Discussion
Fight Chat Control
vrganj: Framing this as the EU's attempt is antieuropean propaganda.It is the Conservatives attempt. The EU parliament is the entity that shot it down last time.
elzbardico: EU is not a synonym of Europe. EU propagandists don't get to define what Europe means.Second. Who gave you the right to define antieuropean union propaganda as a sin.Some people may hate it, some people may love it, other want to change it.It was created by vote, surely it can be whatever the fuck the way the people want by vote.
leugim: So they will pass it until is a yes?
fidotron: Or, as is also seen elsewhere, wildly popular ideas simply get curiously stuck.Either way those elected to supposedly serve are the only ones winning.
ImJamal: It seems like it is bipartisan to me. Do you have the statistics to back up your claim?
elzbardico: They never quit. They just waited for something else to dominate the news, so they could fly it under the radar. The war started, so, they felt it was now or never.
fooqux: It's not now or never. It's now, or the next attempt or the next.
baal80spam: But of course it's back.
derefr: So... if we all care so much about shooting down the bad idea, why is nobody proposing opposite legislation: a bill enshrining a right to private communications, such that bills like this one would become impossible to even table?Is it just that there's no "privacy lobby" interested in getting even one lawyer around to sit down and write it up?Or is there at least one such bill floating around, but no EU member state has been willing to table it for discussion?
soulofmischief: Fight Chat Control is a website maintained by a European. It is no more anti-European than I, an American, speaking about the latest antics of our conservative-led government and saying, "The US government is attempting to ____".
Stagnant: Okay so I had to look in to it because the site is not really doing a good job explaining it at all. Turns out[0] that they are voting for the extension of the temporary regulation thats been effect since 2021 (Regulation (EU) 2021/1232). So this is about the "voluntary scanning of private communications" (which is still bad, but has been in effect for almost 5 years already).[0]: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sedcms/documents/PRIORITY_INF...
Pay08: Chat control is already illegal according to EU law, and has previously been ruled illegal by the ECHR. But documents are documents (even the Rome statute), and can be rewritten.
Findecanor: I don't follow EU politics that much, but I know that one of the strongest proponents for it has been from the Swedish Social Democratic party, which has dominated Swedish politics.So, in my view this is not really a "left" or "right" thing, but something that is pushed by people you could call "the establishment".
ab5tract: Can you clarify what you mean? The linked website makes it seem that the majority MEPs of the supporting countries are on board. Are all of the (listed as) supporting countries currently under conservative governments?
iso1631: There are two elements to the EUThe Council, which is headed by the government of each member state in equal measure - similar to the Senate in the USAnd Parliament, which are directly elected by the people, with each member state having representitives in proportion to their population, so Germany has far more than Ireland. This is similar to Congress.Now this site says Germany supports it, but then says that MEPS> 49 oppose, 47 in favor (45 confirmed, 2 presumed based on government stance)I would thus infer that the "most member states" refer to the national governments (that were elected by their population) position and not the direct MEP position.However a quick look at the json it's loading and I can't seeNow as the parliament has blocked it, a grouping, the "EPP" (Think Ronald Reagan type republicans) is trying to use their influence to bring it back to a vote.> "The Conservatives (EPP) are attempting to force a new vote on Thursday (26th), seeking to reverse Parliament's NO on indiscriminate scanning. This is a direct attack on democracy and blatant disregard for your right to privacy."
