Skip to main content

lemmy - Link to source

EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

cross-posted from: lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/71975475

Today, the European Parliament allowed the suspicionless mass scanning of private communications (“Chat Control 1.0”) to pass, a measure it had rejected twice in March. Although a majority of voting Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) actually opposed the regulation (314 against, 276 in favor, 17 abstentions), the motion to reject it failed to secure the required absolute majority of 361 votes. As a result, mass scanning is now permitted again until 2028.

EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0 – Breyer: "Our children lose out"

Today, the European Parliament allowed the suspicionless mass scanning of private communications ("Chat Control 1.0") to pass, a measure it had rejected twice in March.
Patrick Breyer
#privacy
in reply to hatingfedizen

Voxel
lemmy - Link to source
Voxel
• •
I guess our only hope is for the EU court to deem it unlawful?
in reply to Voxel

Korkki
lemmy - Link to source
Korkki
• •
fat chance, but we can pray. Despite this move being illegal as fuck.
This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)
in reply to hatingfedizen

warm
mbin - Link to source
warm
• •
Surely it needs more in favor to pass? Ugh I need to reducate myself on this system
in reply to warm

illi
lemmy - Link to source
illi
• •

This truly is bonkers.

Although a majority of voting Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) actually opposed the regulation (314 against, 276 in favor, 17 abstentions), the motion to reject it failed to secure the required absolute majority of 361 votes.


More people is against it than in favor, but the number of people against it is not sufficient so it gets passed? How can that ever be possible?

in reply to illi

Zak
lemmy - Link to source
Zak
• •

They used a procedural trick which only had to pass by a majority of those present to create a situation where it would need an absolute majority to fail in the next vote.

This happened as many MEPs have already left for their summer break and were therefore absent and unable to vote. It appears that Parliament President Roberta Metsola engineered this, but I haven't looked in to it in detail.


Showdown in Strasbourg: The unexpected return of Chat Control 1.0

With a procedural trick, proponents in the EU Parliament are pushing for reactivation of indiscriminate scans of chat messages shortly before the summer break.
Stefan Krempl (heise online)
in reply to Zak

limonfiesta
lemmy - Link to source
limonfiesta
• •
Every MEP who participated in the subversion of democracy in favor of totalitarianism and mass surveillance, is an enemy of the people and should be treated as such.
in reply to limonfiesta

fubbernuckin
lemmy - Link to source
fubbernuckin
• •
And anyone involved in orchestrating this situation is an enemy of the state, as they have clearly exploited a flaw of the system to undermine the authority of lawmakers.
in reply to illi

Korkki
lemmy - Link to source
Korkki
• •
They arranged a vote that required absolute majority just before summer break. devious and calculated.
This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)
in reply to warm

theherk
lemmy - Link to source
theherk
• •
It does. Click the link where it says that backward. The article just has it wrong.
in reply to hatingfedizen

melroy
mbin - Link to source
melroy
• •
This is exactly how democracy is not working. EU just pushed it through. Despite multi rejections!
in reply to melroy

huf [he/him]
lemmy - Link to source
huf [he/him]
• •
this is the EU working as intended though.
in reply to huf [he/him]

melroy
mbin - Link to source
melroy
• •
is it though? After the EU parliament has rejected it TWICE in the past, it has been pushed as an urgent procedure for a new plenary vote. The EU has simply continued to put the vote on the agenda to get the outcome they've wanted since the start.
in reply to melroy

huf [he/him]
lemmy - Link to source
huf [he/him]
• •
yes. the EU is a western institution, its purpose was never to act in accordance with the will of the ordinary people. it was to serve the capitalists.
in reply to huf [he/him]

myrmidex
lemmy - Link to source
myrmidex
• •
It was born out of the european community for coal and steel, how could it have turned out any different...
in reply to melroy

ghost_laptop
lemmy - Link to source
ghost_laptop
• •
yes, that's exactly what they want, what did you think? you live in a free country or some shit? i really dont get westoids, they literally invented fascism and caused 90% of the wars in the last 4 centuries and somehow they're the democratic people or something? smh
in reply to ghost_laptop

huf [he/him]
lemmy - Link to source
huf [he/him]
• •
"i know it's smoking and smells foul like a 4 week old corpse but the bottle says YIM-YUM on it. how can it be bad?"
in reply to melroy

fox [comrade/them]
lemmy - Link to source
fox [comrade/them]
• •
The purpose of a system is what it does. If a measure repeatedly fails to pass and is then successfully made law regardless, then clearly the system must, in some way, be built to supercede voting authority.
in reply to melroy

kingthrillgore
lemmy - Link to source
kingthrillgore
• •
An entire generation is learning in real time, first hand, that Democracy isn't working.
This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)
in reply to kingthrillgore

iguessimlemming
lemmy - Link to source
iguessimlemming
• •
I insist on calling it democratism - an ambition, nice ideal, doesn't work in practice. Same way they talk about other isms.
in reply to melroy

antrosapien
lemmy - Link to source
antrosapien
• •
~~System is not working~~ System is working exactly as intended
in reply to melroy

knomie
lemmy - Link to source
knomie
• •
This is our implementation of democracy not working. One might even argue that our system is not actually democratic, because, as this example shows, neither the will nor the interests of the people are represented.
in reply to melroy

greenbit
lemmy - Link to source
greenbit
• •
System is working how they want it to work. Democracy is a far cry
in reply to hatingfedizen

illi
lemmy - Link to source
illi
• •
A symbolic exemption was adopted for encrypted communications—though in practice, service providers do not scan these anyway.


