End of "Chat Control": EU parliament stops mass surveillance
patrick-breyer.de> 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.
> 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 (The only stronger hand is the side fighting to keep legislation from being repealed.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.
This perspective, not unique to the parent, assumes you have to play defense indefinitely, but (as with many beliefs) the assumption is the problem: Stop playing defense and go on offense.
Pass laws that actively enhance privacy, that make it technically (e.g., require E2EE) and legally harder to surveil citizens, that require data minimization, that impose retention limits, that require higher standards for accessing surveillance content (e.g., warrants); pass amendments to constitutions, etc. How do you think current privacy protections happened in the first place?
Going on offense not only improves privacy, it forces the other side to use their resources playing defense and trying to keep up.
The 'one battle after another' defensive perspective is for people who have half-quit (I'm not talking about the parent here, but more generally). It fits the culture of despair that permeates every political grouping but the far right - they have plenty of initiative and creativity, and certainly don't hold back and play defense. You can do that too.
Maybe a more familiar analogy: It also fits the behavior of exhausted status quo market participants, companies that have lost their drive and innovation and are hanging onto their old ways instead of aggressively moving forward.
> Going on offense not only improves privacy, it forces the other side to use their resources play defense and trying to keep up
One thousand percent.
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.
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.
> seems to me that "no and don't ask again" should be a possible outcome of a vote on proposed legislation
It can't be. At least not in a legislature. Defining what is the same question is itself a political question. And past legislatures being able to bind future ones is just a futurecasting veto. A single crap election could poison the pool on a raft of issues for generations.
The proper way to do this is through constitutional amendments. The fact that these are too difficult to do, currently, seems to be the bug.
Ah, but if they were easier to do, would they be as effectice at stopping "bad" legislation?
Ironically, just like many software users, the EU Parliament is not given the option to say "no", only "ask me later".
Anyone who’s ever been unable to dismiss a nag and forced to defer via "Ask me later" knows the feeling of powerlessness and disenfranchisement deliberately planted by those making UX decisions. .. or the EU constitutional framework.
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.
> 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...
The sentence which you are quoting is referencing the concept described in the previous sentence of the same paragraph. It is not describing the EU’s form of democracy.
The EU parliament can't retract existing laws if the EC doesn't agree and proposes a law doing it.
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.
Great comment, thank you. I know that I could simply upvote, but this deserved more.
JumpCrisscross for President
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.
A cheap justification for violating one's professed ideals.
Not really. Did democratic nations violate their ideals when they fought Nazi Germany in WWII?
After all, Hitler did come to power democratically. He made it very clear what he wanted to do, and the Weimar government didn't stop him, thinking that they could just have voters see through his act. How'd that turn out?
An empty rebuttal. If the US democratically - by popular vote - decided to annex Canada would that mean Canadians waging war against the US or allies that stepped in to help them were going against the ideals of liberalism? There's no paradox to be had there. It is entirely possible for multiple liberal parties to disagree and end up at war.
Where people like to apply that phrase is when handling domestic affairs in a blatantly hypocritical manner. Such as banning certain speech, publications, or political activities while still claiming to honor the tenants of liberalism. In that context it's nothing more than a fig leaf to cover for one's own lack of integrity.
"> 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
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.
The goal isn't child protection but surveillance and profits for kyc companies.
My German ID can do that already AFAIK.
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.
Phones should have no locks unless the user installs them and holds the keys.
Parents can hold the keys for underaged?
That arrangement is OK. It exactly mirrors things like car keys. The problem is giving the keys to the corporations or the government.
Why?
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.
The salesman would give you the key if you're over 18
> 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".
In the modern world, this is like saying people under 18 shouldn't have the freedom to be able to read and write. We would be decades back into digital stone age if we had held onto such a preposterous idea in the 80's and 90's. Virtually everything we have now is basically built by people who were hacking on their computers in elementary school and exercising their freedom of speech in terms of writing code freely at the discretion of their own imagination.
Think about how the proposed idea would most likely be implemented. It would be used as justification for manufacturers to sell devices that the end use doesn't control. They already do that; this would give them legal justification.
Then their parents should own it. Not the corporations, and certainly not the government.
So you are against paid services? Who manages the servers, updates apps, and distributes them?
