[HN Gopher] EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotia...
___________________________________________________________________
EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with
Parliament
Author : mseri
Score : 84 points
Date : 2025-11-26 21:52 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.techradar.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.techradar.com)
| tonoto wrote:
| Is this the end of secure communication within EU?
| raverbashing wrote:
| Note this is the council position
|
| The path from position to actual implementation (details) is long
|
| And you can bet there's still a lot of opposition of people (with
| actual involvement in the legislative process)
|
| And legal hurdles for implementation as well
|
| (this all reminds me of the discussion around the copyright
| directive where people here were decrying it was going to be the
| end of memes. So, how did that go again?)
| giuliomagnifico wrote:
| In a nutshell, there will be no more intrusions into chats, but
| only obligations for the companies to provide preferential
| channels for victims of these crimes.
| debugnik wrote:
| And companies considered high-risk will have to "contribute to
| the development of technologies to mitigate the risks relating
| to their services." Which sooner or later will involve another
| attempt at client-side scanning.
| thecopy wrote:
| Seems... fine? At least i dont see any invasion of privacy or
| encryption related obligations in this proposal.
|
| The EU ostensibly wants to improve innovation, i wonder how these
| new assessment regulations help with that, especially for SME and
| startups.
| halJordan wrote:
| "High risk" providers will be obligated to "contribute"
| technologies "to mitigate." Seems like a doublespeak way of
| saying enforced decryption or enforced backdoors.
| stephen_g wrote:
| Yes, I see this as the people pushing for surveillance and
| control taking what they can get for now, with the view to
| bring it back to mandatory scanning before all is said and
| done.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| It's one of those things that will obviously be used to boil
| the frog over time via beurocratic rules.
|
| Year 1 a minimum viable effort manual process will be fine.
| But they'll say "not good enough" to someone every now and
| then and the minimum can do in order to get a) permission b)
| enforcers not crawling up your ass (IDK if it will be
| permission based or enforcement after the fact based) will
| ratchet up.
|
| By year 10 or 20 "everyone" will have an API or a portal or
| whatever.
|
| And worse, by creating a compliance industry they create a
| whole suite of business and people who will ask for more,
| more, more more.
| orwin wrote:
| No, because EUCJ still have power to interpret the laws, or
| to declare the laws illegal. And the EUCJ, while incredibly
| pro-consummer, seems to really, really dislike the police
| state.
|
| It will happen only if the council manage to defang the EUCJ
| (it does try, regularly, to reduce the judiciary power by
| forcing it to make unpopular statements on obviously illegal
| laws, so it might be a long term goal).
| dr_hooo wrote:
| Sadly, another attempt will likely be made at some point. At
| least the regulation is quite explicit:
|
| > This Regulation shall not prohibit, make impossible,
| weaken, circumvent or otherwise undermine cybersecurity
| measures, in particular encryption, including end-to-end
| encryption, implemented by the relevant information society
| services or by the users. This Regulation shall not create
| any obligation that would require a provider of hosting
| services or a provider of interpersonal communications
| services to decrypt data or create access to end-to-end
| encrypted data, or that would prevent providers from offering
| end-to-end encrypted services.
| jacknews wrote:
| I know it's the recognized term for 'officially designated
| authority', but 'competent authority' seems to conflate two
| traits that do not necessarily co-habit.
| Zaiberia wrote:
| Just read it as "we have the competence to make decisions with
| authority on this issue", though we all wish it always meant
| "we have authority to make competent decisions on this issue"
| xD
| pavlov wrote:
| Legal competence is like a legal person -- it's a subset of
| what we normally associate with the term.
| throw_a_grenade wrote:
| The crux is in those ,,risk assessments", to be approved by
| authorities. IIUC those authorities will be able to designate
| e.g. Signal ,,high risk" and slap penalties unless they
| ,,mitigate" the risk. Hard to tell what will happen without
| seeing final regulation.
| johnwayne666 wrote:
| Does this already include the parliament's position based on a
| trilogue or will there be amendments before it's voted in
| parliament?
| throw_a_grenade wrote:
| IIUC no, this is Council position before trilogue.
| aestetix wrote:
| Honest question. The EU was created as an economic and trade
| institution. How has it morphed into a wierd political
| institution, which NATO was already supposed to be?
|
| The root question: how did an organization that ushered in things
| like the Euro become a body that decides whether Europeans are
| allowed to have personal privacy?
