8 comments

  • GuestFAUniverse 8 hours ago
    Chat controls. Again? How can this even be legal? -- to try and try and try ... against all odds. Doesn't make any sense to discuss that on a bi-yearly basis.
    • dfawcus 6 hours ago
      Because of the nature of the treaties forming the EU, and the structures it generates.

      It is basically a regulatory union, constructed so as to transpose power to the center, then hold it there.

      It can't allow the people to have too much say, as that is "populism", which gets in the way of the bureaucracy doing its thing.

      The only way to end / prevent this proposal from being repeated until "success" is to pass another treaty entrenching that something like Chat Control is forbidden.

      That is an extremely low probability event, and gets lower as more member states join.

      • potato3732842 3 hours ago
        >is to pass another treaty entrenching that something like Chat Control is forbidden.

        That'll work about as well as "shall pass no law", "papers and effects" and "infringed".

        You gotta mean it. Everyone's gotta mean it. And by mean it I mean make peace with all the potential bad things that entails.

    • constantcrying 4 hours ago
      The EU is notoriously, and by design, unresponsive to democratic pressures.

      >to try and try and try ... against all odds. Doesn't make any sense to discuss that on a bi-yearly basis.

      This is quite naive. These people know what they are doing and it isn't too uncommon to consider certain packages of law multiple times.

  • johanvts 6 hours ago
    The text was watered down, and hopefully it will not clear parliament in any meaningful way. As a dane I wonder if our social democrats are so gong-ho for law this to compensate for the fact that the former king maker in the party was recently jailed on pedophelia charges. But I think they just have a power fetisch.
    • wkat4242 5 hours ago
      There's people saying that the 'watered down' version is kinda the same. I lack the legal knowledge to verify but as I understand it, it no longer mandates scanning content, but it does allow it 'voluntarily' and it does mandate that big providers do something against csam, which can only be done... by scanning content. So it's the same proposal just in a more roundabout way.

      Also it requires everyone to ID themselves in chat apps so that they can be determined to not be a minor which will kill anonymous chatting :(

      https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/eu-chat-control-proposal-st...

  • janpio 9 hours ago
    What does "adopt #ChatControl negotiating mandate" mean?
    • throwaway89201 5 hours ago
      If you're asking about "negotiating mandate" here: it's a step in the EU legislative process, which is initiated by the Commission by proposing legislation. The Council of the European Union (which consists of member state government representatives) discusses the proposal and adopts a "negotiating mandate" (or not), which is the allowed negotiation space the Council's presidency has to negotiate with Parliament about the proposal.

      If such a mandate is given, a trilogue between Commission, Council and EU Parliament usually starts.

    • superkuh 6 hours ago
      https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/eu-chat-control-proposal-st...

      Basically, the same as before re: invasive searches of your property except now surrounded by weasel wording so it seems voluntary but won't be. But the same mandatory dox'ing yourself for future corporate leaks.

  • nickslaughter02 9 hours ago
    "EU government ambassadors set to adopt #ChatControl negotiating mandate tomorrow without discussion, including "voluntary" mass scanning and anonymity-destroying age verification."
  • silexia 4 hours ago
    The EU is turning into a totalitarian bureaucratic nightmare.
    • supermatt 4 hours ago
      It appears that you are an American who has conveniently forgotten about FISA, EARN IT, CLOUD act, PATRIOT act, LAED, etc, etc.

      You realise this hasn’t passed, right? It’s a proposal.

      Seriously you should look to yourself and what you guys have actually passed into law before you start throwing stones at others.

      • TacticalCoder 2 hours ago
        [dead]
      • zb3 2 hours ago
        In the USA they have 1st amendment, in the EU we don't have it so these things are not just about aiding law enforcement in the traditional sense - this is for Chinese-style censorship.
    • zrn900 25 minutes ago
      Yes. It stopped being a big umbrella that brings together European peoples, and turned into a centralized control machine subverted by corporate lobbyists.
  • henriquenunez 4 hours ago
    Freedom is long gone in the EU :(
    • superxpro12 4 hours ago
      Is anywhere truly free?
      • potato3732842 3 hours ago
        Economic freedom, speech/religious/lifestyle freedom. Pick one.

        Used to be that you could get pretty decent amounts of both in pretty rich nations but not anymore.

      • incognito124 4 hours ago
        Switzerland?
        • supermatt 4 hours ago
          What about the proposal for amendments of VÜPF? user identification, mandatory metadata retention, removal of e2ee, etc for any service with over 5k users.
  • 64718283661 4 hours ago
    It feels like yesterday that it was turned down again. Clearly this is going to pass soon, unfortunately. Idiotic.
  • burnt-resistor 6 hours ago
    Fuck control-freak, big mother, panopticon bullshit.

    Privacy or bust.