I'm not sure about op, but as someone who agrees with their comment, yes, I absolutely am. I despise 99% of all digital """services""" that exist. Whether it's cloud, music/movies/series/whatever streaming, subscriptions of almost any kind... They're all extremely dystopian and anti-human. I sail the high seas for almost everything I consume digitally. When I want to support a creator I enjoy, I pay them directly (buy their merch, buy a physical copy of their album, purchase their game and dlcs, or simply directly donate).
In my opinion, corporations being allowed free reign and control over the internet and digital world in general without guardrails was *THE* biggest legislative mistake (although I believe it was done on purpose )in the past century, considering how the internet will most definitely be the defining factor of the era we're currently living in in future textbooks; if we make it that far at least.
I don't think most people understand the sheer magnitude of the damage that corporate slop, control, anti-competitiveness and pursuit of infinite growth at all costs has done to our technological capabilities and advancement.
Hardware is the only area of tech that continually gets better, whilst software continually regresses and gets worse. 90% of "new" code is web-based slop (and now AI generated web slop) that hogs memory and cpu usage, completely undermining all advances in hardware just because companies weren't willing to pay the extra buck to program a native solution that wouldn't force its users to purchase new machines.
If it wasn't for corporate (and many programmers') lazyness, computers from over a decade ago would still be fully functional, fully usable machines that could do the most bleeding-edge of tasks, safe for maybe the most graphically-demanding games and rendering.
And then maybe programmers could focus on actually advancing the science that is writing code, instead of building yet another fucking REST API and React UI. And don't forget to package it all in electron to fuck your users as much as possible, and dodge any need for real engineering.
Companies can just keep offloading costs unto the user, making users buy machines 10x as powerful as the ones they had 5 years ago, just to do the exact same tasks, but 20x slower. But at least they have a nice looking UI right?
What prevents you from using Debian and a FOSS stack?
Not much yet, that's pretty much what I do, although I run void linux and arch on my machines. But even Linux isn't safe; what if other countries adopt the OS-level age-verification laws that california is pursuing? very few distros will be safe. And then all they need to do (and you can bet that's exactly what they'd do) is keep squeezing, taking away freedom gradually until most linux distros require you to submit a digital ID on install. And chances are, the few distros and maintainers that go against that would be completely cut off from the mainstream tech ecosystem (which would make them barely usable in this day and age, at least as long as you live in a city with a job and rent and all).
This may sound like a slippery slope fallacy and it may indeed be that, but I can't think of any other possibility if we just let stuff like this keep happening. It may seem like we're just giving an inch now but in 5 years you'll suddenly realize they've taken a mile.
The timing of having Meta dropping encrypted chats on Instagram is...interesting.
"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.
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.
See you soon folks!
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 Düpont 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 Düpont, 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
- 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_...
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-...
> - 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...
Kutcher's VC (Quiet) is deeply invested in the surveillance economy [1].
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.
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-...
This is messaging to the base. Mud slinging designed to hold the coalition together for another round.
Facebook and Microsoft are foreign companies.
I have a list of organizations who are lobbying for Chat Control as well, compiled from investigative reporting articles:
> Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), the Canadian Centre for Child Protection (C3P), the International Justice Mission (IJM), ECPAT, the Children's Rights Network, World Vision, Terre des Hommes, Innocence in Danger, the World Childhood Foundation, the Stiftung digitale Chancen, the Children's Rights Network Germany, SafeToNet Foundation, Thorn, Ecpat network, the Brave organization, the PR agency Purpose, Justice Initiative, Oak Foundation, Eurochild, Missing Children Europe, Molly Rose Foundation, NSPCC, Hopewell Fund, Heat Initiative, Children’s Investment Fund Foundation
In the past two years, the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) has been spearheading the lobbying efforts. The CEO of the IWF is Kerry Smith, and she sometimes shares her delusional beliefs on Linkedin in addition to her blog.
Many of these groups receive funding to lobby for Chat Control from the Hopewell Fund, Oak Foundation, and Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF). The British billionaire Alan M. Parker controls the Oak Foundation, and British billionaire Christopher Hohn controls the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation. The Hopewell Fund is controlled by Arabella Advisors (rebranded to Sunflower Services), and they work hard to conceal the sources of their dark money.
Sources for the organizations:
* https://netzpolitik.org/2022/dude-wheres-my-privacy-how-a-ho...
* https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/29/europol-sought-unlimite...
* https://balkaninsight.com/2023/09/25/who-benefits-inside-the...
* https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2023/09/26/t...
* https://theintercept.com/2023/10/01/apple-encryption-iphone-...