| saubeidl wrote:
| > The EU was created as an economic and trade institution. How
| has it morphed into a wierd political institution, which NATO
| was already supposed to be?
|
| That is not the case.
|
| The 1957 Treaty Establishing the European Community contained
| the objective of "ever closer union" in the following words in
| the Preamble. In English this is: "Determined to lay the
| foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe
| .....".
|
| > The root question: how did an organization that ushered in
| things like the Euro become a body that decides whether
| Europeans are allowed to have personal privacy?
|
| Sensationalist framing aside, how does any government become a
| body that decides anything?
| aestetix wrote:
| That treaty was established just over a decade after Hitler
| surrendered, when there were two Germanys, an Iron curtain
| across Europe, and a lot of other things which changed
| significantly after the Wall fell. Surely you would agree
| that those words meant something quite different then than
| they do now?
|
| I don't think my framing was sensationalist at all. Chat
| Control is using the threat of child porn to make people
| forget the reasons why the ECHR cares so deeply about
| privacy. I'm not sure why Denmark is pushing it so hard, but
| governments have long feared and hated encryption.
| saubeidl wrote:
| Not only are you moving your goalposts from "this wasn't
| the original purpose" (it was - it's part of the founding
| document!), but it has been reaffirmed and strengthened
| over and over again since:
| https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-
| briefings/cbp-...
|
| Don't get me wrong - I, too, care about privacy and think
| Chat Control is a horrible idea, that thankfully seems to
| be getting shut down. That doesn't mean the EU is somehow
| not legitimate as a governing body.
| aestetix wrote:
| I was not moving goalposts. I was saying that the way we
| interpret the words has changed over time, and therefore
| we are taking words that meant one thing in 1957 and
| reinterpreting them to fit assumptions for today. Thus
| the semantic drift creates a shift.
|
| To address the other point, I think we're missing a
| question of scope. Is the EU a legitimate governing body
| for negotiating trade deals and employment regulations
| between countries? Absolutely. I question however whether
| in recent years EU has begun to either scope-drift or
| expand their scope beyond what might be considered
| reasonable.
|
| I think this is a natural tendency within human nature,
| especially when a governing body is given some power.
| Over time new opportunities arise which allow the body to
| gain more power, and then they reinterpret founding
| documents to include some of the new powers they want. I
| think it is pretty clear this is happening with the EU.
| Look at the rise of nationalist parties in Germany and
| France, etc.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| "contained the objective of "ever closer union" "
|
| Such words in any Preamble are usually meant as a lofty
| declaration of some ideal, not a concrete political goal.
|
| After all, "ever closer" does not even mean federation, it
| means a unitary state, which is "closer" than a federation or
| a confederation.
|
| If you believe that a single sentence in a 1957 treaty can be
| used as a ramrod to push European federalization from above,
| you will be surprised by the backlash. European nations
| aren't mostly interested in becoming provinces of a future
| superstate, potential referenda in this direction will almost
| certainly fail, and given the growth of the far right all
| over the continent, I don't expect the governments to agree
| to any further voluntary transfer of powers to Brussels.
|
| Also, the European Commission is not a government and is not
| _meant_ to act as a government that can decide "everything".
|
| The countries that formed the EU have only agreed to transfer
| _some_ powers to Brussels. Not give it an unlimited hand over
| everything. And Chat Control is a major infringement of
| constitutional rights in many countries, where inviolability
| of communication except for concrete warrants has been
| written into law for decades.
|
| Imagine a situation if the German Constitutional Court says
| "this is illegal by the German Grundgesetz, and German law
| enforcement may not execute such laws". Do you believe that
| German authorities will defer to Brussels instead of its own
| Constitutional Court? Nope. Same with Poland etc. Local
| constitutional institutions have more legitimacy among the
| people than the bunch of bureaucrats in Brussels.
| saubeidl wrote:
| I don't think a mere Federalization should happen. I think
| a unitary state is - as you said! - what we all signed up
| for and what we should get.
|
| There's a reason the "ever closer" phrasing has been
| repeated over and over again - in the 1983 Solemn
| Declaration, the 1997 Maastricht Treaty, the 2009 Lisbon
| treaty etc etc.
|
| Look at China's rise and our fall - a direct consequence of
| centralization and the lack thereof.
| constantius wrote:
| I assume this is sarcasm, but, for those reading, a
| unitary state is definitely not what those words meant.
