Remix.run Logo
End of "Chat Control": EU Parliament Stops Mass Surveillance in Voting Thriller(patrick-breyer.de)
282 points by amarcheschi 4 hours ago | 34 comments
nickslaughter02 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> 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.

brightball 30 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

The timing of having Meta dropping encrypted chats on Instagram is...interesting.

zoobab 14 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

"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.

_fat_santa 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It seems like an almost never ending hamster wheel of chat control being introduced, voted down, then introduced again in the next session.

ryandrake an hour ago | parent | next [-]

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.

__loam 15 minutes ago | parent [-]

Need to amend constitutional rights to privacy then these laws can be struck down in courts.

cess11 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

beej71 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Political engineering angle: "These people will not rest until they are able to read your child's messages."

amarcheschi 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I would say "end of chat control, for now"

vintermann 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Those guys only ever have a "maybe later" button.

rsynnott 4 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

account42 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

wongarsu 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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

ApolloFortyNine 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

rsynnott 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean, they're _not_ the first defence. This is a story about the parliament rejecting a bad law.

cucumber3732842 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

rsynnott 16 minutes ago | parent [-]

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).

cucumber3732842 a few seconds ago | parent [-]

> (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.

leosanchez 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

For today or for this month.

lo_zamoyski 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The value of persistence!

_the_inflator an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

em-bee an hour ago | parent [-]

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.

fcanesin an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

To get "End of Chat Control" EU should actually pass laws prohibiting it, this whack a mole will eventually lose.

astrashe2 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Here's a mirror link: http://archive.today/CJlNk

rvz an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Until next time.

fsflover an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Related discussion : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529646

ramon156 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

See you next year!

glenstein 2 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

freehorse 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

skrebbel 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

nickslaughter02 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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.

iknowstuff 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Greens based as always

marginalia_nu 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

geon 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes. I would place it on the authority–liberty axis.

While your examples were on the economic left, they were clearly authoritarian.