* https://www.politico.eu/article/one-man-spam-campaign-ravage...
* https://www.heise.de/en/background/Missing-Link-Prevention-a...
The Spanish Prime Minster Pedro Sánchez can also be added to the list of Chat Control supporters.
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?
> 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.
I take it facebook/meta paid no fines for doing it illegally in the first place?
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.
You could probably have sued them. I'm not aware of any cases where that happened.
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...
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.
Yes, voluntary Chat Control 1.0 has been running since 2021.
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).
Gmail and likely others have been scanning at least emails for child pornography since the 2010s.
as far as I know, required by US law
It was possible on a voluntary basis.
There was an interim legislation that will expire in april.
What happens to the already scanned metadata?
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.
It seems like an almost never ending hamster wheel of chat control being introduced, voted down, then introduced again in the next session.
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.
> 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.
Considering it's a sensitive topic there'll be very little interest in repealing it. Especially if they drag up a few token cases and go like "see it's working!".
Look at all the crazy secret surveillance powers in the US. How much of that got repealed after snowden? No, people just got used to it because no politician wants to be called a tattooist terrorist friend.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
You are mostly right except vdl is very, very far from the most corrupt person. It can be much worse.
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.
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.
> 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.
Need to amend constitutional rights to privacy then these laws can be struck down in courts.
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.
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.
I think the more fitting imagery would be https://en.meming.world/images/en/4/4a/Moe_Tossing_Barney_Fr...
The alternative is a dictatorship.
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.
Given the current US-EU relations I'm more surprised we're not telling them to go fuck themselves on this.
We need a double-jeopardy-like constitutional amendment for legislation. Legislation once-tried and failed cannot be tried again.
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.
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.
Not to mention how would one even define "the same legislation"?
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
Hungary is small and an outlier in the EU.
Based on EU's public consultation it is not even true (but the number of responses is very small)
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-sa...
Political engineering angle: "These people will not rest until they are able to read your child's messages."
Every time someone says this is to protect children, earnestly or with memes, just reinforces the lie and makes it more believable, because child protection is the distraction, the hook that works on people that are comfortable with the State reading your child's messages if it ends up protecting them.
Chat Control is, quite simply, mass surveillance of every citizen of any age. Let's call a spade a spade.
"These people will not rest until they are able to see your teen-aged child's surrepticious sexts."
> 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.
Yeah, that number is actually really high. I’m wondering how noisy those reports are
"Recently, only 36% of violent crime happened in broad daylight in front of a police station" would be a pretty wild statistic. Even a fraction of the reports being positives would be surprising.
What I find very alarming is that very few citizens in the EU knew about that. Mainstream media almost never reported this and other similar news, so I had to actively look for them. In this last case, I learned about it here on HN. Votes like that, with so much impact on citizens' digital lives, should be discussed in mainstream news channel.
It was big news in Germany in middle of October leading to fact that the conservative party opposed chat control!
I would say "end of chat control, for now"
Those guys only ever have a "maybe later" button.
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.
I'd settle for a "no, and we won't discuss it until voters had at least one chance to get rid of you".
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.
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
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.
I mean, they're _not_ the first defence. This is a story about the parliament rejecting a bad law.
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.
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).
> (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.
For today or for this month.
The value of persistence!
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.
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.
I agree that it's an act of state sponsored terrorism. Don't let the down votes make you feel alone.
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.
That’s a great idea! It should be a General Data Protection Regulation, I suppose.
Nice to see that democracy can work
> 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...
Note that European parliament parties aren't particularly cohesive; some EPP members voted against it.
> some EPP members voted against it
20 out of 184
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).
I think the point of confusion is that there was an amendment before the final vote, which was way closer.
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
EPP wanted indiscriminate scanning instead, not targeted one.
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)
Site guidelines: "Please don't fulminate."
Did you even look at the voting pattern? The far right was completely against it or extremely split on the issue.
> with the help of the far right.
S&D voted even more for this than the conservatives themselves. ESN the least.
See you next month!
Did that vote pass with a difference of one single vote? Tight squeeze there.
The screenshot is actually a vote on an amendment. Here's the final vote: https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270
Less tight.
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?
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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_People%27s_Party#Full...
Note that in some countries it has _both ruling coalition and opposition_ member parties.
EPP is the predominant christian nationalist party.
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.
There’s often large differences between what politicians tell you they are and how they vote once in power
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)?
