[HN Gopher] Chat Control proposal fails again after public oppos...
___________________________________________________________________
Chat Control proposal fails again after public opposition
Author : speckx
Score : 388 points
Date : 2025-11-01 16:42 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (andreafortuna.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (andreafortuna.org)
| meowface wrote:
| 25th time's the charm
| p0w3n3d wrote:
| While True: ProposeChatControl() and return
| tombot wrote:
| sorry, but why is this plastered with ads?
| lysace wrote:
| You _have_ to use an adblocker on mobile these days. On iOS
| it's tricky with Chrome. Use e.g. Brave or Vivaldi instead.
| It's built-in.
| baobun wrote:
| Someone bribed the website operator to put them there. It
| happens more than you think.
| vb-8448 wrote:
| the real question is: when and in what form will it be re-
| proposed next?
| roelschroeven wrote:
| Probably combined with a bunch of unrelated laws, in an
| unrelated legislative committee, all to try to keep it out of
| public attention.
| ryandrake wrote:
| As often as possible. _They_ only have to win once. _The
| people_ need to win every single time.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| This is pretty problematic for the EU as an institution. It
| is actively undermining its already questionable legitimacy.
| The powers that be largely aren't democratically elected, and
| there really aren't any mechanisms with which European
| citizens can hold them accountable for their actions.
|
| Every time they pull a stunt like this, this becomes a little
| bit more clear. If the EU wants to avoid the spread of
| euroskeptic populist parties, they should be working to patch
| the system and be building legitimacy and credibility, rather
| than be seen working to undermine it.
| NicuCalcea wrote:
| Chat Control is an initiative of the Council of the
| European Union, which is made up of ministers from each
| member state. Citizens can hold them accountable the same
| way they hold their ministers accountable normally.
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| Not really, chat control comes from the comission, the
| current news is about the councils struggle to formally
| reach a position on that proposal.
| NicuCalcea wrote:
| Ah, you're right, thanks for the correction.
| rsynnott wrote:
| The commission are also nominated by national
| governments; they're essentially a weird type of
| minister.
|
| Now, I think there is a problem here; in many countries
| the public can barely bring themselves to care about the
| European Parliament elections, nevermind who their
| government nominates as commissioner. But ultimately it
| is as much in the public's hands as a ministerial
| appointment.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| This is correct, but in practice, this accountability is
| so diluted that they're free to do whatever they want as
| far as public accountability is concerned up to the point
| what they do is so unpopular that a majority of voters
| across the union decide that replacing the council is
| more important than selecting their national parliament.
|
| Then there's the commission, which is even less
| accountable to the voters.
| petre wrote:
| Perhaps we should start throwing politicians in the garbage
| bin like the Ukrainians used to? Maybe then they'll get a
| hint?
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8q-Zx8gIbg
| pqtyw wrote:
| To be fair it would be outright unconstitutional in a at
| least a few EU countries. Then there are the courts on the
| European level. One way to truly kill it might be to allow
| Chat Control to go to the end where it actually becomes a
| major issue on the national level in those countries.
|
| Of course that would be a very, very risk approach...
| gblargg wrote:
| Or done quietly outside of the public's attention, assuming
| it's not already being done.
| munro wrote:
| I love the irony of the site showing a MASSIVE banner with a huge
| green "Download Extension for Mac (Free)" button.
|
| This thing is 280px tall! I clicked it for shits and giggles and
| upon returning it showed a popup XD
|
| https://files.catbox.moe/sv7hb7.png
|
| > Only 2 Steps (thx)
|
| > Click "Download"
|
| > Add Privacy Guard for Chrome(tm)
|
| Don't worry why I'm not using ad block
| tagyro wrote:
| +1
|
| https://files.catbox.moe/dbbh71.jpg
|
| yeah, hard pass
| Maken wrote:
| Why does a static blog need to store user information?
| gotekom952 wrote:
| victory... until we meet again.
| IshKebab wrote:
| > the fundamental misunderstanding of encryption technology
| continues to plague policy discussions across Europe.
|
| > Client-side scanning, the technical approach favored by Chat
| Control advocates, attempts to circumvent this limitation by
| analyzing messages on users' devices before encryption or after
| decryption. While this might sound like a clever workaround, it
| fundamentally breaks the security model of encryption.
|
| It's not a misunderstanding, it's deliberate circumvention. It
| doesn't do anyone any good to pretend that they just don't
| understand.
| beezlewax wrote:
| Comparing electronic chats to former communication methods...
