[HN Gopher] End of "Chat Control": EU parliament stops mass surv...
___________________________________________________________________
End of "Chat Control": EU parliament stops mass surveillance
Author : amarcheschi
Score : 542 points
Date : 2026-03-26 12:24 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.patrick-breyer.de)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.patrick-breyer.de)
| amarcheschi wrote:
| I would say "end of chat control, for now"
| leosanchez wrote:
| For today or for this month.
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| The value of persistence!
| vintermann wrote:
| Those guys only ever have a "maybe later" button.
| rsynnott wrote:
| That's pretty much how it works; there's generally no way, in
| a modern parliamentary democracy to say "no, and also you can
| never discuss it again". You could put it in the
| constitution, but honestly there's a decent argument that
| parts of chat control would violate the EU's can't-believe-
| it's-not-a-constitution (the Lisbon Treaty is essentially a
| constitution, but is not referred to as such because it
| annoys nationalists) in any case and ultimately be struck
| down by the ECJ, like the Data Retention Directive was.
| account42 wrote:
| Constituional cours are a last defense against bad laws
| though and should not be the first one - they are not
| designed to be fast enough to prevent a lot of damage being
| done before they strike something down.
| rsynnott wrote:
| I mean, they're _not_ the first defence. This is a story
| about the parliament rejecting a bad law.
| wongarsu wrote:
| The first defense is that the Council of the EU (formed
| by government ministers of the member states) and the
| European Parliament (elected directly by EU citizens)
| have to agree on the legislation. And while the council
| is staffed by career politicians, the parliament is a
| more diverse group that's generally a bit closer to the
| average person
|
| From the point of view of the individual, the parliament
| is our first defense. And this is an example of it
| working
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| If something in 'Chat Control' is so fundamental that it
| should lead to the law not even being brought up for
| discussion (privacy), then that 'right' should be more
| clearly defined in the constitution, or constitution like
| structure.
|
| It's when laws can exist, but simply have bad
| implementations, where you obviously can't jump to an
| amendment process.
| cucumber3732842 wrote:
| That constitution sure did stop Giuliani from having the
| cops shake down all those black guys.
|
| At the end of the day you still need people to actually
| believe it, for whatever "it" is.
| rsynnott wrote:
| Yeah, this is more or less what I'm saying. Large parts
| of 'Chat Control' likely _are_ unconstitutional, but that
| doesn't necessarily stop it being brought (it just makes
| it likely that the courts will kill parts of it if it
| ever passes).
| cucumber3732842 wrote:
| > (it just makes it likely that the courts will kill
| parts of it if it ever passes).
|
| Years after harm was done and lives were ruined no less.
| nickslaughter02 wrote:
| > _Despite today's victory, further procedural steps by EU
| governments cannot be completely ruled out. Most of all, the
| trilogue negotiations on a permanent child protection regulation
| (Chat Control 2.0) are continuing under severe time pressure.
| There, too, EU governments continue to insist on their demand for
| "voluntary" indiscriminate Chat Control._
|
| > _Furthermore, the next massive threat to digital civil
| liberties is already on the agenda: Next up in the ongoing
| trilogue, lawmakers will negotiate whether messenger and chat
| services, as well as app stores, will be legally obliged to
| implement age verification. This would require users to provide
| ID documents or submit to facial scans, effectively making
| anonymous communication impossible and severely endangering
| vulnerable groups such as whistleblowers and persecuted
| individuals._
| brightball wrote:
| The timing of having Meta dropping encrypted chats on Instagram
| is...interesting.
| zoobab wrote:
| "Next up in the ongoing trilogue, lawmakers will negotiate
| whether messenger and chat services, as well as app stores,
| will be legally obliged to implement age verification."
|
| Trilogues should be burned down, closed doors meetings with
| Ministers writing laws from their own services.
| riffraff wrote:
| The trilogue is the interaction between eu commission, eu
| parliament and eu council. The commission proposes,
| parliament and country governments argue and ask for changes.
| The parliament has the last vote anyway. Maybe you're
| thinking of something else.
| pnt12 wrote:
| See you soon folks!
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| "> Furthermore, the next massive threat to digital civil
| liberties is already on the agenda: Next up in the ongoing
| trilogue, lawmakers will negotiate whether messenger and chat
| services, as well as app stores, will be legally obliged to
| implement age verification. This would require users to provide
| ID documents or submit to facial scans, effectively making
| anonymous communication impossible and severely endangering
| vulnerable groups such as whistleblowers and persecuted
| individuals."
|
| Perhaps this is bad news for "messenger and chat services, as
| well as app stores" who solicit "users" to exploit them for
| commercial gain, for example _if_ users are unwilling to accept
| "age verification" and decide to stop using them. The keyword
| is "if"
|
| The third parties know it's possible for capable users to
| communicate with each other without using third party "chat and
| messenger services" intermediaries that conduct data
| collection, surveillance and/or online ad services as a
| "business model". Thus the third party "tech" company
| intermediaries strive to make their "free services" more
| convenient than DIY, i.e., communication without using third
| party intermediation by so-called "tech" companies
|
| But users may decide that "age verification" is acceptable. For
| many years, HN comments have repeatedly insisted that "most
| users" do not care about data collection or surveillance or
| online advertising, that users don't care about privacy.
| Advocates of "Big Tech" and other so-called "tech" companies
| argue that by using such third party services, users are
| consciously _choosing_ convenience over privacy
|
| Perhaps the greatest threat to civil liberties is the mass data
| collection and surveillance conducted by so-called "tech"
| companies. The "age verification" debate provides a vivid
| illustration of why allowing such companies to collect data and
| surveil without restriction only makes it easier for
| governments that seek to encroach upon civil liberties. While
| governments may operate under legal and financial constraints
| that effectively limit their ability to conduct mass
| surveillance, the companies operate freely, creating enormous
| repositories that governments can use their authority to tap
| into
| sveme wrote:
| There's a fairly non-invasive way to do age verification: ID
| cards that connect to a smartphone app that only provide a
| boolean age verification to the requesting service.
| Requesting service can be anonymous to the ID app and the
| requesting service can only receive a bool.
|
| That most implementation will try to collect far more data is
| the real concern.
| gzread wrote:
| There's an even easier one: When you buy a phone, the
| salesman checks your ID and sets the phone to child lock
| mode or unlocked mode.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Phones should have no locks unless the user installs them
| and holds the keys.
| umanwizard wrote:
| Why?
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Because if we don't have the keys to the machine, then we
| don't actually own our computers. If we don't own our
| computers, then we have no freedom.
|
| Because everything the word "hacker" ever stood for will
| be destroyed if this nonsense gets normalized. The day
| governments get to decide what software "your" computer
| can run is the day it's all over.
| umanwizard wrote:
| > Because if we don't have the keys to the machine, then
| we don't actually own our computers.
|
| It is not self-evident to me that people under 18 should
| "own [their] computers" or have unrestricted "freedom".
| Saline9515 wrote:
| The goal isn't child protection but surveillance and
| profits for kyc companies.
| Saline9515 wrote:
| So you are against paid services? Who manages the servers,
| updates apps, and distributes them?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _further procedural steps by EU governments cannot be
| completely ruled out_
|
| In a democracy, we don't kill our opposition. If they hold
| views we don't like, _e.g._ that security trumps privacy, they
| 're going to litigate them. Probably their whole lives. That
| means they'll keep bringing up the same ideas. And you'll have
| to keep defeating them. But there are two corollaries.
|
| One: Passing legislation takes as much work as repealing it;
| but unpassed legislation has no force of law. Being on the side
| that's keeping legislation _from_ being passed is the stronger
| position. You have the _status quo_ on your side. (The only
| stronger hand is the side fighting to keep legislation from
| being repealed. Then you have both the _status quo_ and force
| of law on your side.)
|
| Two: Legislative wants are unlimited. Once a group has invested
| into political machinery and organisation, they're not going to
| go home after passing their law. Thus, repeatedly failing to
| pass a law represents a successful bulwark. It's a resource
| sink for the defense, yes. But the defense gets to hold onto
| the _status quo_. The offense is sinking resources into the
| same fight, except with nothing to show for it. (Both sides '
| machines get honed.)
|
| Each generation tends to have a set of issues they continuously
| battle. The _status quo_ that persists or emerges in their wake
| forms a bedrock the next generations take for granted. This is
| the work of a democracy. Constantly working to convince your
| fellow citizens that your position deserves priority. Because
| the alternative is the people in power killing those who
| disagree with them.