> 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.
No, that's not what it means. Actually, it doesn't _really_ mean anything, here, as it's not correct. The EPP has 188 seats out of 720. It is the largest single party, but, ah, to some extent, so what.
(Also it is a European Parliament party, not a _real_ political party. It's not a cohesive unit and has no leadership; it's pretty much just a grab-bag of member state parties.)
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/doceo/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.
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 ?
No, that was an ammendment
This will come back because too many EU countries want it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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...
Bastion of democracy Germany will be pushing hard given they let slip they want mandatory IDs on social media. They want full control.
German MEPs voted overwhelmingly against the extension: https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270 ("Countries" tab).
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.)
> 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.
To get "End of Chat Control" EU should actually pass laws prohibiting it, this whack a mole will eventually lose.
Just rename it to something something save the children something something. Instant approval no matter what is in the bill.
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".
It's already called "Extension of the temporary derogation from the ePrivacy Directive to combat online child sexual abuse".
E2EE works in favour of politicians, so I would be surprised if they went against it. Prior to this, if they wanted to discuss something shady, they would have to choose between a clandestine in-person meeting (sort of hard do conduct when you have many eyes on you) vs. a paper trail.
Cf. the recent Mandelson-McSweeney messages inquiry, where it was dropped at some point that messages might not be available for retrieval because he happened to have message expiration on. People are justifiey concerned how come there are completely off the record electronic communications within government offices.
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.
It's never going to stop. They'll keep trying until they get it because they're sick people.
Who is going to push a counteroffensive, banning specific types of data from being collected?
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.
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.
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
Perhaps a system where that can happen is broken
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.
Related discussion : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529646
> The Hard Facts: Why Chat Control Has Failed Spectacularly
The ostensible reasons for mass surveillance fail. That's very interesting.
Here's a mirror link: http://archive.today/CJlNk
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.
One would think that the same thing getting denied over and over would make future votes about it easier to decide.
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.
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.
You’re painting an EPP/ECR initiative as left wing? That’s inconsistent with the facts.
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.
That margin is really small
See you again next week!
They’ll keep trying.
That’s why we need to keep voting for the MEPs who oppose it.
Then we keep fighting them.
Until we stop them.
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.
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
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?
People who think reform are anti establishment genuinely fascinate me.
And people who think they are strong and will solve anything.
These populists thrive on anger and hate. Solve the problem and those are gone. And the problems aren't the ones they champion anyway.
I have to say Labour is putting on a shit show too though. They were supposed to be new and refreshed, instead they are Tory-Lite on steroids. Worse than Blair or Miliband ever were.
Really UK politics needs some sanity :'(
Have you ever stopped to wonder why ~26% of the electorate might be angry though? Personally I don't like seeing 100,000+ undocumented young men of fighting age rock up in dinghys on the Kent coastline and get free hotels, food, phones and ultimately housing.
Housing is in short supply and the sight of it being reserved for unemployed economic migrants is making me pretty angry.
The housing problem has nothing to do with immigrants and everything with structural mismanagement and prioritisation of the settled middle and upper class who wants to see their house value go up and up. And also their NIMBYism concerns (again, a new housing estate nearby might drop their house value)
The amount of housing actually taken by immigrants is minimal and releasing those wouldn't fix anything. Most of them live in squalor and doing jobs regular English guys wouldn't touch, in particular for the exploitative pay. You want your 2am burger delivered for a quid. Or the puke cleaned up in the metro. Who's going to do that these days?
It's this age-old problem: https://realfiction.net/assets/careful-mate.jpg
But now it's being weaponised for political gain. They're making you mad at the wrong people. The people who are causing it all are the ones you're voting for.
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.
Or it will get a new name. Just like „Chat Control“ is far from the first name for this BS.
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...
It's not named "Chat Control". It's just what it's commonly known by. It's basically the same as "Obamacare".
Exactly. Its real name is “Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse”.
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
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.
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.
> 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.
Yeah but that's the intended audience. The Europeans who aren't in tech weren't likely to know about this anyway.
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.
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.
> 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?
Sex crimes. Particularly ones involving children. Such as having sexual pictures of children.
"who liked 13 year olds when he was 14, is unlikely to reoffend at 30"
I still don't exactly understand this part.
Call it `chatctl` and give it a CLI.
"Save the children", or "if you oppose this you're ugly".
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
That’s already (kind of) the name it has. “Chat Control” is a name given by critics.