| Would people have objected to the government scanning all of
| their physical postal letters for keywords that might suggest
| something illegal? Don't they need some legal ground to do this
| in advance of the act?
|
| Why are chats different?
| YeahThisIsMe wrote:
| The speed of communication has changed a little bit, but still,
| a hard "no" to the government reading everything I say.
|
| Digital communication is more direct speech, including maybe
| whispering, than it is writing a letter.
| beezlewax wrote:
| If it is direct speech and they can monitor it. What's the
| next step? Turning on the microphone on your phone and
| logging everything in earshot for "security".
|
| Definitely a hard no!
| callc wrote:
| Sounds like you have something to hide! /s
| cerved wrote:
| You can't break encryption "only sometimes"
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| If you don't record every conversation that happens in a
| private home, you can't retroactively wiretap them "only
| sometimes". If you don't open and scan everyone's mail, you
| can't go back and read the ones they've already received
| "only sometimes".
|
| Why is that a problem? Then you just don't do it at all.
| Society can survive two people being able to have a private
| conversation.
| subscribed wrote:
| You mean to the indiscriminate reading of ALL the letters
| without the court order?
|
| Ummmmm....yeah? You don't? It's enough the metadata is
| collected already.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| Arbitrary interception of messages is a violation of the
| constitution in several European countries. The expectation of
| privacy in messaging is also codified in Article 8 of the ECHR,
| although with the usual nebulous exceptions.
|
| This is an excerpt of Swedish Regeringsformen[1]:
|
| > Everyone is also protected against body searches, house
| searches and similar intrusions, as well as against the
| examination of letters or other confidential mail and against
| the secret interception or recording of telephone conversations
| or other confidential messages.
|
| [1] https://lagen.nu/1974:152#K2P6
| throwaway494932 wrote:
| They are not. For example, according to Italian Constitution
| [1], chat control is unconstitutional: Art.
| 15 Freedom and confidentiality of correspondence and of
| every other form of communication is inviolable.
| Limitations may only be imposed by judicial decision stating
| the reasons and in accordance with the guarantees
| provided by the law.
|
| note the "EVERY" other form of communication. (Maybe somebody
| will be able to twist in a way that makes chat control
| constitutional, or somebody else will argue that since it is an
| EU law the constitution doesn't matter, but the spirit is
| clear)
|
| [1]
| https://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costi...
| dfajgljsldkjag wrote:
| Article is just AI generated slop. Don't bother clicking.
| iamnothere wrote:
| Great news. Now maybe we can go on the offense for once. Work to
| enable constitutional protections against this sort of thing, and
| develop systems that can work around it if and when this comes
| back again.
|
| There are places in the world _today_ where only sneakernet
| communication has any semblance of privacy, so we need non-
| specialist tools that can provide privacy and secrecy regardless
| of local conditions. (I'd love to see more communication tools
| that don't assume an always-on connection, or low latency, or
| other first world conditions.)
| varispeed wrote:
| Many countries have such protections, for instance Germany.
| They could actually issue arrest warrant for all involved as
| Chat Control amounts to attempt at terrorism (act of
| indiscriminate violence for ideological gain) against German
| people and that is illegal. Problem is that there is widespread
| apathy and lack of will to act.
| skrebbel wrote:
| That's a scary broad definition of "violence" you got there.
| noir_lord wrote:
| Yes and then again no - Given the Germans history (Nazi's
| then decades of the Stasi) you can understand why some of
| them feel that way.
| halJordan wrote:
| Even then, i could see how the stasi police state was an
| act of violence against individual citizens (which i
| doubt is an argument you should take for granted), but
| even granting that- this chat control isnt it. You can't
| call everything you dislike or everything that is wrong
| nazi, stasi, or an act of violence.
| noir_lord wrote:
| Depends on how you look at it, if you think people have
| an innate right to privacy then something that stomps on
| their privacy is a form of violence, not all violence is
| physical violence.
| evrydayhustling wrote:
| Ok, so you define violence to include advocating for a
| law that tramples someone rights. The next person says
| that advocating for laws is its own inalienable right, so
| you trampled him. And the whole semantic redefinition
| snake just eats its own tail.
|
| If we want constitutional to have any force, we have to
| push for a world where words mean something.
| varispeed wrote:
| "Psychological and coercive violence is recognised in
| domestic law (see coercive control offences) and by the
| WHO. It causes measurable harm to bodies and minds."