HelloUsername: Why's there '?foo=bar' in the URL?
noir_lord: It already violates Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter which is supposed to prevent stuff like this.The reality is that they'll just keep pushing it from different angles, they only have to get lucky once, we (or EU citizens, we left and have our own issues) need to be lucky every time - much like an adverserial relationship where you are on the defending side from a cyberattack...funny that really.
triska: Quoting from the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12... :"Article 7Respect for private and family lifeEveryone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications.Article 8Protection of personal data1. Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.2. Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by law. Everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified.3. Compliance with these rules shall be subject to control by an independent authority."
elzbardico: Please, could the bootlickers of the European Union stop downvoting every single criticism of it?Are you so obtuse to be unable to figure out that by being like annoying school marms you are just making people start to pay more attention to the populists?
freehorse: I don't think criticisms of chat-control-like legislation attempts are downvoted here?
dgxyz: The trick here is to make it impossible to do so.Don’t put your shit in the cloud and use proper E2E secure messaging.For me the entire idea of the cloud is dead due to exposure like this.
vrganj: EU is a synonym for Europe in colloquial conversation the same way USA is a synonym for America.
vrganj: To quote the banner on said website:> The Conservatives (EPP) are attempting to force a new vote on Thursday (26th), seeking to reverse Parliament's NO on indiscriminate scanning.The vote itself is being forced by the EPP. This article by an MEP has more info: https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/the-battle-over-chat-contro...
freehorse: This does not mean that only EPP supports the bill, though.
narmiouh: It clearly states here in 2 “consent of the person concerned OR some other legitimate basis laid down the law”, any random law will trump personal consent
petermcneeley: You know that those pieces of paper mean nothing.
rvz: Thank you for telling them. Governments do not care about anyone.
cubefox: It's client side scanning.
Pay08: This guy has gone on a small anti-EU tirade elsewhere in the thread.
doener: See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47522647
mnewme: Fun fact: the parties that want this are actually those who criticise the EU the most
Noaidi: You don’t care by writing new legislation, you care by forming boycotts against the corporations that are not fighting back against the scanning. The world is not controlled by democracy, it is controlled by money and the oligarchs.
freehorse: The last version of chat control was pushed by Denmark, which presided the european council until december, and with a social democratic prime minister (coalition government with social democrats the majority). The "conservatives push for chat control" is not really accurate, a bit part of social democrats are also supporting it.
vrganj: That is true, but this attempt is led by the Conservatives. Not more, not less.
Pay08: This is how political messaging has worked since I was born.
foweltschmerz: This is the same EU that blocks and hinders innovation in the name of privacy?
JodieBenitez: "for sure"
AnssiH: The majority of the MEPs are not onboard mandatory scanning, otherwise that would've been passed already.The site is conflating mandatory scanning with voluntary scanning (status quo). The upcoming vote is about continuing the voluntary scanning (which would otherwise expire).
Smar: So EU syill wants to harm children.
xeonmc: Epstein Union
rolandog: In theory, governments are made up of citizens. In practice, once the citizens are corrupted into corporate shills, they become politicians. They have traded their humanity for business class seats and dining at restaurants that cater to those whose entire personality is talking about their investment portfolio.
jiggawatts: Who is "they"?That's the key question!There's a small group of very powerful people that keep pushing this agenda.Who are those people?Find out.Publicize their names. Make their corruption visible and linked to their identity.In case anyone has an issue with this: Remember! This is what they want! For you! Not for them. Only the plebs.
kleiba: If you're ever unsure about whether a proposed EU regulation may be good or bad, just look at whether Hungary supports it: if so, it's bad; if not, it might be good. Egészségére!
nomel: There a practical reason for this? like more alignment with lobbyists, for whatever financial reasons?
Macha: Hungary is governed by a Russia aligned autocrat. This generally does not align with the priorities of the rest of the EU.
jiggawatts: Over the last two decades Hungary reversed course from a democracy joining the west to an authoritarian dictatorship in bed with the Russians.Hence, everything their government does is the opposite of what a typical European Union member would approve of.