| lpcvoid wrote:
| Great comment, thank you. I know that I could simply upvote,
| but this deserved more.
| BandOfBots wrote:
| JumpCrisscross for President
| WhyNotHugo wrote:
| You have "centralised democracy", a form of democracy where
| decisions, once debated and adopted, are implemented
| uniformly throughout an organisation. They are not debated a
| second time, and there's no room for dissenting against
| decisions already made.
|
| It's a double-edge sword though: if something you dislike
| gets votes, it's never going away.
| gzread wrote:
| Yes, if I don't like something, I can't just ignore it.
| That is called democracy, and rule of law. Democracy is
| often interpreted to mean only things I like get passed,
| but that is incorrect.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _They are not debated a second time, and there's no room
| for dissenting against decisions already made_
|
| Of course they are and of course there is. The "EU passed a
| temporary derogation" to the ePrivacy Directive in 2021
| "called Chat Control 1.0 by critics" [1]. That is now dead
| [2].
|
| > _if something you dislike gets votes, it's never going
| away_
|
| Weird to be saying precedent is infintely binding in 2026
| of all years.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chat_Control#Legislative_
| proce...
|
| [2] https://x.com/NoToDigitalID/status/2037213272131203339
| Saline9515 wrote:
| The EU parliament can't retract existing laws if the EC
| doesn't agree and proposes a law doing it.
| Zak wrote:
| It seems to me that "no and don't ask again" should be a
| possible outcome of a vote on proposed legislation.
|
| Without going into full detail on the procedure I'm
| imagining, such an outcome would bar consideration of
| equivalent legislation for several years and require a
| supermajority at several stages of the legislative process to
| override.
| Saline9515 wrote:
| The EU parliament is not a real parliament since it can't
| choose which laws it has to vote for, and in negociations
| ("trilogue") it doesn't hold the pen.
|
| Basically, it can oppose new legislations but can't retract
| old laws.
| lenerdenator wrote:
| Read about the paradox of tolerance.
|
| I'm not saying you unalive your opposition, but you do need
| to make them suffer consequences if they push the boundaries
| to get what they want.
| astrashe2 wrote:
| Here's a mirror link: http://archive.today/CJlNk
| schubidubiduba wrote:
| Nice to see that democracy can work
| baal80spam wrote:
| See you next month!
| nickslaughter02 wrote:
| > _Nice to see that democracy can work_
|
| Did it work? One political party (EPP) didn't like the result
| of the previous vote and so they forced a re-vote.
|
| > _After the European Parliament had already rejected the
| indiscriminate and blanket Chat Control by US tech companies on
| 13 March, conservative forces attempted a democratically highly
| questionable maneuver yesterday to force a repeat vote to
| extend the law anyway._
|
| https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/end-of-chat-control-eu-parl...
| rsynnott wrote:
| Note that European parliament parties aren't particularly
| cohesive; some EPP members voted against it.
| nickslaughter02 wrote:
| > _some EPP members voted against it_
|
| 20 out of 184
| olex wrote:
| Do I understand the voting / results wrong? Looking at
| this: https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270
|
| The measure voted on is "Extension [of Chat Control
| 1.0]", it was voted 36% "for" and 49% "against" (so
| result is "against"), and looking at "Political groups",
| majority of EPP MEPs voted "against" (137 out of 164
| votes).
| rsynnott wrote:
| I think the point of confusion is that there was an
| amendment before the final vote, which was way closer.
| Sharlin wrote:
| EPP is appalling and I'm revolted that many large so-called
| "moderate, centre-right, liberal-conservative" parties are
| happily part of it and indeed actively pushing extremely
| anti-citizen, anti-human agendas with the help of the far
| right.
|
| (Edit: word choice)
| Noumenon72 wrote:
| Site guidelines: "Please don't fulminate."
| modo_mario wrote:
| > with the help of the far right.
|
| S&D voted even more for this than the conservatives
| themselves. ESN the least.
| pqtyw wrote:
| But the vote failed only because the EPP voted against it? Or
| did they mix up the buttons or something?
| https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270
| nickslaughter02 wrote:
| EPP wanted indiscriminate scanning instead, not targeted
| one.
| Freak_NL wrote:
| Did that vote pass with a difference of one single vote? Tight
| squeeze there.
| raverbashing wrote:
| No, that was an ammendment
| rsynnott wrote:
| The screenshot is actually a vote on an amendment. Here's the
| final vote: https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270
|
| Less tight.
| pqtyw wrote:
| I don't quite get it, so the conservatives wanted/want to
| repeat the vote but also the EPP voted against it and the
| Socialists supported it?
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| There's often large differences between what politicians
| tell you they are and how they vote once in power
| pqtyw wrote:
| I don't quite get what you mean? EPP is technically in
| power (whatever that means in the European Parliament).
| But also why would that matter? Or they wanted to force a
| vote just so they could vote against it (which is not
| necessarily a stupid strategy in cases like this)?
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| > in power (whatever that means in the European
| Parliament).
|
| It means the people who get to vote on if you have a
| right to privacy or not.
| rsynnott wrote:
| European parliament parties are really not particularly
| cohesive, and the EPP in particular is a bit of a random
| mess; it is _broadly_ liberal-conservative and pro-
| European, but its membership is a bit all over the place: h
| ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_People%27s_Party#Full
| ...
|
| Note that in some countries it has _both ruling coalition
| and opposition_ member parties.
| cluckindan wrote:
| EPP is the predominant christian nationalist party.
| rsynnott wrote:
| Eh, I wouldn't say that's true. It has a lot of
| "Christian democratic" parties (the likes of CDU/CSU),
| and also a bunch of 'liberal-conservative' parties
| (there's a fair bit of crossover). However, it's pro-
| Europe, and certainly not particularly nationalist.
| Nationalists (at least ethnoreligious nationalists;
| leftist nationalists like Sinn Fein go elsewhere) would
| largely be in ECR, the absurdly-named 'Patriots.eu', ESN.
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| So what happened previously is that the parliament accepted
| a modified text for an extension of "chat control 1.0", the
| conservatives didn't like that draft so they managed to get
| a redo of the vote on the amendments.
|
| It seems this second time around amendment votes produced a
| final draft that the parliament as a whole found
| unacceptable, which apparently includes the majority of the
| EPP.
|
| You can see the outcome of the individual amendment votes
| here, starting on page 15: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/d
| oceo/document/PV-10-2026-03-...
|
| and what the actual amendments were here:
| https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/LIBE-
| AM-784377...
|
| It is however quite tedious to go trough this to figure out
| what the final draft text was that then lead to the
| outright rejection.
|
| From the tweet, it seems tuta is implying it was the vote
| in favour of amendment 34 that killed the extension; I
| guess that's possible but certainly not obvious from the
| amendment text:
|
| > Reports on the 1325% increase in generative AI produced
| child sexual material requires voluntary detection to be
| calibrated to distinguish artificial material and avoid
| diverting resources from victims in immediate danger. Such
| measures should prevent the revictimization of children
| through AI models, while ensuring that this technological
| development does not justify general monitoring, a
| relaxation of privacy standards, or the weakening of end-
| to-end encryption.
| joering2 wrote:
| Ashamed of France Poland and Hungary. Hungary is a state
| regime dictatorship so I get it.. but France and Poland,
| after everything Poland went thru during WW2 then communism
| with USSR, who the heck are these people voting FOR ?
| the_mitsuhiko wrote:
| This will come back because too many EU countries want it.
| 0xy wrote:
| Bastion of democracy Germany will be pushing hard given they
| let slip they want mandatory IDs on social media. They want
| full control.
| olex wrote:
| German MEPs voted overwhelmingly against the extension:
| https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270 ("Countries" tab).
| rsynnott wrote:
| RE Chat Control 2 (ie _not_ this, the proposed permanent
| version):
|
| > In early October 2025, in the face of concerted public
| opposition, the German government stated that it would vote
| against the proposal
|
| German MEPs also voted against this one.
|
| (Note that the German government and German MEPs aren't the
| same thing here.)
| embedding-shape wrote:
| Judging by https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270, the outliers
| who seem to want this, would be France, Hungary, Poland and
| Ireland, all other countries seems to had the majority MEPs
| voting against it.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| The countries are free to repropose similar things through
| the council (basically the representatives of the ruling
| party in each country), but the MEPs are free to strike it
| down. The MEPs are elected through PR in each country so
| often have broader representation than the council.