|
| It absolutely is violence. If a partner in a relationship
| was constantly going through your phone, they'd end up in
| prison in most countries recognising domestic violence.
| drysine wrote:
| >If a partner in a relationship was constantly going
| through your phone, they'd end up in prison in most
| countries recognising domestic violence.
|
| that's disproportional
| varispeed wrote:
| Not really. A snippet I posted before:
|
| If terrorism is defined as using violence or threats to
| intimidate a population for political or ideological ends,
| then "Chat Control" qualifies in substance. Violence
| doesn't have to leave blood. Psychological and coercive
| violence is recognised in domestic law (see coercive
| control offences) and by the WHO. It causes measurable harm
| to bodies and minds.
|
| The aim is intimidation. The whole purpose is to make
| people too scared to speak freely. That is intimidation of
| a population, by design.
|
| It is ideological. The ideology is mass control - keeping
| people compliant by stripping them of private spaces to
| think, talk, and dissent.
|
| The only reason it's not "terrorism" on paper is because
| states write definitions that exempt themselves. But in
| plain terms, the act is indistinguishable in effect from
| terrorism: deliberate fear, coercion, and the destruction
| of free will.
| knollimar wrote:
| Is this not affirming the consequent?
|
| Violence for A ends is Terrorism
|
| Intimidation for A ends is terrorism
|
| [?] Intimidation for A ends is violence. <--- does not
| follow
|
| Does it serve a similar purpose? Sure. Is it a threat of
| violence? Sure, but words have meaning.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I mean, eventually if it had become a law it would, I guess,
| as an ultimate backstop be enforced by violence (like all
| laws, if you break them persistently and annoyingly enough).
| But, it wouldn't be indiscriminate, right?
| mantas wrote:
| The problem is that EU laws is above national laws. Thus
| legally any law can be pushed at EU level, even if it breaks
| national laws. If such law passes, then it's on member states
| to adjust their laws.
| qnpnp wrote:
| That's the EU law position, but national law may not agree.
| I believe both France and Germany, for instance, consider
| their national constitution to be above EU law (even if the
| EU Court of Justice disagrees) - Though in practice the
| constitution was amended when necessary to avoid any
| conflict.
| DyslexicAtheist wrote:
| > hey, tell me what are some of the recent laws in Germany
| that make it a crime to call politicians out on social media
|
| in Germany, calling a politician certain derogatory names or
| mocking them in a way that is considered a "public insult"
| (and reasonably likely to impair their ability to do their
| job) can lead to criminal liability under SS188 StGB. The
| scope includes online social media posts. The trend of
| enforcement appears to be increasing.
|
| Section 188 of the German Criminal Code "insulting public
| officials" - This section makes it a crime to insult
| ("Beleidigung"), defame ("Verleumdung" or slander ("Uble
| Nachrede" a person in public life (politicians at all levels)
| if the insult is "likely to significantly impair the ability
| of the person concerned to perform their public duties"
|
| Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) - social media platform
| liability; It obliges large social-media platforms operating
| in Germany to remove "clearly illegal" content quickly
| (within 24 h) and illegal content within 7 days, report
| transparency, store removed content for 10 weeks. This law
| creates an environment in which platform-moderation is under
| pressure. Content that may lead to criminal liability (such
| as insults under SS188) may be more likely to be
| flagged/removed by platforms.
|
| General "insult" (SS185 StGB), "slander" (SS186 StGB) and
| "defamation" (SS187 StGB) apply to any person, not just
| public officials. Conditions and penalties are higher under
| SS188 when public officials are involved. Also, laws on
| dissemination of personal data (doxing) (SS126a StGB) were
| enacted in 2021. While not specific to insulting politicians,
| they add further online-speech liabilities
| shevy-java wrote:
| People, as I reasoned on reddit - do not trust those who want to
| push for it. Several mega-corporations want it. See how lobbyists
| continue to fight for this.
|
| Watch them carefully. They will 100% try again. The enemy is the
| general public.
| api wrote:
| Big corporations like expensive complicated regulations and
| onerous mandates because it's a moat. They can afford to comply
| while indie companies, open source efforts, and startups
| cannot. The cost of regulatory compliance is nothing compared
| to the benefit of not having to compete.
|
| A heavily regulated market becomes an oligopoly of a few
| players with revolving door access to government and often
| interlocking directorates, patent cross licensing, and other
| ways of further colluding to keep out competition.
|
| This is why, for example, the big lavishly funded AI ventures
| are all about "safety" regulation. It would stop anyone from
| competing. So far that effort has also failed but expect them
| to keep trying.