Findecanor: Except for in one EU country wherein English is a native language, "America" is a not a country but a very large continent.
vrganj: Das musst du jetzt aber mal den Amerikanern erklären ;-)
Findecanor: Oder... sie könnten jemanden aus Süd- oder Mittelamerika fragen, was das Wort „Amerika“ für ihn bedeutet.
dgxyz: You can refuse to use software that does it.
hsuduebc2: I absolutely don't understand how anyone can support this in the context of rising authoritarianism. Even people in my country which are talking about this phenomena supprts it. I strongly suspect that they do absolutely know shit about why it's problenatic.I wonder if they would support that every of paper mail would be opened and checked. I strongly doubt that.
orleyhuxwell: I'm Polish and I was positivity shocked that we oppose it. I remember attending some protests against ACTA which as far as I remember was supposed to be something similar, back in my student days. It was -17°C and people still showed up. Apparently we have some culture of opposing censorship and invigilation by state. May come in handy if the democratic decline keeps progressing...
warkdarrior: Do you mean "surveillance" by the word "invigilation" here?
lpcvoid: Orban is an evil politician, and Fidez is an evil party.
mastermedo: What does this mean for a non-eu citizen communicating with an eu citizen? Is it as simple as using signal/matrix instead of whatsapp/messenger?
layer8: The EU isn’t a single mind. There are a multitude of factions trying to get through all kinds of things.
vaylian: People on HN but also criminals will know how circumvent this. But the average person will be completely lost in this surveillance apparatus. It's going to affect the wrong people.
seanthemon: Modern democracy
tosti: Wait until you find out it's actually already implemented and they're trying to legitimise it.
AnssiH: The proposal they are voting on is about continuing the current time-limited implementation (voluntary scanning, Regulation (EU) 2021/1232).This is not about mandatory scanning.
Zufriedenheit: If they force their spyware into Android/iOS you are running out of options.
hagbard_c: If my experience is anything to go by the answer is 'yes':https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47412060> The clearest example of lobbying (chat control) has repeatedly been struck down.They can try as often as they want and they only have to win once. We - as in those who don't want this Orwellian monster to be written into law - have to win all the time.That comment was quickly voted down. It is unclear whether this was the usual "don't like this person so I'll downvote all his last posts" or targeted at my statement on how these proposals keep on popping up no matter how often the people - in Greek that spells 'δημόσιο' or 'dèmosio', the root of 'democracy' - have made clear they don't want it.
layer8: One reason to downvote it is because laws having some stability is generally a good thing. It also doesn’t prevent laws being passed that strengthen the right to privacy.
einpoklum: Let's parse this a little.Article 7 codifies "respect for [one's] private life" and "respect for [one's] private communications". Well, "respect" is a vague notion. This does not clearly imply that the government is not allowed to read your communications, or otherwise spy on you, if it believes it has good reason. It will do so "respectfully", or supposedly minimize the intrusion etc.As for article 8: Here it is "protection of personal data" and "fair processing". It does not say "protection from government access"; and "processing" is when the government or some other party already has your data. In fact, as others point out, even this wording has an explicit legitimization of violation of privacy and 'protection' whenever there is a law which defines something as "legitimate basis" for invading your privacy.You would have liked to see wording like:* "Privacy in one's home, personal life, communications and digital interactions is a fundamental right."* "The EU, its members, its bodies, its officers and whoever acts on its behalf shall not invade individuals' privacy."and probably something about a non-absolute right to anonymity. Codified exceptions should be limited and not open-ended.
lostmsu: > voluntary scanningWhat is that? A setting in OS?
layer8: It’s a symptom of authoritarianism rising. It wouldn’t be rising if there wasn’t anyone who supports things like that.
nunobrito: Like others said: this is implemented on operating system level, locally.There isn't much escape other than using messengers which encrypt the data locally. Geogram radio is doing this.
dgxyz: I’d rather use an older or open source OS without it
lostmsu: That's one of the tricks. The other trick is to vote in universal right for encrypted communication once and for all.
dgxyz: That’s the best answer. But you’re up against paid up lobbyists.
blks: I feel we need something much more strongly worded to protect our mail, paper or electronic, messages and other communications from being read, not just “respect”.
layer8: This exists in a number of EU member states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrecy_of_correspondence
thewebguyd: The problem is, in all of those member states, they all have carve outs for "national security."Germany, for exmaple, has secrecy of correspondence that extends to electronic communications, but allows for "restrictions to protect the free democratic basic order" and outlines when intelligence services can bypass the right to privacy.Italy, France, and Polan also have similar carve outs.Having it as a right isn't enough. National security and "public safety" carve outs need to be eliminated. So long as those exist, we have no right to privacy.
layer8: Rights are never absolute, they always have to be weighed against each other. The weighing can and should be debated, but demanding an absolute is not reasonable.