| kergonath wrote:
| It's more complicated than that. MEPs do not represent
| countries, so you can say that most MEP from $country were
| for or against, but that would not necessarily be the
| position of the country's government. For that you have to
| look at what happens in the council of the EU, which is
| composed of government ministers.
|
| It is not exceptional for most MEP from a member state to be
| in the opposition at the national level, particularly in
| contexts where it is seen as a protest vote. Turnout is
| usually low for European elections, so they tend to swing a
| bit more than national elections.
| the_mitsuhiko wrote:
| It's way more complicated. For instance according to this
| vote Denmark is overwhelmingly against it. However Denmark
| most recently was the country that pushed heavily towards
| this, in fact, under Denmark's leadership the whole thing was
| revived last time around.
|
| If you look at local politics and news they are all lobbying
| massively for it (or some people do). The reason is usually
| "for sake of the children". Parents in particular are heavily
| in favor of chat control.
| wongarsu wrote:
| While the EU council is composed of people from the
| respective country's government, the European Parliament is
| directly voted in by citizens and has a lot of people for
| whom politics is not their main career.
|
| You could interpret the results as the Danish government
| being for Chat Control, but "normal" Danish people not
| following the same trend
| miohtama wrote:
| Hungary can be explained by Victor Organ's desire to spy on
| the opposition by any means necessary.
|
| France has had really strange tendencies lately, e.g. when
| they arrested Telegram founder.
| psychoslave wrote:
| Let's make very clear that "France" here stands for MEP
| sent by France.
|
| Only 51% of people able to vote in European elections
| actually vote (with 2,81% white ballot), so it's not even a
| majority of electors sustaining them, despite abstention
| being at record low level in decades.
|
| Elites being disconnected from people day-to-day reality
| and needs is a recurrent topic leaking even in the
| mainstream media which almost all owned by oligarchs by
| now.
|
| European institutions are notoriously opaque and byzantine,
| which doesn't really help with feeling represented, even
| before Qatar gates and the 1/4th of MEP revealed
| "implicated in judicial cases or scandals."
|
| https://www.touteleurope.eu/institutions/elections-
| europeenn...
|
| https://vote-blanc.org/europeennes-2024-la-repartition-
| par-d...
|
| https://www.lemonde.fr/les-
| decodeurs/article/2024/06/10/euro...
|
| https://www.bfmtv.com/politique/gouvernement/gerald-
| darmanin...
|
| https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-
| decodeurs/article/2024/02/02/o...
| gmuslera wrote:
| Its time to start trying to push Chat Control 2.0. With enough
| money and infinite retries eventually all the bad regulations
| with a power group behind will end being approved.
| mantas wrote:
| Or it will get a new name. Just like ,,Chat Control" is far
| from the first name for this BS.
| integralid wrote:
| we can learn from our American friends and call it something
| like CHILDREN SAFETY ACT. So you want to hurt children, huh?
| I hope not
| latexr wrote:
| That's already (kind of) the name it has. "Chat Control" is
| a name given by critics.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chat_Control
| saidnooneever wrote:
| this is litterally what they do. point at opposition and
| try to imply they are pro child abuse. actually really sick
| to use such a method. I suppose that is what u get for
| decades long degradation of education and other things. A
| bunch of childish freaks in power who can only try to chuck
| eachother under the bus instead of doing something actually
| good.
|
| they care less and less about it being obvious too.
|
| our new prime minister (NL) was asked about some campaign
| promises recently (ones important to a lot of his voters
| actually) and he justs plainly said somethin like: yeah
| well sometimes u just gotta say shit to get votes.
|
| i mean, its not news ofc... but now they dont even care to
| mask it. They know the public will just bend over and take
| it anyway.
| zamalek wrote:
| Don't forget the pointless backronym.
| nickslaughter02 wrote:
| Sweep it under ProtectEU.
|
| > _The European Commission wants a backdoor for end-to-end
| encryptions for law enforcement_
|
| https://www.techradar.com/pro/security/the-european-
| commissi...
| Hamuko wrote:
| It's not named "Chat Control". It's just what it's commonly
| known by. It's basically the same as "Obamacare".
| latexr wrote:
| Exactly. Its real name is "Regulation to Prevent and Combat
| Child Sexual Abuse".
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chat_Control
| wongarsu wrote:
| Perfect name. Who in their right mind would ever vote
| against the Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual
| Abuse? Imagine if your voters heard that
| nazgulsenpai wrote:
| Yep, and it will make it more difficult to pass
| legislation designed to actually help combat child
| exploitation when a large(ish) portion of the population
| immediately equate "for the children" with a power grab.
| btilly wrote:
| Unfortunately, that population immediately equates the
| two for good reason. Bills that are presented as "for the
| children" usually _are_ a power grab.
|
| Even more unfortunately, the issue is so emotional that
| we can't have a reasonable discussion on it. This limits
| the discussion to proposals that sound good to angry
| people. And the opposition to those who can get angry
| about something else. Which limits how much reason is
| applied on either side.
|
| For example, look at the idea of a national sex offenders
| registry, like we have in the USA. The existence of such
| a registry is reasonable given that we're no more
| successful at stopping people from being pedophiles, than
| we are at stopping them from being homosexuals.
|
| But the purpose of such a list is severely undermined
| when an estimated quarter of the list were themselves
| minors when they offended. The age at which people are
| most likely to land on the list is 14. But a man who
| liked 13 year olds when he was 14, is unlikely to
| reoffend at 30. What is the purpose of ruining the rest
| of his life for a juvenile mistake?
|
| Such discussions simply can't be had.
| r_lee wrote:
| > The age at which people are most likely to land on the
| list is 14. But a man who liked 13 year olds when he was
| 14, is unlikely to reoffend at 30. What is the purpose of
| ruining the rest of his life for a juvenile mistake?
|
| am I like misunderstanding or what does this mean
| exactly? I'm so confused. "reoffend" what kind of offense
| are we talking about here?
| stavros wrote:
| What's perfect is the marketing campaign to call it by
| what it _actually_ wanted to do, ie Chat Control. Whoever
| did this was so successful that we didn 't even know the
| bill's official name, instead knowing it by what it
| actually wanted to achieve.
|
| Good thing the EU didn't take a page out of the US' book,
| because things like the PATRIOT act are already pithy and
| hard to outmarket.
|
| If RPCCSA were actually called PROTECT, the nickname
| "Chat Control" would have been fighting a losing battle.
| miki123211 wrote:
| It's just a HN thing though.
|
| Ask a European who isn't in tech, and they won't know
| what you're talking about. Maybe they will today
| specifically, this vote is bound to get some press, but
| in general, mainstream media doesn't care much about this
| bill.
|
| Even Europeans in tech who aren't in the "tech equivalent
| of gun nuts" culture that HN seems to exemplify are
| 50/50.
| stavros wrote:
| Yeah but that's the intended audience. The Europeans who
| aren't in tech weren't likely to know about this anyway.
| latexr wrote:
| > It's just a HN thing though.
|
| It's not. People on Reddit, Mastodon, and other websites
| are also aware (of course not everyone, but not everyone
| on HN either).
|
| > Ask a European who isn't in tech, and they won't know
| what you're talking about.
|
| People who haven't heard about Chat Control haven't heard
| the bill's real name either. That's true of the
| overwhelming majority of EU regulation, Chat Control
| isn't special in that regard.
| kitd wrote:
| Call it `chatctl` and give it a CLI.
| pnt12 wrote:
| "Save the children", or "if you oppose this you're ugly".
| raffael_de wrote:
| Any event E with P(E) > 0 will eventually happen.
| zoobab wrote:
| Same for software patents in the EU, it came back through the
| Unified Patent Court.
|
| Told you so.
| spwa4 wrote:
| ... again?
| hermanzegerman wrote:
| They are conservatives. In Germany they also try every time to
| enact Mass Data Retention ("for catching Criminals"), then the
| courts decide it's not compatible with the constitution, and
| after a few years they try again.
|
| I highly doubt they have given up here too
| miroljub wrote:
| [flagged]
| camgunz wrote:
| They literally just voted it down. Twice in 2 days. Also
| compared to whom?
| miroljub wrote:
| > They literally just voted it down. Twice in 2 days.
|
| And they will try again tomorrow. Until it passes.
|
| > Also compared to whom?
|
| Why compare? The fact that there are worse regimes than the
| EU doesn't make the EU even a single bit better. Lesser evil
| is still evil. Let us strive for good.
