No, not really. It's because they retracted the proposal before going to vote, because they knew it wouldnt pass after Germany publicly said they would vote against.
Then they changed some stuff and send it again, which is now rejected as it seems.
Yes, I think we're all assuming the law came into parliament the regular way. I assumed the "they" are supposed lobbyists who are standing behind and outside the regular entity..
Am I missing something or are you pulling a Nielsen on me? "Coffee?" "Yes, I know."
it's indicative of the system we're in. our oligarchs have enough money to pay people to push for this in perpetuity while the rest of us are forced to give up some degree of our lives to fight it off on a field of battles that's tilted towards money; they will win eventually unless the system itself is changed.
Good, but pretty meaningless overall while they still allow lobbying to take place.
They pretend to care that lobbying means corruption from corporate interests, but doing anything meaningful to stop lobbying entirely and punish anyone still doing it would be "authoritarian communism" now, wouldn't it?
They'll just change a few things and try again. I feel like we've been hearing about chat control on and off for about 5 years now and I can't imagine it'll go away soon.
I think that Patrick posted it. basically the ones against where the conservatives, both left and right where against (even if there were some people inside those parities who voted to continue the scanning)
EDIT: apparently EPP voted against not because they want to support privacy but because the proposal was not enough invasive. they were afraid that it would have stopped their Chat control 2.0 proposal.
Patrick Breyer β Digital freedom fighter and former Member of European Parliament for the German and the European Pirate Party
Europeβs voice of privacy and the free Internet
About me
I passionately defend human rights in the age of thβ¦
EPP and ECR voted against extension, but IIRC the reason is that they wanted stricter controls instead. Most other parties were largely in favour of extending the current chat control mandate.
True, was confused. This was the result on the initial proposal, not the vote on extension of the exemption. So as I understand it, we already have chat control since there is no legal framework (initial proposal didn't pass) and this exemption allows them to spy on us.
Green = "opposing", red = "supporting".... "chat control extension". I guess the greens are against the chat control proposal, though that's hardly clear, and there seem to be more reds than greens so that suggests the chat control proposal was accepted, or is there some other layer to this? Also the stance of a state bears no relation to that of its representatives. Very confusing
It's not the topic of the vote I'm trying to clarify but rather trying to make sense of that web page showing who is voting for what, and how, if at all that is connected to the European Parliament vote. That website suggests overwhelming support for the proposal at both state and representative level, I'm not sure what to make of that.
Yeah it seems to be backwards, they voted for an "Extension of the temporary derogation", which I assume means if do you want to take more time to discuss this problem vote yes, or vote no to enact the newly proposed law now. Which is why the greens are paradoxically for the proposal and the EPP is against. Another layer of shenanigans to confuse people I guess.
It could be, although it also seems that "opposing" representatives are usually of the left/green persuasion and the right wing is mostly "supporting", which is not what I'd expect to see in that case. All I can say for sure is that it's very confusing.
Well the proposal is to extend the temporary exemption that expires on April 4. As it is now under this exemption THEY ARE ALREADY doing their dystopian scanning. Since there is no legal framework to do this they and it's against the current laws they use this exemption until they can force the final law that legalizes it.
i don't understand, was EPP for or against the extension ? Cause my understanding was that they asked to have a second vote even if the first one already rejected the extension.
I don't understand the votes on that website, most people from EPP voted π (against the extension) but that means they are against chat control? Or in favor? What european parties are opposing to the chat control, I want to know which parties we can trust on this matter.
as another comment said, EPP was against this proposal due to it being not strict enough. They want full control of your chat (e2ee ones too). they were afraid that this would set a precedent for limits for chat control and voted againts
also, I was surprised that in my conservative country no MEP voted with acceptance. but maybe it's because the proposal included adding clauses like this?
(v) not applied to interpersonal communications to which end-to-end encryption is, has been or will be applied;
ceigid
in reply to chigga • • •like this
melroy likes this.
chigga
in reply to ceigid • • •melroy
in reply to ceigid • • •guy
in reply to melroy • • •OrganicMustard
in reply to guy • • •guy
in reply to OrganicMustard • • •So it's Tatcher going undercover IRA to bomb herself?
Goodlucksil
in reply to chigga • • •like this
melroy likes this.
chigga
in reply to Goodlucksil • • •this is the real thing, this is almost certainly unconstitutional.
greedy corps going against law as usual.
themurphy
in reply to chigga • • •No, not really. It's because they retracted the proposal before going to vote, because they knew it wouldnt pass after Germany publicly said they would vote against.
Then they changed some stuff and send it again, which is now rejected as it seems.
Now they need to wait, but they didnt before.
leagman1
in reply to themurphy • • •guy
in reply to leagman1 • • •leagman1
in reply to guy • • •How do I respond to this^^
Yes, I think we're all assuming the law came into parliament the regular way. I assumed the "they" are supposed lobbyists who are standing behind and outside the regular entity..
Am I missing something or are you pulling a Nielsen on me?
"Coffee?"
"Yes, I know."
guy
in reply to leagman1 • • •chigga
in reply to themurphy • • •undeffeined
in reply to chigga • • •Bloomcole
in reply to chigga • • •Gumus
in reply to chigga • • •ordnance_qf_17_pounder
in reply to chigga • • •chigga
in reply to ordnance_qf_17_pounder • • •like this
melroy likes this.
eldavi
in reply to ordnance_qf_17_pounder • • •iByteABit
in reply to chigga • • •Good, but pretty meaningless overall while they still allow lobbying to take place.
They pretend to care that lobbying means corruption from corporate interests, but doing anything meaningful to stop lobbying entirely and punish anyone still doing it would be "authoritarian communism" now, wouldn't it?
like this
melroy likes this.