| If they did, that would mean that 27 countries willingly
| and fully signed away their sovereignty, without
| knowledge of the public. The only times where this has
| happened before in world histoey was either surrender in
| the face if insurmountable odds, or a decision by the
| elites in exchange for unimaginable riches. As far as I
| know, the politicians and bureaucrats who made/signed
| those treaties didn't become billionaires since.
| saubeidl wrote:
| This has happened many a time. The US constitution is one
| such example.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| There is a reason indeed - unbridled utopianism that will
| eventually sink us.
|
| In practice, the only political party that openly
| advocates for a European Federation, Volt, is polling
| around statistical error from zero in most EU countries.
| The will of the people isn't there.
|
| Becoming a federation or even a unitary state isn't a
| self-executing protocol. Actual heads of governments have
| to meet, agree to dissolve their individual countries
| into a superstate with one central government, and actual
| parliaments have to ratify this.
|
| You don't have the vote to do this democratically.
| European nationalisms were at their lowest ebb in cca
| 2000; since then, they have returned with vengeance.
|
| You don't have the force to do this forcibly. No Genghis
| Khan or Napoleon on the scene.
|
| And in the current connected world, you can't even do
| this by stealth. The only result of the people actually
| learning of such a plan would be far-right governments in
| France and Germany at the same time, ffs.
|
| Please stop. Just stop. When I was a youngster, I
| witnessed violent collapse of Yugoslavia, somewhat less
| violent collapse of the Soviet Union and fortunately non-
| violent collapse of Czechoslovakia, three entities whose
| constituent nations didn't want to be tied together. I
| don't want to see 2.0 of those, continent-wide, when I am
| old.
|
| "Look at China's rise and our fall - a direct consequence
| of centralization and the lack thereof."
|
| Becoming more like China is not particularly attractive
| for former Eastern Bloc countries. Chat Control is enough
| of a window into such future that I don't want to go
| there. Also, your history is massively incomplete.
| Cherry-picking of some events while ignoring others.
|
| The pinnacle of European power, with the European
| countries controlling half of mankind, happened around
| 1900, with no centralization of the continent in place.
| And we have been losing our relative strength since 2000,
| which is precisely the time when the continent is most
| integrated ever.
|
| Chinese central government unleashed at least two total
| disasters on its own population in the 20th century - the
| Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. It can
| unleash some more if a sufficiently unhinged person gets
| into power again. With centralized power, you are free to
| make some Huge Mistakes.
|
| I certainly don't want future Brussels to start some
| European versions of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, just
| because they can. Austria-Hungary collapsed on such
| stupidity after 400 years of continuing integration.
| saubeidl wrote:
| > The will of the people isn't there
|
| The will of the people never mattered. All that matters
| is ideology and force to execute on it.
|
| > Becoming more like China is not particularly attractive
| for former Eastern Bloc countries
|
| Yeah, what's attractive for former Eastern Block
| countries is mooching off Western Europe, taking our
| money and then blocking any progress and electing
| regressive autocrats. In some ways, it was better when
| you were one of our (Austrian) colonies. At least we
| managed to drag you into modernity against your will.
|
| > Chinese central government unleashed at least two total
| disasters on its own population in the 20th century - the
| Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. It can
| unleash some more if a sufficiently unhinged person gets
| into power again
|
| That's the beauty of it! They did all of that _and yet_
| they are thriving now. None of this shit matters in the
| long term. To quote Mao - "A revolution is not a dinner
| party".
| LunaSea wrote:
| > what we all signed up for
|
| No, we didn't. The EU ignored the French and Dutch
| people's votes.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| > Local constitutional institutions have more legitimacy
| among the people than the bunch of bureaucrats in Brussels.
|
| Repeating this bullshit over and over does not make it
| true.
|
| The EU has a parliament that approves laws. The
| commissioners are appointed by the democratic elected
| governments. It has a legitimate mandate.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Ask local armed forces, judges or police whether they
| would back Brussels or their local government if it came
| to an actual forceful showdown.
|
| This is the ultimate legitimacy test, not things written
| on paper.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| > things written on paper.
|
| "things written on paper" is the basis of any serious,
| respectable country. "Things written on paper" should be
| respected, because when you are serious about your
| commitments, words matter.
|
| I don't want to see the country I live in become a
| shithole because local armed forces or police think
| themselves above the law.
|
| The ultimate legitimacy test is whether you are serious
| about the things you sign. Not if some proto-fascist
| wants to tear down institutions.