| vrganj wrote:
| "They" being the member states. The EU is the institution
| _preventing_ them from implementing it, not enabling them.
|
| You're inverting roles here.
|
| Just look at the UK and how crazy they've gone now that the
| EU can't shoot their ideas down anymore.
| rsynnott wrote:
| > With every new proposal, every vote, they are closer to the
| totalitarian regime. Proposals can be declined a million times,
| but the EU regime is always finding sneakier and more
| manipulative ways to push again and again.
|
| ... I mean this is how all parliamentary systems work. It's
| more _visible_ in the EU than in others, I think, because the
| council/commission are more willing to put forward things that
| they don't really think the parliament will go for (in many
| parliamentary systems, realistically the executive will be
| reluctant to put forward stuff where they think they'll lose
| the vote in parliament).
|
| But there's not really a huge difference; it would just be
| _quieter_ in most parliamentary systems, and you wouldn't
| really hear anything about it until the executive had their
| votes in place, brought it forward, and passed it. I actually
| kind of prefer the EU system, in that it tends to happen more
| out in the open, which allows for public comment. And public
| comment and pressure is a huge deal for this sort of thing;
| most parliamentarians, on things they don't understand, will
| vote whatever way their party is voting. But if it becomes
| clear that their constituents care about it, they may actually
| have to think about it, and that's half the battle.
| ecshafer wrote:
| The EU is fundamentally flawed. There are no checks and
| balances, and its only democratic if you squint and look at it
| the right way. People need to directly elect the MPs, directly
| elect some kind of president. They have no accountability, no
| checks and balances.
| sveme wrote:
| The commission is checked by the parliament is checked by the
| council is checked by the commission. Most other national
| organizations only have one check - Germany, for example,
| only has the Bundesrat as a check of the Bundestag.
| cbg0 wrote:
| > The EU is fundamentally flawed. There are no checks and
| balances
|
| You're missing a _[citation needed]_ on that.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| Non-elected representatives from my country keep pushing
| for chat control via the council. How do I, as a citizen,
| hold them accountable?
| izacus wrote:
| The article you're commenting on is reporting how
| directly elected representatives defeated the motion.
|
| Why do you keep lying?
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| That's the parliament. What about the council and the
| commission? Am I not allowed to hold them accountable?
| Does my power as a citizen only extend to a fourth of the
| balance of power?
|
| They keep getting away with these attrition tactics with
| regards to implementing near Stasi levels communication
| surveillance. What about the day they're pushing to give
| the council unlimited powers, or to abolish voting
| rights, or to purge jews?
| patmorgan23 wrote:
| The council is made up of heads of state, so no more
| undemocratic than your own countries executive, and the
| commission is selected by the Council and approved by the
| EU parliament.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| Russia and China has elections too, they are a necessary
| but not sufficient criteria for democracy. Just because
| there are elections doesn't mean the people can actually
| hold the government accountable.
| izacus wrote:
| The parliament holds them accountable like it just did in
| the article you're comme nting on.
|
| Again, why are you aggressively lying here? Why are you
| misrepresenting workings of EU despite them following
| every single democracy out there?
| vrganj wrote:
| The Council and Commission are representatives of your
| democratically elected national government. You as a
| citizen of your country get to pick said government.
|
| If the EU were to not exist, your representatives in the
| Council/Commission (e.g. your national government) would
| be _more_ powerful because they wouldn 't be checked by
| the Parliament, not less.
|
| Your problem is with your government, they just
| successfully deflected it to the EU in your mind.
| iknowstuff wrote:
| Vote against the ruling party in your smaller national
| election
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| That's a system of accountability in name but not in
| practice.
|
| Even if there was an option in the national elections
| that didn't want this stuff, convincing a majority of
| voters to disregard national politics for an election
| cycle to have an imperceptibly small impact on the
| council members is such an unlikely outcome the council
| or comission would de facto be committing genocides
| before voters would be mobilized, and even then it's
| unlikely they'd face any repercussions.
| triceratops wrote:
| Ask your government why they're sending those
| representatives. As a citizen you vote for your
| government, right?
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| How badly would you say the council or commission have to
| mess things up before they saw any voter-initiated
| repercussions what so ever with a system of
| accountability that requires voters to consider punishing
| the council or comission more important than their own
| national elections?
|
| If accountability is to work, it has to be more than an
| abstract theoretical possibility.
| triceratops wrote:
| It isn't abstract. Your government sends representatives
| to represent its platform and priorities. If you don't
| agree with the reps you need to elect a different
| government.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| It's a abstract because you will never ever see a
| situation where voters neglect national elections to
| adjust the EU council or commission. Maybe it's what
| needs to happen, but the way thing are arranged it just
| won't.
| triceratops wrote:
| Why "neglect"? You're voting for a government that does
| the things you want.
| salawat wrote:
| It isn't popular, but they have a name and address right?
| Not talking violence, but the number one way of dealing
| with these sorts is to usually talk things out. If you're
| really concerned about, get a group of similarly minded
| people and make it unambiguously evident that this person
| is championing something a lot of people are not behind.
| It becomes much harder to ignore or wave off something
| when people start making themselves known on your
| doorstep.
|
| And no, this isn't dog whistling violence. It is simply
| applying signal. The only other message I can think of is
| engaging an investigative journalist/PI and starting to
| figure out who is lobbying the person, and start
| pressuring them.
| munksbeer wrote:
| > Non-elected representatives from my country keep
| pushing for chat control via the council. How do I, as a
| citizen, hold them accountable?
|
| How is that an EU problem? Without the EU, like here in
| the UK, we had non-elected lobbyists pressuring our
| elected government to implement age checks, message
| scanning, etc. And it is still continuing.
|
| You're fighting the wrong fight by blaming the EU for
| this.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| This is a highly solvable problem, one that is solved by
| not overloading the national elections with to different
| concerns.
|
| EU has checks and balances that were intended for a trade
| union, not a nascent superstate. If we don't implement
| proper checks and balances in a real fucking hurry, we'll
| wake up one morning and realize the EU has turned into
| another Soviet union, and by then it'll be far too late
| to do anything about it.
| rsynnott wrote:
| > People need to directly elect the MPs
|
| ...
|
| We do? What did you think the European Parliament elections
| every four years were for?
|
| > directly elect some kind of president.
|
| Why? Nowhere in Western Europe except very arguably France
| (France, as always, has to be a bit weird about everything,
| and has a hybrid system) has a directly elected executive.
| True executive presidential systems are only really a thing
| in the Americas and Africa (plus Russia, these days).
|
| Like, in terms of big countries with a true executive
| presidency, you're basically looking at the US, Russia and
| Brazil. I'm, er, not sure we should be modeling ourselves on
| those paragons of democracy.
|
| > They have no accountability, no checks and balances.
|
| The parliament has the same accountability and checks and
| balances as any national parliament, more or less (more than
| some, as the ECJ is more effective and independent than many
| national supreme courts).
| gpderetta wrote:
| > We do? What did you think the European Parliament
| elections every four years were for?
|
| Probably it is not taught as part of the curriculum in
| Russia.
| rsynnott wrote:
| Ah, looks like they're American, based on their profile.
| Ylpertnodi wrote:
| From an EU perspective, there's not much difference
| between russia, and the US at the moment.
| em-bee wrote:
| i always found it odd that the most powerful person in many
| european countries, the prime minister, is not directly
| elected. but the problem is not really there. the problem
| in my opinion is the concentration of power in one person.
| and the influence of political parties to decide who gets
| to be a candidate.
|
| imagine system where we directly elect the whole cabinet.
| only people with electoral approval should get to be
| ministers. and the prime ministers or presidents job is to
| only manage that group.
| rsynnott wrote:
| > the problem in my opinion is the concentration of power
| in one person.
|
| Generally, a prime minister is less powerful than an
| executive president, often much less powerful.
|
| > and the prime ministers or presidents job is to only
| manage that group.
|
| On the face of it, that is the PM's primary role in a
| parliamentary democracy. Now, the complication is that,
| in many parliamentary systems, the PM has significant
| power over the ministers (either via the ability to
| directly appoint them, or via being the head of the
| ruling party/coalition/or various other means). But
| generally, the PM is less powerful in nearly all systems
| than, say, the US president; in particular the finance
| minister is often a separate semi-independent power
| within the cabinet.
| gpderetta wrote:
| People directly elects MEPs. And the Parliament literally
| right now just put a check on the Council.
|
| Many EU nations are not presidential, and personally I prefer
| parliamentary republics than presidential ones.
