it can singularly decide votes across a union of dozens of countries, and yet still feels the need to enact a law to invoke that power in the first place. No, this is a much more benign form of government overreach, one born out of a normal desire to suppress citizens, and perhaps a healthy amount of regulatory capture by large corporations.
- smashah 3mo agoNext you will tell Arendt that The Banality if Evil had no host ideology at the time. What did you see in The Zone of Interest? Just a documentary about a benign family? Or are some humans worthy of more analysis than others? Shame.
- 3mo ago
- tangenter 3mo agoIf no one actually stands up against this and puts an end to it, then it wasn’t that important to begin with.
- ciefa 3mo agoIt's so tiring. Fellow Europeans, you know what to do =)
- krick 3mo agoAre you kidding? No, I have absolutely no fucking idea what to do.
- 062570864389 3mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- yeah879846 3mo ago[dead]
- lousken 3mo agoCan people sue EU about this? This is ridiculous
- shangofox 3mo agoIf they didn't for five years why would they start now?
- zazaulola 3mo agoI'm not a lawyer, and I don't live in the EU. Sorry for the silly question. Is there any EU law that prohibits minors from encrypting their messages or using, for example, PGP keys? How can they protect children if the children deliberately encrypt their messages?
- Pazzaz 3mo agoNo, there is no law preventing anyone from encrypting their messages. The thought is that children won't use encrypted services.
- kraf 3mo ago> What is still NOT being scanned: End-to-end encrypted chats, such as those on WhatsApp, [...] I thought WhatsApp is removing e2e encryption. The article should replace the wrong example with something like Signal
- Beijinger 3mo agoMove to Jabber or Matrix. Maybe Signal.
- whywhywhywhy 3mo agoJust so blatant that this was paid or bargained into existence, EU is a compromised system.
- mbix77 3mo agoWhat a democracy we live in.
- zanexGHG 3mo agoAnyone that thinks that this is a good Idea either didn't understand the internet or is just borderline stupid
- tomerlir 3mo agoThis is so bad, honestly, I'm so let down
- altern8 3mo agoI love how they framed it like this: "Temporary derogation from certain provisions of the ePrivacy Directive to combat online child sexual abuse". Just--OF COURSE, think of the children.
- tamimio 3mo ago> End-to-end encrypted chats, such as those on WhatsApp What a bad example to bring for e2ee.
- zuzululu 3mo agoEU's strong digital privacy branding is becoming satire
- LtWorf 3mo agoThe italian constitution clearly states that citizens have a right to private correspondence. Good to know our crooked politicians don't care. The sad thing is how we keep saying how bad China is, while doing exactly the same things.
- monssooon 3mo agoTo me as a European, this is not only about the dystopia that is becoming the tech survailance of society but it is a perfect example of what I feel the EU is. It is a disgusting dysfunctional institution that should have never been created in my opinion. This is what we have... Unelected bureaucrats using every opportunistic tool they can to, in my opinion get rid of democracy. What are we fighting for at this point? Personally I have lost all faith in the EU and I'm embarrassed to be living here. I'm so disgusted by politicians and the obvious de-route of democracy. What the ** are we doing...
- shangofox 3mo agoAs a European shouldn't you know this is just a renewal and nothing new. The weird voting system applies too.
- monssooon 3mo agoIt is a renewel of something highly unpopular that was voted down already. It is how the EU operates look at the other comments here about "democracy". It is put to vote on last minute where they know MEPs are on vacation... Well the ** should not go on vacation before the vacation starts but that is just another thing about EU! Why are they in vacation before it starts?! It is so complicated rules that not even the news and experts totally understand what is going on.
- thomassmith65 3mo agoIt is a disgusting dysfunctional institution that should have never been created in my opinion. The EU successfully addressed some big issues that young people don't feel are relevant anymore because the EU successfully addressed them.
- monssooon 3mo agoWhat do you mean by this?
- deleted 3mo ago
- cryptokent 3mo ago[dead]
- michaelfm1211 3mo agoHow is it that a most MEPs vote it down and it still passes? Can someone explain to me how the EU Parliament can do this?