| blibble wrote:
| ever closer union in the Treaty of Rome
|
| the entire point is to build a country called Europe
|
| and the EU is built on the "Monnet method", where it slowly
| ratchets forward taking more power from national parliaments
| and giving it to the EU council/commission
|
| (with a useless parliament there to make it appear democratic)
|
| the UK leaving is the only example of the ratchet being
| reversed
| hshdhdhj4444 wrote:
| The EU almost certainly has protected privacy for most European
| nations than it has hurt it.
|
| You simply need to look at the precipitous decline in privacy
| in the UK after it left the EU to see some of the most stark
| examples of this.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| You speak as if the EU is somehow divorced from the national
| governments, and is imposing its will to the helpless states
| that compose it.
|
| The commissioners that propose laws are appointed by each
| national government. The national governments of each member
| state is all in on this.
|
| NATO is not a political institution. It is a defense treaty
| (this one completely outside the realm of democracy).
| sunaookami wrote:
| >How has it morphed into a wierd political institution
|
| Von der Leyen, an autocratic fascist that is ruining this
| continent. She failed to push her agenda in Germany so she
| "failed upwards". Even how she got this position was highly
| controversial and went against the top candidate principle. The
| EU commission is exceeding their competencies. The EU is not
| democratic, there is no parliamentary oversight, the parliament
| can't even introduce legislative proposals. No one can vote for
| the EU commission, only the parliament can vote for or against
| all the proposed candidates (not one by one). Parliament is
| essentially a rubber stamp for the commission.
|
| I could be jailed for this comment btw.
| throw_a_grenade wrote:
| EU (and preceding organisations since European Coal and Steel
| Community) were created so that there will be no war in Europe.
| How exactly this objective is achieved is of secondary
| importance. It is economic institution, because someone
| calculated that this will be best shot, but if (or when)
| calculation credibly shifts (for example, that it would be
| better for them to be a religion, a feudal system, or a
| federation -- whatever), it will morph into something else.
|
| I'd say that it has 100% fulfilled its primary goal that there
| is no military conflict between major European states for like
| 80 years and counting, which is longest period ever recorded
| and a historical anomaly. The means of how it was executed is
| obviously a matter of debate, mistakes were made etc., but we
| over here generally make love, not war.
| concinds wrote:
| The answer is pretty simple. This decision isn't "the EU".
|
| The European Commission has fewer employees than the Luxembourg
| government (and keep in mind, they're "running" a continent).
|
| This decision was the Council, i.e. simply the national member
| governments. Don't let anyone blame "the EU" for this, the
| national governments are the ones that proposed this, pushed it
| through EU institutions, and might now try to override the EU
| parliament about it. Just because national (elected)
| governments are pushing it through EU institutions doesn't mean
| you should blame "the EU". It wasn't the "Eurocrats".
| pessimizer wrote:
| > a weird political institution, which NATO was already
| supposed to be?
|
| NATO is a military alliance, not a government.
| emptysongglass wrote:
| I am ashamed to be Danish. Where are the mass protests of
| hundreds of thousands, the mass walkouts from our workplaces
| until our government at last respects our human dignity?
|
| Our government has today turned the EU into a tool for total
| surveillance I don't know if there can be any return from. Our
| democratic processes have been abused, and our politicians shown
| to be nothing but craven, self-interested agents of control.
| sam_lowry_ wrote:
| What about going out in front of your city hall with a poster
| saying no-chat-control?
|
| You risk nothing, do you?
| bigbadfeline wrote:
| > What about going out in front of your city hall with a
| poster saying no-chat-control?
|
| Unorganized, individual acts cannot change anything in the
| EU.
|
| > You risk nothing, do you?
|
| Given the legislative maze the EU has become, you can't be
| sure of that, but you surely gain nothing.
|
| The conditions in Europe are quite specific, and in that
| environment, pan-EU legislation (except the customs union)
| should be optional for individual members, anything else can
| and will be used against the people.
| general1465 wrote:
| Is there still a loophole for politicians not to be tracked?
| Because if so, some people will make a lot of money by creating a
| political party and turning citizens into politicians for yearly
| fee and thus bypassing this whole law.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Elected officials of if I recall correctly. Not just people
| belonging to a political party.
| general1465 wrote:
| In big governments or also in councils?
| snet0 wrote:
| You can read the proposal and found out, if you're interested.
|
| > In the light of the more limited risk of their use for the
| purpose of child sexual abuse and the need to preserve
| confidential information, including classified information,
| information covered by professional secrecy and trade secrets,
| electronic communications services that are not publicly
| available, such as those used for national security purposes,
| should be excluded from the scope of this Regulation.