| bilekas wrote:
| > People need to directly elect the MP
|
| They do.
|
| > directly elect some kind of president
|
| I get the impression you're coming at it from a US
| perspective, and it's not that, and doesn't intend to be for
| now. The president is elected by majority of the MP's who
| have been elected by the people of their respective
| countries. Almost like the US electorial system, except it's
| done internally because people generally only vote for their
| own best interests and not that of the entirety.
|
| Perfect, no, it can be slow and a lot of red tape, but what
| system isn't flawed.
| Kim_Bruning wrote:
| Checks and balances means some folks should NOT be directly
| elected. if everyone is <directly elected>, then you have
| <directly elected> checked and balanced by <directly
| elected>. Which is to say, not at all. :-P
| naasking wrote:
| You could have a system where everyone is directly elected
| while keeping checks and balances, _if_ voting were
| _restricted_ , eg. maybe everyone can vote for a
| president/prime minister, but only non-teachers can vote
| for an education minister, and only non-finance people can
| vote for something like the Fed chief, etc. The point being
| the checks and balances now happen because other groups
| keep your group in check by voting.
| Kim_Bruning wrote:
| Absolutely! That does keep some of the checks. You can do
| better than that though!
|
| It's like on the Apollo missions where some parts were
| made by two completely different manufacturers and worked
| completely differently.
|
| Hybrid political systems are best. Of course if we like
| democracy (and most people do), then that should be the
| most common kind of component. But I'd still like to have
| some different paradigms mixed into the system. And
| that's exactly what most modern constitutions do, for
| better or for worse.
| miki123211 wrote:
| I'd personally go for a two-chamber system (like
| congress/senate or commons/lords), with one chamber being
| elected and the other being chosen by sortition.
|
| Maybe also a 3rd chamber, where the weight of your vote
| was proportional to IQ (much more palatable in EU than
| US).
| vrganj wrote:
| This sounds like the opposite of what should be
| happening? Like an anti-technocracy aiming for an
| electorate as little informed as possible?
|
| Why exclude teachers from picking the education minister?
| If we're restricting votes, shouldn't they be _the only
| ones_ doing so instead?
| em-bee wrote:
| one if the problems is that most elections are only for one
| person, so only the majority (the person with the most
| votes) wins.
|
| give everyone half a dozen votes or more, and and you'll
| get a more representative sample.
|
| for example instead of electing a president, elect a while
| leadership team. independent of party affiliation. (i'd get
| rid of parties completely while we are at it, every
| candidate should be independent (the expanded version of
| that gets even rid of candidates, every adult can
| potentially be elected, but that is a more complex system
| that needs more elaboration))
| freehorse wrote:
| I agree there is a strong democratic deficit in the current
| EU governance structure, but I disagree with a proposal such
| as
|
| > directly elect some kind of president
|
| We do not need a president with over-powers, and electing
| directly one does not solve anything for democracy, as the
| recent history in countries like the US and France shows. The
| point of directly electing a president is giving that role
| more power. The current structure in the EU is not so much
| president-centric either executive or legislative wise, but
| more like comission-centric, which is what imo has the
| biggest problem in terms of democracy in the EU.
| sveme wrote:
| So in summary: because the law was avoided today, the EU needs
| to be abolished? Weird take.
|
| You can see it the other way around, without the EU, Denmark
| and others would have already implemented ChatControl in their
| country. This is driven by member states (Denmark), not the
| parliament, after all.
| miroljub wrote:
| > So in summary: because the law was avoided today, the EU
| needs to be abolished? Weird take.
|
| There are many reasons to abolish the EU, but the topic here
| is chat control.
|
| > You can see it the other way around, without the EU,
| Denmark and others would have already implemented ChatControl
| in their country. This is driven by member states (Denmark),
| not the parliament, after all.
|
| Would they? We don't know. Would the government of Denmark be
| ready to commit political suicide by insisting again and
| again on something so unpopular?
|
| The whole premise of the EU is to allow various unelected
| interest groups to push unpopular regulation to the EU member
| states without any consequences.
| anonymars wrote:
| Isn't the UK a perfect control group? Didn't the EU push
| back on similar legislation, until Brexit?
|
| > insisting again and again on something so unpopular?
|
| Didn't the UK do exactly this?
| miki123211 wrote:
| There are advantages to "government by evolution", as opposed
| to "government by monoculture"
|
| With the former approach, every country is allowed to try
| different things, some amazing, some dumb, and learn from the
| amazing and dumb things that others have done.
|
| In the latter, there's only one governing body, and whatever
| that body said, goes. There's no science or statistics, just
| sides shouting their arguments at each other, calling people
| names.
|
| Both the EU and the US used to heavily lean towards the
| former approach, but they're slowly but inexorably moving
| towards the latter.
| bilekas wrote:
| [flagged]
| boxed wrote:
| "What did the Romans ever do for US?" :P
| andai wrote:
| We already don't have free speech. There's nothing protecting
| it (and many laws already to the contrary.) There aren't really
| any such constitutional protections from what I can tell.
|
| Once laws are passed they aren't revoked. So it's just a matter
| of political climate. Just wait for people to get a little more
| negative, a little more paranoid (which has historically been
| "helped along" in various ways)-- a law only needs to pass
| once, and then we're stuck with some stupid bullshit forever.
|
| It doesn't really seem like how you'd want to design it.
| hermanzegerman wrote:
| Obviously you can revoke Laws.
|
| And not being able to deny the Holocaust doesn't mean you
| don't have free speech
| dyauspitr wrote:
| What a joke. Compared to US, implementing chat control is like
| a pin prick compared to the scale of MAGA fascism. The EU is
| probably the best example of functional government anywhere in
| the world right now.
| mariusor wrote:
| "fascism" has a pretty well defined meaning, which is not
| whatever the EU would become if something like chat control
| ever passes. Towards totalitarianism, sure, but again not all
| totalitarianism is fascism. I wish people would stop using le
| mot du jour as a replacement for everything in an subconscious
| need to increase others' engagement.
| tomhow wrote:
| We detached this subthread from
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529682 and marked it off
| topic.
| varispeed wrote:
| This is a clear case of a terrorist attack attempt (Chat Control
| fulfils definition of terrorism fully). Chat Controls would be
| illegal in Germany.
|
| This is sad that this has gotten this far. If they wanted to pass
| a law to blow up citizens, do you think European Parliament would
| seriously consider it? It is exactly the same calibre of idiocy.
|
| I would expect German authorities to issue arrest warrants and
| properly investigate this.
|
| For context:
|
| If terrorism is defined as using violence or threats to
| intimidate a population for political or ideological ends, then
| "Chat Control" qualifies in substance. Violence doesn't have to
| leave blood. Psychological and coercive violence is recognised in
| domestic law (see coercive control offences) and by the WHO. It
| causes measurable harm to bodies and minds.
|
| The aim is intimidation. The whole purpose is to make people too
| scared to speak freely. That is intimidation of a population, by
| design.
|
| It is ideological. The ideology is mass control - keeping people
| compliant by stripping them of private spaces to think, talk, and
| dissent.
|
| The only reason it's not "terrorism" on paper is because states
| write definitions that exempt themselves. But in plain terms, the
| act is indistinguishable in effect from terrorism: deliberate
| fear, coercion, and the destruction of free will.
| techteach00 wrote:
| I agree that it's an act of state sponsored terrorism. Don't
| let the down votes make you feel alone.
| greenavocado wrote:
| That margin is really small
| sailfast wrote:
| "Congrats all we maybe fixed the problem we created in the first
| place! Let's celebrate!"
|
| Also - wasn't this program voluntary? This seems like the height
| of backslapping. Would have been better if they just sat on their
| hands and did nothing in the first place.
| nickslaughter02 wrote:
| > _Would have been better if they just sat on their hands and
| did nothing in the first place_
|
| You described 95% of EU's work.
| rsynnott wrote:
| > Also - wasn't this program voluntary?
|
| This gave companies permission to do things which would
| ordinarily be illegal under the ePrivacy directive, but did not
| make it mandatory for them to do so. That permission is now
| revoked (or will be when the derogation they were trying to
| extend expires in two weeks).
| wewewedxfgdf wrote:
| Just rename it to something something save the children something
| something. Instant approval no matter what is in the bill.
| olex wrote:
| It's already called "Extension of the temporary derogation from
| the ePrivacy Directive to combat online child sexual abuse".
| rsynnott wrote:
| That pretty much _is_ what it is called. It's generally known
| as Chat Control, but "Chat Control 1" (the thing just rejected)
| is called "Extension of the temporary derogation from the
| ePrivacy Directive to combat online child sexual abuse", and
| "Chat Control 2" (which you'll probably have heard more about;
| it's the one that keeps reappearing and disappearing) is called
| "Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse".
| elephanlemon wrote:
| I'm confused by
|
| > This means on April 6, 2026, Gmail, LinkedIn, Microsoft and
| other Big Techs must stop scanning your private messages in the
| EU
|
| It had already passed and started?
| nickslaughter02 wrote:
| Yes, voluntary Chat Control 1.0 has been running since 2021.