- blurbleblurble 3mo agoWack
- eth0up 3mo agoMan, and right on the heels of enforcing driver-facing cameras in all newly purchased vehicles: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48823557 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48823557 Are there any civilians left in the EU, or is it all bureaucrats and bankers?
- mparramon 3mo agohttps://exitchatcontrol.org/ https://exitchatcontrol.org/
- p1dda 3mo agoIf anyone still believes the EU is a democracy, you're a bloody fool
- voodooEntity 3mo agoSome people say im rather pessimistic - but i still kinda hoped that the EU will not go down this path. That said - i was obviously wrong. I don't really know what else to say than : this breaks a fundamental foundation of privacy. Sure i was never 100% aligned with EU level decisions (neither with my residing country one's) but that's just... wrong on so many levels... how can i even still argue to people that EU and democracy are good if this is what its heading for? Usually i try to explain stuff with common grounds, the bigger picture or whatever is fitting. You can't have everyone happy on every decision. But at this point im lost of arguments. They just betrayed every citizen from my pov. So whats my point of this comment? Maybe i need to vent in an environment where i think people might get how bad this actually is, since people IRL around me don't seem to remotly understand the impact....
- sevenzero 3mo ago[flagged]
- lifty 3mo ago[flagged]
- sevenzero 3mo ago[flagged]
- gib444 3mo agoDid you forget your geography lessons? The UK did not relocate to the South Atlantic in 2020 'Europe' and 'EU' are not synonyms
- lifty 3mo agoWe’re talking about erosion of privacy and draconian internet surveillance. Brexit was a major screw up and I’m not here to defend any side, just to dispel this illusion that somehow the left are the good ones and the right is the bad far right.
- pharos92 3mo agoI no longer hold the belief that The West is moral or good-faith actor. In my lifetime I've watch the state go from being relatively benign, to maintaining face, to all-out racket, corruption and anti-democratic behaviour. I sympathise with both left-wing and right-wing sentiment. The system no longer works by-and-for the people. Call it elite capture, call it communism. My view is we're dealing with a Janus-like system.
- sevenzero 3mo agoBut this is the direct result of Europes shift to right wing parties and corruption? How can you sympathize with the right-wing sentiment?
- RealityVoid 3mo agoI would have expected the right wing parties to be against this, somehow, but... Nope, just checked my country's votes, and nationalists just love cc1.0 it seems.
- Foorack 3mo agoStatistically, half of the people in this thread didn't even show up to vote for EP elections.
- applfanboysbgon 3mo agoDoes it matter if they did, when this measure effectively bypassed Parliament via technicalities?
- baalimago 3mo agoAs if I wasn't apathetic enough about democracy. The only voting bill worth caring about is the one in the wallet. Then you can be the source of the corruption, instead of the sink. Every man for themselves.
- nout 3mo agoWith this level of spying it becomes important to learn to use technologies that are outside of this system that people on HN usually laugh at. Tor, VPNs, Bitcoin, Bitchat, Nostr based socials, Signal and get some extra clean hardware (phone, laptop...) to work with when you need to...
- yuppiepuppie 3mo agoCan someone Change My View? That this is a bad idea (for all the reasons mentioned in this thread and elsewhere).
- piokoch 3mo agoSadly, European Union that could be really useful (all-EU, flagship AI model anyone? But no, better restrict AI development, what can go wrong?) so people would genuinely like it, chosen to fight the people and try to gag criticism.
- Hesola 3mo agoDemo(crazy)
- jonathanstrange 3mo agoQuestion about this from a EU citizen who doesn't know the details of how the EU works (who does?): Are there legal means to challenge this vote based on the procedure that was taking place?