| Accordingly, this Regulation should not apply to interpersonal
| communications services that are not available to the general
| public and the use of which is instead restricted to persons
| involved in the activities of a particular company,
| organisation, body or authority.
| deafpolygon wrote:
| The wording on all this is incredibly vague. The intentions are
| pretty clear, but as the saying goes... the road to hell...
| constantcrying wrote:
| I just want to reiterate that in Germany getting convicted of
| gang raping a 15 year old (and stealing her phone and purse and
| filming the rape) is something which gets you _probation_. Yes,
| the crime was proven, there was no doubt about the guilt.
|
| In this context putting the entirety of the population under the
| suspicion of facilitating child rape is completely and utterly
| deranged.
| miohtama wrote:
| The trick is that because they could not pass the proposal that
| enforces message scanning, now this proposal defines "high risk
| activities" and in the case of high risk activity, the national
| authorities can force someone to comply (i.e. start to scan
| messages, block, stop activity).
|
| Here is the actual text:
| https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15318-2025-...
|
| High risk classification is at the end of the text.
|
| Some highlights of what is defined as high risk, and thus can be
| forced to go through mandatory scanning or forbidden:
|
| - Encrypted messaging follows closely due to privacy concerns and
| the potential for misuse. Posting and sharing of multimedia
| content are also high-risk activities, as they can easily
| disseminate harmful material.
|
| - The platform lacks functionalities to prevent users from saving
| harmful content (by making recordings, screenshots etc.) for the
| purpose of the dissemination thereof (such as for example not
| allowing recording and screenshotting content shared by minors)
|
| - Possibility to use peer-to-peer downloading (allows direct
| sharing of content without using centralised servers)
|
| - The platforms' storage functionalities and/or the legal
| framework of the country of storage do not allow sharing
| information with law enforcement authorities.
|
| - The platform lacks functionalities to limit the number of
| downloads per user to reduce the dissemination of harmful
| content.
|
| - Making design choices such as ensuring that E2EE is opt-in by
| default, rather than opt-out would require people to choose E2EE
| should they wish to use it, therefore allowing certain detection
| technologies to work for communication between users that have
| not opted in to E2EE
|
| Also, a lot of these points do not sound like they are about the
| safety of children
|
| - Platforms lack a premoderation system, allowing potentially
| harmful content to be posted without oversight or moderation
|
| - Frequent use of anonymous accounts
|
| - Frequent Pseudonymous behavior
|
| - Frequent creation of temporary accounts:
|
| - Lack of identity verification tools
|
| Based on the light of the proposal, Hacker News is very dangerous
| place and need to have its identity verification and CSAM
| policies fixed, or face the upcoming fines in the EU.
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| Given how badly the EU just folded on GDPR, data protection and
| AI laws (which were good laws generally imo, and tragic to see
| useful exercise of sovereignty erased), I want to have hope that
| this might not stand.
|
| But unfortunately I feel like the big tech interests probably
| somewhat want this happen, are happy to hand the citizenry over
| to the state. That we won't hear much from them over this all.
| With some notable Signal sized / Medium Tech exceptions.
|
| It sure does seem like there's a huge legitimacy crisis the EU
| council is creating around itself by going so far against the
| will of the people, by intruding so forcibly into literally
| everyone's life.
| mrtksn wrote:
| >At the beginning of the month, the Danish Presidency decided to
| change its approach with a new compromise text that makes the
| chat scanning voluntary, instead.
|
| Hmm, so this will probably make the life for those who don't scan
| quite hard and if they experience a high profile scandal getting
| out of it will not be easy I assume.
|
| I'm not sure what to think of it, not being mandatory and
| requiring risk assessment sounds like "Fine, whatever don't do it
| if you don't want to do it but if something bad happens it's on
| you". May be fair to some extent, i.e. Reddit and Telegram can
| decide how much they trust their users not to run pedo business
| and be on the hook for it.
|
| On the other hand, it is a backdoor and if the governments go
| crazy like they did in some other countries where high level
| politicians are implicated with actual pedophiles and have a
| tendency for authoritarianism Europe may end up having checking
| user chats for "enemies of the state" instead of CSAM materials.
| Being not mandatory here may mean that you get constant bullying
| because you must be hiding something.
| tux3 wrote:
| I assume this is a delay to get a foot in the door. After some
| time, the scanning will be made no longer voluntary.
|
| One has to take rights away slowly, otherwise the frog jumps
| before you can boil it.