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| Well, chat control 1.0 is about making an existing practice
| legal, it didn't create the practice of scanning messages for
| know child sexual abuse material, though I don't know how
| long that has been going on before the legislation in 2021
| passed (but probably for several years at that point, since
| getting a new law trough takes a while).
| inglor_cz wrote:
| It was possible on a voluntary basis.
| 3836293648 wrote:
| Something something constitutional (ish*) rights say you can't
| do this.
|
| Chat Control 1 says, eh do it anyway if you want on a voluntary
| and temporary basis until the Courts get around to saying no.
|
| Chat Control 2 says you have to. Until the courts finally get
| around to striking it down in 15 years.
| isodev wrote:
| Of course, remember Apple championed the idea with iMessage
| scanning which at the time produced A LOT of discussion e.g.
| https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/12/2021-we-told-apple-don...
| appstorelottery wrote:
| What happens to the already scanned metadata?
| layer8 wrote:
| The data that isn't flagged from scanning is prohibited from
| being stored in the first place. Flagging is required to have
| maximum accuracy and reliability according to the state of
| the art. Data that was flagged is stored as long as needed to
| confirm (by human review) and report it. Data that isn't
| confirmed must be deleted without delay.
| gostsamo wrote:
| There was an interim legislation that will expire in april.
| layer8 wrote:
| https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1232/oj/eng
| vaylian wrote:
| > It had already passed and started?
|
| Facebook and others have been scanning your private messages
| for many years already. Then someone discovered that this
| practice is illegal in Europe. So they passed the temporary
| chat control 1.0 emergency law to make it legal. The plan was
| to draft a chat control 2.0 law that would then be the long-
| term solution. But negotiations took too long and the temporary
| law will expire on the 4th of April (not the 6th) which means
| that it will be illegal again for Facebook and others to scan
| the private messages of European citizens without prior
| suspicion of any wrongdoing.
| moffkalast wrote:
| I take it facebook/meta paid no fines for doing it illegally
| in the first place?
| vaylian wrote:
| You could probably have sued them. I'm not aware of any
| cases where that happened.
| AnssiH wrote:
| My impression was that the temporary permission-granting
| regulation was passed before the relevant privacy law came
| into effect, but I didn't check the dates now.
| fh973 wrote:
| Gmail and likely others have been scanning at least emails for
| child pornography since the 2010s.
| ramon156 wrote:
| See you next year!
| glenstein wrote:
| Is the snow melting? Do you hear birds? Must be chat control
| season.
|
| Someone should sell calendars based on when this typically gets
| proposed as well as dates throughout the year when past
| instances of check control came up against key procedural
| hurdles.
| Havoc wrote:
| They'll keep trying.
| Ms-J wrote:
| Until we stop them.
| cbeach wrote:
| In 2016 the UK demonstrated that there is a way for the
| public to vote down the corpus of bad EU legislation.
|
| Of course our national govts have been pretty woeful ever
| since, but in 2029 we will have the opportunity to vote for
| genuine, dramatic change, with strong options on both the
| left and right side of politics.
|
| Regarding the creeping surveillance state, Reform UK have
| explicitly stated they will repeal the awful Online Safety
| Act.
|
| This is how we wrestle control back from the establishment.
| wongarsu wrote:
| The UK has shown that they can vote down bad EU
| legislation, and pass a lot of pretty awful legislation
| that's worse than anything the EU ever produced
|
| But I'm sure voting for Nigel Farage one more time will fix
| everything
| moorebob wrote:
| Interesting you blame Farage for the bad legislation
| passed by the Tories and Labour? Why is that? I thought
| he was one of the most vocal contrarians to Tory and
| Labour policy?
| throwaway132448 wrote:
| People who think reform are anti establishment genuinely
| fascinate me.
| layer8 wrote:
| That's why we need to keep voting for the MEPs who oppose it.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| It doesn't matter they can just keep trying and paying people off
| until it gets through.
|
| Someone somewhere really really wants this and has the time and
| resources so it's an inevitability.
| latexr wrote:
| It _does_ matter. Even if it eventually passes, the later and
| more gutted it is, the better.
|
| Saying that it doesn't matter is just defeatist (and
| unfortunately always parroted on HN) and plainly wrong.
| Defeatists have been proven wrong time and again.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| Perhaps a system where that can happen is broken
| Fargren wrote:
| A system where this can happen is healthy. The alternative
| is a system where once legislation fails to pass you are
| forbidden to modify it and try again. _That_ would be a
| broken system, where compromise is impossible, and
| attempting to make any change is a very risky move because
| you might fail, forever. There would be a chilling effect,
| legislation would take longer to change, and laws would
| become frozen in the past.
|
| What we are seeing here is checks and balances, working as
| intended.
| wongarsu wrote:
| Also making sure this is as painful and costly as possible to
| pass will discourage future attempts. If we just rolled over
| and let it happen that would signal that it's easy to pass
| legislation like this and we would get a lot more like it
| freehorse wrote:
| So, in the end a big majority of the conservative/liberal faction
| (EPP) voted against, and the vast majority of the social
| democractic faction (S&D) voted for chat control.
|
| https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270
|
| Just pointing this out because yesterday there was the myth
| around that "chat control is pushed by the conservatives",
| obscuring the actual political dynamics in the EU about it.
| nickslaughter02 wrote:
| > _So, in the end a big majority of the conservative /liberal
| faction (EPP) voted against, and the vast majority of the
| social democractic faction (S&D) voted for chat control._
|
| EPP wanted indiscriminate scanning instead, not targeted one.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| There's also the DDR and Stasi as a counter example if anyone
| think mass surveillance is incompatible with socialism.
|
| Mass surveillance isn't really a question that projects well
| onto the left-right scale, and attempting to make it fit a
| left-right question is more likely to distract than provide a
| useful understanding.
| geon wrote:
| Yes. I would place it on the authority-liberty axis.
|
| While your examples were on the economic left, they were
| clearly authoritarian.
| skrebbel wrote:
| EPP proposed it, but then it got amended (ie toned down) so
| much that they turned on their own proposal. This apparently
| happens quite a lot. So the way I understand it is they turned
| it down not because they thought it was bad, but because they
| didn't think it was bad enough.
| iknowstuff wrote:
| Greens based as always
| Ms-J wrote:
| Maybe it is time to make start a prediction market?
|
| Any time a scumbag politician tries this again:
|
| "Mr. Jones, secretary of communications for the state, TTL (Time-
| to-live) left. 2 Hours? 1 Day? 1 Week?"
|
| It would stop fast.
|
| Anyone want to build this? There is a lot of money being left on
| the table.
| DaSHacka wrote:
| Wouldn't this have the opposite effect? Seems to play right
| into their hands that they need mass surveillance for ""
| safety"" reasons
| dethos wrote:
| That was a close one. This is getting harder and harder. It is
| important not to be naive to the point of thinking this is over.
| fleebee wrote:
| One would think that the same thing getting denied over and
| over would make future votes about it easier to decide.
| umren wrote:
| Chat Control 3.0 will go through
| canticleforllm wrote:
| How long until they stage an incident to occur so they can pass
| CC 1.1? 6 months? 2 years?
| AJRF wrote:
| See you again next week!
| miohtama wrote:
| Here is the EPP's plea to get this passed earlier.
|
| They even used a teddy bear image.
|
| https://www.eppgroup.eu/newsroom/epp-urges-support-for-last-...
|
| "Protecting children is not optional," said Lena Dupont MEP, EPP
| Group spokeswoman on Legal and Home Affairs. "We call on the S&D
| Group to stop hiding behind excuses and finally take
| responsibility. We cannot afford a safe haven for child abusers
| online. Every delay leaves children exposed and offenders
| unchallenged."
|
| Personally, I feel there must be other privacy-preserving ways to
| address child abusers than mass surveillance.