TommySoda
in reply to chigga • • •HuntressHimbo
in reply to chigga • • •a4ng3l
in reply to chigga • • •iamtherealwalrus
in reply to chigga • • •chigga
in reply to iamtherealwalrus • • •I think that Patrick posted it. basically the ones against where the conservatives, both left and right where against (even if there were some people inside those parities who voted to continue the scanning)
EDIT: apparently EPP voted against not because they want to support privacy but because the proposal was not enough invasive. they were afraid that it would have stopped their Chat control 2.0 proposal.
WaxRhetorical
in reply to chigga • • •dingleberrylover
in reply to WaxRhetorical • • •baguettefish
in reply to WaxRhetorical • • •kapulsa
in reply to WaxRhetorical • • •Probably Patrick Breyer, who often posts about privacy issues in the EU parliament.
patrick-breyer.de/en/
Welcome
Patrick BreyerWaxRhetorical
in reply to kapulsa • • •Bloomcole
in reply to chigga • • •What?
I see conservatives+ extreme right pro. Also some fake left
Against greens -real left.
(Not absolute since they vote individually)
But by faction:
pro: EPP,ECR, ID/Patriots
Against: EFA, The Left, Renew Europe, S&D(divided)
Undecided: S&D, Renew Europe
π²πππππππ πΌπππ
in reply to Bloomcole • • •howtheyvote.eu/votes/189574
EPP and ECR voted against extension, but IIRC the reason is that they wanted stricter controls instead. Most other parties were largely in favour of extending the current chat control mandate.
Extension of the temporary derogation from the ePrivacy Directive to combat online child sexual abuse Β· Vote Results Β· HowTheyVote.eu
howtheyvote.euBloomcole
in reply to π²πππππππ πΌπππ • • •This was the result on the initial proposal, not the vote on extension of the exemption.
So as I understand it, we already have chat control since there is no legal framework (initial proposal didn't pass) and this exemption allows them to spy on us.
MoffKalast
in reply to iamtherealwalrus • • •Scroll down and select your country: fightchatcontrol.eu/
It's always the ones you most expect.
Fight Chat Control - Protect Digital Privacy in the EU
fightchatcontrol.eubampop
in reply to MoffKalast • • •mrgoosmoos
in reply to bampop • • •it's explained right there above the vote summary
bampop
in reply to mrgoosmoos • • •MoffKalast
in reply to bampop • • •Yeah it seems to be backwards, they voted for an "Extension of the temporary derogation", which I assume means if do you want to take more time to discuss this problem vote yes, or vote no to enact the newly proposed law now. Which is why the greens are paradoxically for the proposal and the EPP is against. Another layer of shenanigans to confuse people I guess.
howtheyvote.eu/votes/189574
Extension of the temporary derogation from the ePrivacy Directive to combat online child sexual abuse Β· Vote Results Β· HowTheyVote.eu
howtheyvote.eubampop
in reply to MoffKalast • • •It could be, although it also seems that "opposing" representatives are usually of the left/green persuasion and the right wing is mostly "supporting", which is not what I'd expect to see in that case. All I can say for sure is that it's very confusing.
EDIT: thanks for that link π
Bloomcole
in reply to bampop • • •352 against
248 pro
44 undecided
A simple majority will do
bampop
in reply to Bloomcole • • •Bloomcole
in reply to bampop • • •As it is now under this exemption THEY ARE ALREADY doing their dystopian scanning.
Since there is no legal framework to do this they and it's against the current laws they use this exemption until they can force the final law that legalizes it.
Kazel
in reply to chigga • • •lb_o
in reply to Kazel • • •βοΈ-
in reply to chigga • • •WorldsDumbestMan
in reply to chigga • • •We should go to war against corpocracy, until all corporations are bankrupt.
EVERY. DAMN. ONE.
NGC2346
in reply to chigga • • •OccasionallyFeralya
in reply to NGC2346 • • •mathemachristian[he]
in reply to chigga • • •Cantaloupe
in reply to mathemachristian[he] • • •mathemachristian[he]
in reply to Cantaloupe • • •anugeshtu
in reply to mathemachristian[he] • • •orc girly
in reply to mathemachristian[he] • • •Someonelol
in reply to chigga • • •Bloomcole
in reply to Someonelol • • •brbposting
in reply to chigga • • •lb_o
in reply to chigga • • •BY ONE FUCKING VOTE!
howtheyvote.eu/votes/189574
Vote out every single fucker who is trying to limit our freedoms!
Extension of the temporary derogation from the ePrivacy Directive to combat online child sexual abuse Β· Vote Results Β· HowTheyVote.eu
howtheyvote.eu1984
in reply to lb_o • • •Thats actually insane in itself that it got that close. Next time they will succeed. :/
People are so stupid to support this. They dont seem to understand that its never about protecting anyone and its always about building dystopia.
chigga
in reply to lb_o • • •π²πππππππ πΌπππ
in reply to chigga • • •orosus
in reply to chigga • • •chigga
in reply to orosus • • •azuth
in reply to lb_o • • •WhyJiffie
in reply to lb_o • • •does it mean that this vote was only about the extension of the regulation that allowed voluntary participation in scanning for chat providers?
honestly, that's the lesser of the worries, we know facebook and fo are scanning all messages going through them no matter what
WhyJiffie
in reply to lb_o • • •also, I was surprised that in my conservative country no MEP voted with acceptance. but maybe it's because the proposal included adding clauses like this?
europarl.europa.eu/doceo/documβ¦
Texts adopted - Amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1232 as regards the extension of its period of application - Wednesday, 11 March 2026
www.europarl.europa.euSkankhunt420
in reply to chigga • • •PixeIOrange
in reply to chigga • • •