Discussion

JavaScript Required

schubidubiduba: Nice to see that democracy can work

nickslaughter02: Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529609> 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.

spwa4: ... again?

gmuslera: 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.

the_mitsuhiko: This will come back because too many EU countries want it.

Freak_NL: Did that vote pass with a difference of one single vote? Tight squeeze there.

wewewedxfgdf: Just rename is it to something something save the children something something. Instant approval no matter what is in the bill.

0xy: Bastion of democracy Germany will be pushing hard given they let slip they want mandatory IDs on social media. They want full control.

sailfast: [delayed]

nickslaughter02: > Nice to see that democracy can workDid 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...

Sharlin: EPP is an absolutely disgusting mass of putrefying maggots and I'm revolted that many large so-called "moderate, centre-right, liberal-conservative" parties are happily part of it or indeed actively pushing extremely anti-citizen, anti-human agendas with the help of the far right.

mantas: Or it will get a new name. Just like „Chat Control“ is far from the first name for this BS.

greenavocado: That margin is really small

rsynnott: Note that European parliament parties aren't particularly cohesive; some EPP members voted against it.

nickslaughter02: > some EPP members voted against it20 out of 184

varispeed: 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.

olex: Do I understand the voting / results wrong? Looking at this: https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270The 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).

embedding-shape: 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.

nickslaughter02: Sweep it under ProtectEU.> The European Commission wants a backdoor for end-to-end encryptions for law enforcementhttps://www.techradar.com/pro/security/the-european-commissi...

whywhywhywhy: 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.

rsynnott: The screenshot is actually a vote on an amendment. Here's the final vote: https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270Less tight.

pqtyw: 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?

elephanlemon: 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 EUIt had already passed and started?

isodev: 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...

Noumenon72: Site guidelines: "Please don't fulminate."

Hamuko: It's not named "Chat Control". It's just what it's commonly known by. It's basically the same as "Obamacare".

latexr: Exactly. Its real name is “Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse”.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chat_Control

pqtyw: But the vote failed only because the EPP voted against it? Or did they mix up the buttons or something? https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270

nickslaughter02: EPP wanted indiscriminate scanning instead, not targeted one.

Ms-J: 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.

rsynnott: 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.

canticleforllm: How long until they stage an incident to occur so they can pass CC 1.1? 6 months? 2 years?

latexr: It does matter. Even if it eventually passes, the later and more gutted it is, the better.Saying that it doesn’t matter is just defeatist (and unfortunately always parroted on HN) and plainly wrong. Defeatists have been proven wrong time and again.

whywhywhywhy: Perhaps a system where that can happen is broken

freehorse: The linked tweet is a bit misleading. There were 2 votes, one for amending the existing proposal re: "unknown messages", and the other for the whole proposal itself. The screenshot in the tweet is about the amendment, which was less important than the fact than then the whole proposal was rejected.I think this article [0] discussed here [1] is much more informative, and I suggest merging the current comment thread there [1].I am not sure of the logic of the amendment, as parties voted differently between proposals (eg left parties voted for the amendment and against the whole, and EPP voted against both, S&D voted in favour of both). In any case, one vote difference for the amendment is not really the point, the actual vote for the whole is what mattered, and this gained a more clear majority against chat control [2].Not sure if this is higher because it is more "clickbait" (chat control 1.0) or what, but it is a single tweet with a screenshot and no context, imho HN can do better than this.[0] https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/end-of-chat-control-eu-parl...[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529609[2] https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270

nickslaughter02: > EPP voted against bothEPP wanted indiscriminate scanning instead, not targeted one (the goal of the amendments).

freehorse: So they voted against the total because it did not include indiscriminate scanning? I am not saying this is not the case, but it does not make sense to me. If indiscriminate scanning does not pass, why not vote for the total even without it, and amend it after it passes and gets normalised at a later point?

miohtama: 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- Facebook- Fundamental Rights Agency- Improving the digital environment for children (regrouping several child protection NGOs across the EU and beyond, including Missing Children Europe, Child Focus)- INHOPE – the International Association of Internet Hotlines- International Justice Mission Deutschland e.V./ We Protect- Internet Watch Foundation- Internet Society- Match Group- Microsoft- Thorn (Ashton Kutcher)- UNICEF- UN Special Rapporteur on the right to privacyhttps://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2020-0258_...

wongarsu: 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

AJRF: See you again next week!

nickslaughter02: Yes, voluntary Chat Control 1.0 has been running since 2021.

SiempreViernes: 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).

gpderetta: That's happens often in parliamentary proceedings: when the other party succeeds in unrecognizably amending the law, the party proposing it will vote against.Specifically for the European Parliament, this is also why, while it is true it doesn't have the power of legislative initiative, given the ability to amend at will any "law", in practice it doesn't make much of a difference.

philipwhiuk: Which is sometimes why amendments are added, as wrecking motions.