|
| Also, for the record, here is the list of parties that lobbied
| for this for Mrs Dupont, alongside very few privacy-focused
| organisations. Not sure why Canada or Australia are lobbying for
| EU laws.
|
| ANNEX: LIST OF ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS
| RECEIVED INPUT
|
| - Access Now
|
| - Australian eSafety Commissioner
|
| - Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer (BRAK)
|
| - Canadian Centre for Child Protection
|
| - cdt - Center for Democracy & Technology
|
| - eco - Association of the Internet Industry
|
| - EDPS
|
| - EDRI
|
| - Facebook
|
| - Fundamental Rights Agency
|
| - Improving the digital environment for children (regrouping
| several child protection NGOs across the EU and beyond, including
| Missing Children Europe, Child Focus)
|
| - INHOPE - the International Association of Internet Hotlines
|
| - International Justice Mission Deutschland e.V./ We Protect
|
| - Internet Watch Foundation
|
| - Internet Society
|
| - Match Group
|
| - Microsoft
|
| - Thorn (Ashton Kutcher)
|
| - UNICEF
|
| - UN Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy
|
| https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2020-0258_...
| DoingIsLearning wrote:
| We need to add Palantir in bold letters to that list, they are
| behind this in every way except for 'officially'.
|
| > The Commission's failure to identify the list of experts as
| falling within the scope of the complainant's public access
| request constitutes maladministration. [0]
|
| > The Commission presented a proposal on preventing and
| combating child sexual abuse, looking in particular at
| detecting child pornography. In this context, it has mentioned
| that support could be provided by the software of the
| controversial American company Palantir... [1]
|
| > Is Palantir's failure to register on the Transparency
| Register compatible with the Commission's transparency
| commitments? [1]
|
| (Palantir only entered the Transparency Registry in March 2025
| despite being a multi million vendor of Gotham for Europol and
| European Agencies for more than a decade)
|
| > No detailed records exist concerning a January meeting
| between European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and
| the CEO of controversial US data analytics firm Palantir [2]
|
| [0] https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/176658
|
| [1]
| https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2024-00016...
|
| [2] https://www.euractiv.com/news/commission-kept-no-records-
| on-...
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _- Thorn (Ashton Kutcher)_
|
| They really have no shame, do they?
| https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66772846
|
| Kutcher defended a rapist in court when they thought they were
| anonymous (they weren't), the same rapist who bragged about
| assaulting their underage peer/co-star to Kutcher, and then
| harassed the children of the plaintiffs[1] in his trial where
| he was convicted and sentenced to 30 years to life:
|
| > _Another plaintiff stated that she and her neighbors observed
| a man snapping pictures from her driveway, and later that
| night, broke a window in her 13-year-old daughter 's bedroom._
|
| [1] https://people.com/tv/danny-masterson-church-scientology-
| sue...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Kutcher's VC (Quiet) is deeply invested in the surveillance
| economy [1].
|
| [1] https://quiet.com/portfolio/?portfolio_type=all
| bramhaag wrote:
| They wrote a follow-up article, "Socialists are responsible for
| leaving children unprotected", which is somehow even more
| unhinged.
|
| https://www.eppgroup.eu/newsroom/socialists-are-responsible-...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| This is messaging to the base. Mud slinging designed to hold
| the coalition together for another round.
| shevy-java wrote:
| Interesting how these actually abuse children. This has nothing
| to do with children.
|
| The age verification also has nothing to do with children.
|
| They are using rhetorical tricks to confuse voters who are
| clueless. I have seen how this works on elderly people in
| particular, and mothers who are not tech-savvy.
| zoobab wrote:
| Facebook and Microsoft are foreign companies.
| _fat_santa wrote:
| It seems like an almost never ending hamster wheel of chat
| control being introduced, voted down, then introduced again in
| the next session.
| ryandrake wrote:
| That's the problem with modern democracies (it happens in the
| USA too). They only have to win once and it's law. We have to
| win every time.
| __loam wrote:
| Need to amend constitutional rights to privacy then these
| laws can be struck down in courts.
| bigyabai wrote:
| I feel like that would end with the same surveillance
| loopholes that Google, Microsoft and Apple exploit today.
|
| Users need the ability to choose operating systems and
| software that is not exclusively green-lit by a first-party
| vendor. It's not glamorous, but pretending that software
| isn't a competitive market is what put us into this
| surveillance monopoly in the first place. "trust"
| distributed among a handful of businesses isn't going to
| cut it in a post-2030s threat environment.
| chihuahua wrote:
| It's already there, in the European Convention on Human
| Rights [1], Article 8:
|
| ARTICLE 8
|
| Right to respect for private and family life
|
| 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and
| family life, his home and his correspondence.
|
| You have the _right_ to privacy, just no actual privacy.
| Just like in _Life of Brian_ , where Stan/Loretta has the
| right to have children, but can't actually have children.
|
| 1: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Convention_ENG
| moffkalast wrote:
| It's a problem when the parliament can't propose the laws it
| has to vote on and the commission isn't elected and continues
| to be presided by the most corrupt person in the EU. She is
| blatantly EPP and just keeps proposing the shit they want.
|
| For Americans, imagine if only Republicans ever got to
| propose legislation and only Democrats could vote on it.
| That's more or less it.
| tpm wrote:
| You are mostly right except vdl is very, very far from the
| most corrupt person. It can be much worse.
| petre wrote:
| At least the Commision can't conduct war for 100 days
| without Congress approval.
|
| I thought Juncker was an idiot but VdL is corrupt to
| Hillary levels and worse than the disastruous
| Merker/Juncker duo in every way. I'd like to see her
| replaced with someone like Macron. That's the type of
| leadership that the EU needs right now.
| toyg wrote:
| _> She is blatantly EPP_
|
| Well, that's because she was nominated by European
| governments, which happen to be largely run by right-wing
| parties right now. There have been socialist personalities
| in her place in the past. That has nothing to do with
| democracy.
| orwin wrote:
| I honestly like the system as long as its reach is limited
| and it's stay this way (i.e EU regulations set goals, and
| states do what they want to reach it). The money lobbyists
| throw is huge, for very, very little progress.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _They only have to win once and it 's law. We have to win
| every time._
|
| Passing legislation takes about as much effort as repealing.
| (The exception being if the legislation spawns a massive
| bureaucracy.)
|
| Chat Control 1.0 was _de facto_ passed. It 's now being
| unpassed. We don't have to win every time. Just more.
| WhyNotHugo wrote:
| > Passing legislation takes about as much effort as
| repealing.
|
| While true, those trying to pass this legislation get paid
| to do so, while those against it have work hard and pay
| taxes to fund the former.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _those trying to pass this legislation get paid to do
| so_
|
| Chat Control has paid lobbyists on both sides. Also,
| paying lobbyists is still sinking resources. And the
| people taking their meetings are still sinking political
| capital into a fight that has-to date-yielded zilch.
|
| > _while those against it have work hard and pay taxes to
| fund the former_
|
| The principal _moneyed_ interests in this fight are the
| tech companies. Your taxes aren 't funding their fight.
| The police lobby is less effective if filtered through
| paid lobbyists versus having a police chief personally
| pitch lawmakers.
| gzread wrote:
| See also
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive
|
| Your ISP had to spy on you. This was the law for 8 years
| until it was ruled unconstitutional.
| cess11 wrote:
| The US really, really wants it implemented, and several
| national police institutions in the EU does too. Plus the
| politicians that start to drool a little at the prospect.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Given the current US-EU relations I'm more surprised we're
| not telling them to go fuck themselves on this.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| We need a double-jeopardy-like constitutional amendment for
| legislation. Legislation once-tried and failed cannot be tried
| again.
| krapp wrote:
| That would be antithetical to democracy. The people must be
| allowed to introduce any legislation they want, as often as
| they want.
|
| Otherwise it would be trivial for a government to
| intentionally fail to pass anything they disagree with, and
| thus act as a de facto dictatorship.
| jagged-chisel wrote:
| Not to mention how would one even define "the same
| legislation"?
| dmitrygr wrote:
| When have "the people" been last consulted on this? Do you
| really think Chat Control has high public support? Given
| how most "democracies" work in our world today (which is to
| say with no consultation of the people), i think limiting
| their ability to do further harm might be worth it.
| krapp wrote:
| This wouldn't limit the ability of governments to do
| harm, it would limit the ability of the people to
| mitigate that harm by giving them only one chance to ever
| do so.