| mouse-5346 wrote:
| If these AI companies wanted to preserve privacy they would
| have done it immediately after it was apparent OpenAI scraped
| data it shouldn't have to train it's models. Any resistance
| and privacy concerns these businesses raise now is only to
| gatekeep training data out of the hands of.would be
| competitors and only accessible to themselves.
| echelon wrote:
| > They will 100% try again.
|
| We only have to lose once. Erosion is a process.
|
| Every country _should_ fight for constitutional protections for
| its citizens ' rights to (internet) privacy. But that'll never
| have support from politicians, and laypeople don't have the
| ability to appreciate this highly technical and nuanced topic.
|
| It's only when opposition is mounted to each individual attempt
| that we can rally public support. Sadly, we can only muster
| this energy in the face of losing freedom. And it only has to
| falter once.
| rsynnott wrote:
| In practice, this is likely both unconstitutional in many
| member states and at least pretty dodgy with respect to the
| EU's can't-believe-it's-not-a-constitution.
| quantummagic wrote:
| People should be ashamed to support such chat control proposals.
| It should become as socially taboo as racism or sexism, and
| people who transgress such social norms should be tarnished with
| the same social stigma.
| varispeed wrote:
| This was just another terrorist attack attempt by white collar
| autocrats. EU failed to recognise it as such. Groups proposing
| such mass assault at the public belong behind bars, not to be
| given consideration. If someone proposed legislation for
| compulsory mass rape, would European Commission take it through
| legislative process? Unlikely. So they have a massive blind spot,
| or are working together to move Overton window and eventually
| this will pass. Dangerous times.
| ewuhic wrote:
| Will we get new cute domains for websites against the initiative
| when it is reintroduced once again?
| fguerraz wrote:
| I really don't think this has anything to do with pressure from
| the 10% of the public that can afford to care about this.
|
| Politicians, and more importantly influential people, also rely
| on the same tech as we do and they have infinitely more to lose
| if their communications leak.
| djcannabiz wrote:
| The politicians gave themselves an exemption from the scanning.
| This is just from the top search result but this is widely
| reported.
|
| "The scanning would apply to all EU citizens, except EU
| politicians. They might exempt themselves from the law under
| "professional secrecy" rules" https://nextcloud.com/blog/how-
| the-eu-chat-control-law-is-a-...
| fguerraz wrote:
| Yes, but they would be immune from a legal point of view,
| they would still have to use the same backdoored software.
| petre wrote:
| Von der Leyen's phone was convenintly erased before it could be
| used as evidence in a court case against her. So no. Maybe
| stuff will leak but this isn't South Korea with two presidents
| in jail and thd last one on his way to jail.
| wewewedxfgdf wrote:
| Who wants this?
|
| Who is driving it?
|
| Who wants this so much that they have gone to the massive expense
| and effort?
|
| Whoever it is - they know thet defeat is only temporary, and if
| they keep bringing it back from the dead, eventually it will
| succeed.
| input_sh wrote:
| Ashton Kutcher, Demi Moore and a couple more Hollywood
| celebrities united under an "NGO" called Thorn(.org).
|
| That "NGO" also happens to sell a tool called Safer(.io) that
| allows website owners to check hashes against known CSAM
| material, which I'm sure is unrelated.
|
| They also happened to have shadily employed some former high-
| ranking Europol officials, which is again just a pure
| coincidence.
|
| Balkan Insight did wonderful investigative reporting on them a
| couple of years back: https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/25/who-
| benefits-inside-the...
| Tade0 wrote:
| I've heard those celebrities talk about this. What they
| (willfully?) ignore is that law enforcement is already too
| understaffed to handle every child abuse case with proper
| care, so giving them even more cases to work with won't
| achieve anything.
| squarefoot wrote:
| The problem isn't actual cases to work with but the ton of
| personal data swallowed by their AI that can be used at any
| time for different purposes than protecting kids, which has
| never been the #1 purpose of those laws.
|
| In the meantime, the number of children killed in Palestine
| and West Bank has surpassed 20 thousand in 2 years, and
| famine hit more than half a million children in Sudan. It's
| not like they were short of ways to show they really care
| about kids, but alas they don't at all. It's just an excuse
| to restrict personal liberties.
| Onavo wrote:
| Didn't multiple HN comments trace that NGO back to the US
| State Department?
| hexbin010 wrote:
| Could it be any more obvious that it links back to the US
| gov?