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.
Don't forget the pointless backronym.
Same for software patents in the EU, it came back through the Unified Patent Court.
Told you so.
Any event E with P(E) > 0 will eventually happen.
See you next year!
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.
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.
Good news
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.
How long until they stage an incident to occur so they can pass CC 1.1? 6 months? 2 years?
A big W, for now.
Until we meet again.
Until next time.
Chat Control 3.0 will go through
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.
Wouldn't this have the opposite effect? Seems to play right into their hands that they need mass surveillance for "" safety"" reasons
Goid news, now stop the age bullshit in CA.
Good.
Now let's start preparing for the next one.
... again?
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
I see the exact opposite. Let's classify parties:
EPP (Christian-democrats, ie. centrist to somewhat conservative parties): >95% voted against. These mattered more than any others
Patriots for Europe (far-right, even racist): 2/3 voted against.
"Green"/progressive parties: ~90% voted in favour
Socialists from anywhere on the spectrum (from just-barely-left-of-centre to communists): >95% voted in favour
Laissez-faire parties (meaning rightist, but not racist): largely voted in favour.
https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189574
Leftists and Green parties desperately seem to want ChatControl (not just this vote), against literally everyone else, but especially against centrist parties.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Yes. I would place it on the authority–liberty axis.
While your examples were on the economic left, they were clearly authoritarian.
Yes. I'm very socialist on an economic scale but very liberal on the social scale. It basically embodies what we call progressive these days.
Conservatism has redefined itself too. Capitalist on the economic scale, authoritarian on the social one. When it comes to topics like lgbt, abortion, religion, family they don't want freedom. They want to have only the freedom to think like them. That's what we call authoritarianism. A bit remarkable because freedom was traditionally the hallmark of the right. I think you still see the original freedom variety more in states like Texas but not in the midwest. But I'm not really on the ball with American politics anymore so I may be wrong.
I think this breaks the original left/right paradigms a bit but I view it more as a redefinition.
But I think progressive and conservative are better terms to use these days.
This is to be expected in a 2-party system like the US.
Since there can only ever be one axis, it must encode all possible issues. And with the strong polarization at the moment, sports team thinking takes over. If you identify with one of the 2 parties, you are expected to agree with the arbitrarily decided position on every single issue, no matter how contradictory.
Greens based as always
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.
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.
A lot of people hate seeing the EU succeed at anything, simply because they are envious or it does not validate their world view.
“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.
> 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.
> 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).
It was actually voluntary, and then the EU Commission got greedy and tried to make it mandatory. Now they have nothing.
[flagged]
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529682 and marked it off topic.
[flagged]
"What did the Romans ever do for US?" :P
They literally just voted it down. Twice in 2 days. Also compared to whom?
> 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.
"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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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?
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.
Obviously you can revoke Laws.
And not being able to deny the Holocaust doesn't mean you don't have free speech
"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.
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.
That's sad but true :(
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.
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.
Yes please. Not make an all powerful president whose election is more about the person than about their politics.
The current US is a perfect example why this is such a bad idea.
I support a president that's more of a figurehead though like in Ireland. More like an elected head of state for ribbon cutting but not really a strong political force. More like a negotiator than a dictator.
I guess the US' dogma of the winner takes all makes this palatable for them. But I don't see it leading anywhere but destruction especially in a forever-polarised zero-sum two party system.
> 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
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?
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))
> 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).
> 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.
Ah, looks like they're American, based on their profile.
From an EU perspective, there's not much difference between russia, and the US at the moment.
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.
> 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.
> The EU is fundamentally flawed. There are no checks and balances
You're missing a [citation needed] on that.
Non-elected representatives from my country keep pushing for chat control via the council. How do I, as a citizen, hold them accountable?
> 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.
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.
Ask your government why they're sending those representatives. As a citizen you vote for your government, right?
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.
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.
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.
Why "neglect"? You're voting for a government that does the things you want.
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.
Vote against the ruling party in your smaller national election
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.
I’m sympathetic to wanting a directly elected upper house instead of the council but it’ll be a hard fight to win.
The Parliament should also be empowered to initiate legislation.
The article you're commenting on is reporting how directly elected representatives defeated the motion.
Why do you keep lying?
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?
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.
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.
Every. Single. Democracy. in this world uses a variation of system like EU so please stop bloviating about Russia and China.
Again, why do you keep lying about it?
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.
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?