|
| I don't think "democracy is flawed therefore we need less
| of it" is a good idea.
| moffkalast wrote:
| The MEPs represent the people. They've just been
| consulted. They said no.
|
| Looking at what each of my MEPs voted they seemed to
| pretty accurately represent their own party lines, the
| right and far right voted for, left and center left voted
| against. I'm shocked! Shocked! Well not that shocked.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Do you really think Chat Control has high public
| support?_
|
| Yes, I can absolutely see a majority in certain countries
| ( _e.g._ Hungary) believing this is a fair compromise
| between security and privacy.
| Saline9515 wrote:
| Hungary is small and an outlier in the EU.
| Saline9515 wrote:
| The current institution where the parliament is not able to
| choose which laws it votes is already not democratic. Such
| limitation would at least avoid the blatant gaming of the
| system.
| xeonmc wrote:
| I think the more fitting imagery would be
| https://en.meming.world/images/en/4/4a/Moe_Tossing_Barney_Fr...
| hkpack wrote:
| The alternative is a dictatorship.
| anthk wrote:
| Goid news, now stop the age bullshit in CA.
| beej71 wrote:
| Political engineering angle: "These people will not rest until
| they are able to read your child's messages."
| cryptonector wrote:
| "These people will not rest until they are able to see your
| teen-aged child's surrepticious sexts."
| cynicalsecurity wrote:
| A big W, for now.
|
| Until we meet again.
| fcanesin wrote:
| To get "End of Chat Control" EU should actually pass laws
| prohibiting it, this whack a mole will eventually lose.
| fsflover wrote:
| Related discussion :
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529646
| _the_inflator wrote:
| No, this is the end of the wording for the initiative, nothing
| else.
|
| We will see many new initiatives, old wine in a new bottle. Any
| bet that EU diehard bureaucrats will change tune, not the goal.
| They are going to use the so called salami tactic.
|
| Death of free speech by many cuts, so to say. It is in the left
| wing DNA. Have a look at German history regarding "Landes-
| Verfassungsschutz" units. It is disturbing to read this article
| here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verfassungsschutz_Nordrhein-
| We...
|
| And back then already it was the so called center-right party
| ruled against this left wing initiative - imagine, first thing
| you do right after WW2 is ramping up a control unit to control
| freedom of speech.
|
| Please value free speech. Agree to disagree, but remember: those
| who live by prohibitions will ultimately use this tool against
| you as well. Consider wisely what is something you dislike
| personally and simply exercise your right to not listen to
| certain voices or appeal to prohibition.
|
| Prohibition becomes a tool and everybody knows that people love
| to use their tools. And since I have a law degree, often times
| what you plan is not what is finally what courts decide, how they
| apply the law.
|
| Freedom rights are fundamental.
| em-bee wrote:
| _this is the end of the wording for the initiative, nothing
| else_
|
| it is more than that. since 2021 an EU interim regulation
| (2021/1232), set to expire on 3 april, was allowing companies
| to voluntarily scan messages. this vote was about the renewal
| of that regulation. since it has been rejected, the regulation
| is no longer in effect.
| adw wrote:
| You're painting an EPP/ECR initiative as left wing? That's
| inconsistent with the facts.
| hermanzegerman wrote:
| He's rambling about "left-wing DNA" in the Verfassungsschutz,
| who is famously quite good at turning a blind eye to right
| wing extremists. Probably because AfD got rightfully
| classified as far-right-extremists.
|
| So to him they are probably left-wing.
| rvz wrote:
| Until next time.
| ori_b wrote:
| Who is going to push a counteroffensive, banning specific types
| of data from being collected?
| bradley13 wrote:
| Thex will try again. And again. It's for the children, don't you
| know?
|
| The only way to really stop this would be to pass legislation
| that permanently strengthens privacy rights.
| 9dev wrote:
| That's a great idea! It should be a General Data Protection
| Regulation, I suppose.
| cryptonector wrote:
| > The Hard Facts: Why Chat Control Has Failed Spectacularly
|
| The ostensible reasons for mass surveillance fail. That's _very_
| interesting.
| benced wrote:
| > Recently, only 36% of suspicious activity reports from US
| companies originated from the surveillance of private messages
| anyway.
|
| I don't have many opinions on this but this sort of lazy logic
| would make me nervous. 36% is not a small number and that's
| before the folks doing this activity find out that private
| message is less patrolled.
| dgellow wrote:
| Yeah, that number is actually really high. I'm wondering how
| noisy those reports are
| Arubis wrote:
| Good.
|
| Now let's start preparing for the next one.
| someguyornotidk wrote:
| The fact that they could pull a stunt like this shows that the EU
| is no democracy. Shame on the politicians who tried to rob people
| of their rights.
| hkpack wrote:
| How have you came to such conclusions?
|
| If anything it proves the opposite.
|
| Look at how laws are passed in russia for example for
| comparison and let me know what similarities you see.
| throwaway132448 wrote:
| A lot of people hate seeing the EU succeed at anything,
| simply because they are envious or it does not validate their
| world view.
| YeahThisIsMe wrote:
| It's never going to stop. They'll keep trying until they get it
| because they're sick people.
| amarant wrote:
| I feel like someone ought to dramatise this seemingly endless
| struggle in a seemingly endless series of movies.
|
| -The Spying Menace
|
| -Attack of the conservatives
|
| -Revenge of the marketing conglomerate
|
| -A new hope
|
| -Chat Control strikes back
|
| -Return of the Pirate Party
|
| Etc,etc.
| woodpanel wrote:
| Never forget:
|
| > _We decide something, then put it in the room and wait some
| time to see what happens. If there is no big shouting and no
| uprisings, because most do not understand what it is about, then
| we continue - step by step until there is no turning back._ -
| Jean Claude Juncker, then President of the EU Commission
|
| They will try this again. And again. And again. They will never
| stop.
|
| They are not your friends.
| shevy-java wrote:
| > The controversial mass surveillance of private messages in
| Europe is coming to an end.
|
| I am having a deja vu. Groundhog Day.
|
| The above should be adjusted. This is not an end; it will
| continue in another form. Another name. Another proposal. The
| lobbyists behind this will not give up. They are paid to not give
| up.
|
| I don't think any of those few should have ANY power of us, The
| People. That includes both EU commission as well as EU
| parliament. Yes, I know the EU parliament is heralded now as "our
| heroes". I don't trust any of them at any moment in time:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_corruption_scandal_at_th....
| And that's just one known issue. How many more unknown issues are
| there?
|
| Also, Leyen should go. She is too suspiciously close to a few
| companies, always promoting things. She did so before her time in
| the EU too.
| abdelhousni wrote:
| Good news
| siilats wrote:
| Mole 1 inside Microsoft poisons the PhotoDNA database with hashes
| of screenshots containing highly specific text--such as internal
| Russian military jargon, the name of a specific European defector
| safehouse, or a niche secure communication protocol. * To Meta's
| automated monitoring tools photoDNA api returns false, but with
| slightly different formatting. Mole 2 inside Meta monitors these
| formatting errors and looks up the UserIDs. * No Bulk Queries:
| Looking up 3 UserIDs in the internal demographic database over
| the course of a month will not trigger the "Abnormal Access
| Pattern" alarms. * Analog Exfiltration: Mole 2 doesn't need to
| use a USB drive or send an email to get the phone numbers out of
| the building. With only a few targets, Mole 2 can simply memorize
| the accounts. PhotoDNA does not read text; it matches the visual
| structure of an image. For this attack to work, the defected
| officer must: 1. Receive or write the targeted keyword. 2. Take a
| screenshot of it. 3. Send that screenshot over the platform. 4.
| The screenshot must visually match the exact font, size, and
| layout that Mole 1 used to generate the poisoned hash. However
| Mole 1 can create thousands of matching keyword hashes for
| different font variation. PhotoDNA is a one way hash so it's easy
| to generate a thousand colliding images for every font by adding
| a custom border on real photos. This will fake the audit log at
| Microsoft.
| siilats wrote:
| https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ASPqVAAV2oR9ZzsIO0tlqV0a...
| protocolture wrote:
| They will change the name and it will be back in < 6 months.
|
| The cost in modern polity is worn entirely by those trying to
| prevent new laws. Civil liberty groups will run out of funding
| before they run out of legislation. Its a systemic issue that
| requires change.
|
| And before someone wanders in here and suggests a bill of rights,
| they dont tend to bind legislators, they just force your civil
| liberty groups to test the legislation in court.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-03-26 23:01 UTC)