| foofoo12 wrote:
| "voluntary" can also be pretty meaningless depending on the
| context. In the UK, if the police suspects you of
| shenanigans, they'll politely invite you for an "voluntary
| interview".
|
| Of course you can decide to not go, it's voluntary, right?
| Yes, you can. Your choice. And when you reject their kind
| offer they'll come and arrest you so you can attend the
| interview.
| perihelions wrote:
| Telegram didn't go along with "voluntary" stuff, so they
| arrested the founder on terrorism and CSAM charges. Now he
| alleges French intelligence offers to intervene in his
| court case (through deniable intermediaries, naturally), in
| exchange for doing some "voluntary" moderating.
|
| This is the example they threaten all tech platforms with.
| This is the implicit "or else" they won't put in writing.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/technology/telegrams-durov-says-
| fran...
|
| > _" MOSCOW, Sept 28 - Pavel Durov, the billionaire founder
| of the Telegram messaging app, accused French intelligence
| on Sunday of having asked him through an intermediary to
| censor some Moldovan voices in return for help with his
| court case in France."_
|
| (And I can't help but notice a pattern of censorship
| tactic:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5503354 ( _" French
| homeland intelligence threatens a sysop into deleting a
| Wikipedia Article (wikimedia.fr)"_ (2013))
| mckirk wrote:
| While I fully agree with your sentiment, I'd like to take the
| opportunity to share a favorite fun-fact of mine: the frogs
| in the not-jumping-out experiment had their brains removed
| beforehand. Which might make the analogy more apt, actually,
| considering how much under siege our attention is these days.
| bossyTeacher wrote:
| I feel like this will just incentivise the creation of
| privately run federated messaging systems. Powerful people will
| always be protected, any smart people will run fed messengers
| for their private stuff and normie tech for normie comms. This
| power will just turn into another form of control. As always,
| the only losers will be the average citizens.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| [dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46056358
| mseri wrote:
| Thanks for the link. I had missed the other two submissions.
|
| If any admin is around, they should probably be merged. This is
| the other one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46055863
| jasonvorhe wrote:
| Good old salami tactics still work. Same goes for going way over
| target to then settle for your actual goal.
|
| Good old democracy at work.
| spwa4 wrote:
| Why follow the EU's press release instead of stating what's
| happening? The EU parliament voted - many times. They voted
| AGAINST having this law at all. The EU council is now threatening
| to fully override parliament, but "gives parliament another
| chance" to agree, in hopes this makes the member states more
| likely to cooperate.
|
| More correct would be to state the in power EU governments have
| decided to use the EU council power to override the will of both
| the EU parliament and the member states' own parliaments - for
| now, by threatening parliament with the override.
| wnevets wrote:
| They're are merely extending the current policy, it was set to
| expired early next year.
| bgwalter wrote:
| They could have subpoenaed the _unencrypted_ Gmail accounts of
| Maxwell, Epstein and Barak like two decades ago. They can _still_
| subpoena Barak 's Gmail and other accounts, especially after
| Giuffre's allegations about "a well known prime minister".
|
| I have the feeling this will not happen.
| Xelbair wrote:
| Oh but those people would be exempt from scanning anyways.
| techjamie wrote:
| "Don't worry, the scans won't invade your privacy or expose
| your information."
|
| "Oh, so the politicians' communications are being scanned
| too, then?"
|
| "Oh, heavens no. That might risk the privacy of our
| communications."
| squigz wrote:
| Taking the reasons at face value (for the sake of argument) I
| guess what I'm confused about is why this would be necessary. I
| would think there were already laws/regulations/liability
| reasons/etc requiring companies to make efforts to ensure they're
| not hosting CP and other such things? Am I wrong?
| jacquesm wrote:
| No, you're not wrong. But this framing allows them to paint the
| parties opposing these measures as being 'pro CP'.
| johanvts wrote:
| Misleading title, the council approves their mandate for
| negotiations with parliament. It's still a long way to go before
| it turns into law and I think it's rather unpopular in
| parliament.
| dang wrote:
| Ok, we've put that in the title above. Thanks!
| lysace wrote:
| This is a major win! Basically: It's now (still) voluntary for
| services to implement scanning for CSAM material.
|
| Source: Swedish national public service news (Sveriges Radio)
| interviewing Jon Karlung, CEO of _Bahnhof AB_ - a major privacy-
| centric and politically outspoken ISP in Sweden. Think XS4ALL but
| in Sweden.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-11-26 23:00 UTC)