| input_sh wrote:
| Well if you say that HN comments you haven't cited say
| so... am I supposed to immediately believe it?
| lysace wrote:
| The ultimate goal is to make anonymous speech online seem shady
| and suspicious (only trust thoughts from certified citizen
| accounts) and to make people more cautious about what they
| write online. Politicians are really tired of being mocked by
| anonymous people immune to being shamed with the help of the
| fourth estate (press). This legislation is one piece of the
| puzzle.
|
| The people pushing this come from the usual power centers in
| European politics, the (current) centrists. They feel motivated
| to protect their positions against encroachments from what they
| consider extremist positions (be it e.g. economic left or
| right, or a or b on some other scale.)
| petre wrote:
| And what they will do, if they succeed, is provide tools of
| repression to the extremists which of course will win the
| elections once confidence in the centrisrs shall further
| erode.
| lysace wrote:
| Of course.
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| Most of all this noise is just the product of the drawn out
| legislative process of the EU, the commission included chat
| control in a larger package suggested ca 2021 and it's been
| working itself through the system since then, generating
| headlines every few months.
|
| By now it's just too late to take it back and start over
| without including chat control.
| gnarlouse wrote:
| I don't get how this debate keeps cropping up. Is there not some
| career disincentive/consequence where if you try to push
| Encryption back doors, you get demolished in your re-election
| mpalmer wrote:
| Gotta get the average voter to know/care more for that to
| happen.
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| Having taken a closer look, there's nothing really nefarious
| going on: what is mainly happening is that every step of the
| very long process of passing a EU regulation is getting lots of
| attention.
|
| Back in 2020 or so the commission first proposed the reform
| that contains the chat control provisions, then there was like
| a year or two of well published fighting in the European
| Parliament (EP) before they reached a position on the entire
| reform (notably excluding chat control).
|
| Meanwhile the council of minister (effectively the upper house
| of the EP) didn't get around to forming an opinion before the
| parliament, so they are doing that now, which means it the same
| fight over chat control all over again but with different
| people.
|
| After the council of ministers agrees on a position on the
| entire reform proposal from the commission we'll get even more
| rounds of bickering over what the final text should be: the
| trialogue. Those tend to be very closed, but with how much
| attention chat control is getting expect lots of leaks and
| constant news about who's being an ass during that step too.
|
| Note that it is _explicitly_ expected that each of the thee
| bodies will come up with different positions on many aspects of
| a regulation proposal, so there is nothing strange with the
| commission or the council suggesting some the parliament has
| opposed.
| noir_lord wrote:
| They only have to get "lucky" once, we have to get lucky every
| time so it makes sense if you want this to keep pushing it -
| once the law is passed it's much harder to revoke it later.
|
| The people pushing it are ~bribed~ lobbied hard by groups who
| want this so they don't care about wasting their time or
| resources since they are getting paid for it.
|
| > Is there not some career disincentive/consequence where if
| you try to push Encryption back doors, you get demolished in
| your re-election
|
| In a somewhat ironic turn of events we don't know _who_ was
| pushing it this time as they where protected by anonymity - one
| rule for them I guess and another for everyone else.
| ntoskrnl_exe wrote:
| That's why they do it so stealthily, most of the time
| encryption isn't even mentioned. What they often do is talk
| about the need to "protect the children" at the responsibility
| of the service provider, who in order to comply would have to
| disable encryption on their own. It would technically remain
| legal, only banned de jure.
|
| Also most average people don't know anything about encryption
| or backdoors, not even the meaning of those words. In their
| minds they have nothing to be concerned or mad about.
| r_lee wrote:
| Can't wait for it to be reintroduced as "Protecting Children and
| Countering Terrorism Act" in 26/27
| YeahThisIsMe wrote:
| I hate how accurate this is.
| stavros wrote:
| If our politicians knew anything about anything, they'd take a
| leaf out of the US' book and call it "Preventing Risks Online;
| Thwarting Exploitation of Children and Terrorism": the PROTECT
| act.
| hexbin010 wrote:
| Is it because they're focusing their efforts on the much worse
| ProtectEU? I can't keep up
| throwaway81523 wrote:
| The first thing to check in new versions of the proposal is
| whether they include an exception for the government, as they
| always do. If the proposers think the scanning is so safe, why
| don't they want the government to use it too? As soon as it says
| the government is exempted, you know that the rest can be tossed
| in the trash without much further examination.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-11-01 23:00 UTC)