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- 21asdffdsa12 3mo agoYank all the panopticon-levers that push social stability till the lever breaks, because that is all the levers you got. Social Networks to push ideas and memes, that work against social-decomplexification parties and individuals. There are also the other leviathan cybernetic levers- like implants- if you need insulin, or hearing aids- you are basically a deputy for social stability. Thus every prosthesis-citizen you can produce is a good citizen. But it may still not be enough to prevent decomplexification events like Khemer Roughe or the Taliban. Thus, push technology that allows for quick recovery, because somewhere some serverfarm with the most patient tutor survives. Scenario-tree-root-hardening looks like this from the inside. PS: Fuck you Peter - but its work that needs doing. The retarded don't herd themselves. Or they do, but if they knew- all the simulations would be worthless.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- HackerThemAll 3mo agoMy utopian vision would be to change the selection/voting process so that our representatives are chosen based on real achievements and scientific understanding of the world, and not based on popularity and ability to persuade the crowd on standup-like rallies lasting 20 minutes, with empty words, populist-like propaganda, and lies hitting people's emotions instead of critical thinking. My another utopian wish would be to held them accountable for what they promised in the campaign and how they align with their constituents' needs. Instead we get corrupted idiots who don't even know what they're voting for, why they're voting that way, and if it's important at all. Chat control is one blatant example, mandatory cameras inside cars constantly spying on drivers is another one. Whoever advises them idiots, they're in real control of what's happening in EU.
- deepsynergy 3mo ago[flagged]
- BatteryMountain 3mo agoThis society is doomed.
- fosk 3mo agoThe EU is a farce, an undemocratic virtue signaling organization, and this is why: - The Parliament voted against the first reading of this proposal twice in 2026, the first time they only supported limited cases for it, while the second time they actually defeated it fully. - The Commission didn't care, and kept the proposal on the table by refusing to withdraw it. - Once the Commission does that, the proposal goes on second-reading (despite the first-reading having defeated it) and it is established in a very PERVERSE way in EU law that to AVOID passing the proposal in second-reading you need ABSOLUTE majority which is incredibly hard to pursue (you would think that we would need an absolute majority to PASS a proposal that was previously defeated on first-reading, not instead needing absolute majority to DENY a previously defeated proposal that was again forced to the table). - Furthermore, absences in practicality count as "No" on the rejection. So of course they scheduled the vote in the summer when notoriously there will be many absences. By never withdrawing a defeated proposal they can effectively and in practicality pursue any agenda they want (it requires a massive mobilization effort to find absolute majority to defeat any proposal, especially when absences for any reason effectively count against rejection). In PRACTICALITY, the Commission can pursue any agenda whenever and however they want, and throw the votes down the drain. EU's democracy is lipstick on a pig.
- munksbeer 3mo agoPlease could you cite your sources for this. I think what you've typed is not representative of what happened here. My understanding is that the EU Council forced this second-reading, not the Commission. To provide evidence for my argument: https://fightchatcontrol.eu/ https://fightchatcontrol.eu/ Look at "Timeline". This is the Council, not the Commission. This is your elected heads of state. This is "democracy" in action. "Council and EPP attempting to bypass Parliament With negotiators still deadlocked on core issues, the Council and the European People's Party (EPP) are trying to sidestep Parliament by reviving the expired Chat Control 1.0. The Council plans to fast-track a rewritten proposal with identical content, effectively circumventing the Commission's right of initiative, democratic oversight, and a fresh opinion from the European Data Protection Supervisor (source)."
- fosk 3mo ago
- KristianLentino 3mo agoSad news
- m4xp 3mo agoDemocracy has failed. Let's be honest here.
- chris_explicare 3mo agoChat Control 1.0 is the voluntary carveout rolled forward, nothing more. Breyer is right that this locks the door on stronger action against the real drivers. Even 'voluntary' scanning runs into ePrivacy Article 5(1) and CJEU jurisprudance on general monitoring. Providers keeping client-side scanning are exposed the moment a national court tests it against La Quadrature. The child safety framing keeps eclipsing case law that already limits mass processing of private comms.
- tangenter 3mo ago[flagged]
- adrienfr31 3mo ago[dead]
- jekuer 3mo agoIf the EU would do the important things as good and fast as that, ...
- illusion-drift 3mo agodemons are in charge and they're no longer hiding