Well I guess that's something at least.

This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)
in reply to hatingfedizen

airikr
lemmy - Link to source
airikr
• •
So you just have to nag and nag and nag until they say "sigh, alright then..."?! WTF?!
in reply to airikr

hneerqe
lemmy - Link to source
hneerqe
• •
They only have to win once, we have to win everytime
in reply to hatingfedizen

wanderer
lemmy - Link to source
wanderer
• •
So.. what happens next? They start requiring backdoor in all chat apps (for those that do not already have one)? Is PGP now the only way? That would be extremely difficult since "normal" people just don't seem to care at all.
in reply to wanderer

quick_snail
lemmy - Link to source
quick_snail
• •

PGP is not the only way. And applications that use PFS are preferred.

The article mentions that WhatsApp is exempt. See also Signal, Wire, SimpleX, etc

in reply to quick_snail

Ontimp
lemmy - Link to source
Ontimp
• •
Also: Host your own Matrix or XMPP server for your family and friends. Basically nothing anyone could do to prevent you from doing that.
This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)
in reply to quick_snail

trilobite
lemmy - Link to source
trilobite
• •
And why would these apps be exempt if 90% of all communication goes through them?
in reply to trilobite

StumblingWasabi
lemmy - Link to source
StumblingWasabi
• •
I would guess to get it passed then they can work on revoking those exemtions
in reply to trilobite

quick_snail
lemmy - Link to source
quick_snail
• •
Don't underestimate the number of communications through email, phone calls, sms, slack, etc.
in reply to hatingfedizen

Ankkuli
lemmy - Link to source
Ankkuli
• •
I wish one day there’s news about EU that isn’t just shitty because I’m tired boss.
in reply to hatingfedizen

eleitl
lemmy - Link to source
eleitl
• •
Welcome to the Fourth Reich of Europe, citizen. You'd better like it here. Orelse.
in reply to hatingfedizen

unwarlikeExtortion
lemmy - Link to source
unwarlikeExtortion
• •
Although a majority of voting Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) actually opposed the regulation (314 against, 276 in favor, 17 abstentions), the motion to reject it failed to secure the required absolute majority of 361 votes


I'm a bit OOTL. How the hell does that even work?

in reply to unwarlikeExtortion

funkycarrot
lemmy - Link to source
funkycarrot
• •

From this article:

The procedure now chosen gives the proponents of Chat Control a significant tactical advantage. Since the law is in its second reading, an absolute majority of 361 votes of all parliament members is required for amendments or a renewed rejection on Thursday. In contrast, a simple majority of the MEPs present is sufficient for the other side. As many parliamentarians have historically already departed by the last day before the summer break, the re-enactment of the regulation is considered almost unavoidable.

Had the MEPs rejected the urgency, the draft would have gone to the responsible Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, where a legally sound compromise could have been worked out after the summer break.


Showdown in Strasbourg: The unexpected return of Chat Control 1.0

With a procedural trick, proponents in the EU Parliament are pushing for reactivation of indiscriminate scans of chat messages shortly before the summer break.
Stefan Krempl (heise online)
in reply to hatingfedizen

oneser
lemmy - Link to source
oneser
• •

I see 2 different, but related topics being mixed up in the comments a little.

This is an extension of a measure which has been in place since 2021. This is not the new legislation that was proposed earlier this year and late last year.

I do not believe this is a good thing at all! But we should all be clear what the discussion is.

The first iteration of Chat Control, commonly dubbed "Chat Control 1.0", was introduced as a temporary measure in 2021. It was ultimately ended on 26 March 2026, when a vote to reject its extension passed by one vote. The next iteration of Chat Control, commonly dubbed "Chat Control 2.0", is still under discussion.


source

european Union regulation proposal on CSAM detection

Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)
in reply to oneser

jabberwock
lemmy - Link to source
jabberwock
• •

It also looks like the Chat Control 1.0 has a carve out for E2E encrypted communications. So I'm not saying don't worry about it, but seems more like a procedural measure than the more ominous and technology-destroying second version.

Referencing this


Combating child sexual abuse: support for a more limited ePrivacy derogation | News | European Parliament

On Thursday, Parliament adopted amendments to a privacy exemption allowing electronic communication services to voluntarily detect child sexual abuse.
www.europarl.europa.eu
in reply to oneser

Tryenjer
lemmy - Link to source
Tryenjer
• •
Ok, but democracy is still failing here if laws are passed in the EU in such a scummy way.
in reply to hatingfedizen

garbage_world
lemmy - Link to source
garbage_world
• •
Chat Control 1.0 is voluntarily collecting not E2EE messages for the purpose of scanning them for child sexual images.
⇧