RobotToaster: Exactly what happened when Ireland rejected the Lisbon treaty, they were told to vote again until they voted the "right" way.
paulddraper: Almost happened with Brexit referendum.
dgxyz: I’ve been eternally surprised at how non technical people work around problems. I mean I have a totally technology illiterate family member who worked out how to torrent films and watch them and install ublock and Firefox.
tjwebbnorfolk: does this violate GDPR?
gib444: Maybe...in a world where lawmakers didn't put huge exemptions into GDPR for governments and law enforcement etc. Which they did.
afh1: Where are all those "as an EU citizen" commenters? You are but a subject of an ultra-national government whose sole objective is ever increased control over your life and euros.
NexRebular: Gotta get back in time. The Symbian S60/S80 platform will rise again!
hkon: ofc, they only need to get it approved once. they will try until they succeed
adammarples: This isn't a conspiracy... "They" are the EPP, a democratically elected party acting fully in public with their names attached to everything.
layer8: It doesn’t remove the “right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.” The law cannot be random, it must ensure “fair processing” and be limited to “specific purposes”, and the European Court of Justice as well as the ECHR will decide what constitutes a “legitimate basis” in that context. Furthermore, “Everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her”, which ensures transparency of what is being collected.Last but not least, a number of EU countries enshrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrecy_of_correspondence in their constitution.
spwa4: Secrecy of correspondence only applies to sealed physical letters, so it has zero applicability to this law and provides zero protection against scanning of private messages.Also it isn't respected in most types of criminal trials. If a sealed physical letter is opened and proves fraud, for example ...
subscribed: Could be a wordplay due to the fact "invigilation" can be translated to and from the Polish word with a _very_ heavy and long connotations to the USSR state surveillance, oppression and abuse.Surveillance would be a more "modern" (even if more natural or seemingly correct word), without this sort of the implied baggage.
x775: I am the creator of Fight Chat Control.Thank you for sharing. It is unfortunately, once again, needed.The recent events have been rather dumbfounding. On March 11, the Parliament surprisingly voted to replace blanket mass surveillance with targeted monitoring of suspects following judicial involvement [0]. As Council refused to compromise, the trilogue negotiations were set to fail, thus allowing the Commission's current indiscriminate "Chat Control 1.0" to lapse [1]. This would have been the ideal outcome.In an unprecedented move, the EPP is attempting to force a repeat vote tomorrow to overturn the March 11 decision, seeking to overturn the otherwise principled decision and instead favouring indiscriminate mass-scanning [1, 2]. In an attempt to avoid this, the Greens earlier today tried to remove the vote from the agenda tomorrow, but this was voted down [3].As such, tomorrow, the Parliament will once again vote on Chat Control. And unlike March 11, multiple groups are split on the vote, including S&D and Renew. The EPP remains unified in its support for Chat Control. If you are a European citizen, I urge you to contact your MEPs by e-mail and, if you have time, by calling. We really are in the final stretch here and every action counts. I have just updated the website to reflect the votes today, allowing a more targeted approach.Happy to answer any questions.[0] https://mepwatch.eu/10/vote.html?v=188578[1] https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/the-battle-over-chat-contro...[2] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/OJQ-10-2026-03...[3] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PV-10-2026-03-...
dinoqqq: You're a hero
subscribed: Orban is a Putin asset.
