Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fight Chat Control

fightchatcontrol.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 528 posts

Re: Fight Chat Control

#91

Post by bqmjjx0kac »

rdm_blackhole wrote: post #72
lordnacho wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't make this shit up. The Danish government (currently holding the rotating chair) also raised the pension age for everyone. Other than themselves. But also, how does this get implemented? What's stopping me from using, say, Signal, which being OSS would likely have a single line I could comment out and compile for myself? How would I get busted for that? Or I could get clever and have AI generate some random chat…

Even if you compile your own version of Signal, will your friends do it too? Will your grandma/grandpa do it as well? It only takes one person in the chain to be compromised by using the "real" app and then all your efforts would be defeated because now your messages have been exposed by this other person unknowingly.

Do phones have trusted execution environments? I suppose you could require the recipient provide attestation that it's running the expected binary. Of course, this is pointless if the hardware manufacturer shares their root keys with the government.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#92

Post by latexr »

We do need to take action, but be mindful the data as presented isn’t yet entirely accurate. Note the text on the website:

> Notice: The positions shown here are based on leaked documents from a July 11th, 2025 meeting of the EU Council's Law Enforcement Working Party (…) The icons next to each name show whether we are displaying their confirmed personal stance or their country's official Council position. This information is updated regularly as new responses come in.

In other words, take care to not harass an MEP whose position is unconfirmed. Be respectful in your opposition of the law but don’t be accusatory if you’re not certain of their stance.

Looking around the website, I can only find four MEPs whose stance was confirmed, all in Denmark. Even for the undecided and opposing countries, every listed stance is based on the stance of the country, not each individual. They should really make this clearer; displaying misinformation could really hurt the cause.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#93

Post by rdm_blackhole »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #80
rdm_blackhole wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you compile your own version of Signal, will your friends do it too? Will your grandma/grandpa do it as well? It only takes one person in the chain to be compromised by using the "real" app and then all your efforts would be defeated because now your messages have been exposed by this other person unknowingly.

> the "real" app The backdoored app will hopefully not be called Signal, since Signal themselves would never do this. I hope they own a trademark on it and could enforce it against anyone who would try to upload a backdoored version under their name.

I used Signal as an example.

People will use what is most convenient. If tomorrow Signal leaves the EU, WhatsApp will happily take its place and will happily enforce the scanning and everyone will just have to fall in line.

What good is it if you are the only one of your family who has the only "uncompromised" app on your phone? How will you talk to them? Any message you send will be scanned on the other end.

That also applies if you have friends overseas. Your friend from Japan/US will be compromised as well.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#94

Post by bqmjjx0kac »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #80
rdm_blackhole wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you compile your own version of Signal, will your friends do it too? Will your grandma/grandpa do it as well? It only takes one person in the chain to be compromised by using the "real" app and then all your efforts would be defeated because now your messages have been exposed by this other person unknowingly.

> the "real" app The backdoored app will hopefully not be called Signal, since Signal themselves would never do this. I hope they own a trademark on it and could enforce it against anyone who would try to upload a backdoored version under their name.

Well... "TM Signal" was just in the news. It's close enough I bet it could fool some percentage of otherwise security-conscious users. https://www.wired.com/story/tm-signal-telemessage-plaintext-...

Re: Fight Chat Control

#95

Post by Stevvo »

pessimizer wrote: post #37
zubspace wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a shitty system, if one side just needs to succeed one time while the other side needs to succeed over and over again. What really should be done is to disallow proposals, which are kinda the same. Once a mass surveillance proposal like this is defeated, it shouldn't be allowed to be constantly rebranded and reintroduced. We need a firewall in our legislative process that automatically rejects any future attempt…

> What really should be done is to disallow proposals, which are kinda the same. This very much exists in a lot of parliamentary rules authorities, but it's usually limited to once per "session." They just need to make rules that span sessions that raise the bar for introducing substantially similar legislation. It can easily be argued that passing something that failed to pass before, multiple times, should require…

This rule can really hurt. e.g. Theresa May tried passing a deal to keep the UK in the Customs Union. The speaker wouldn't allow it because the same deal had previously been rejected, even though she now had the support for it in the house.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#96

Post by echelon »

jaharios wrote: post #85
101008 wrote: post #38

I was very pissed at this, and when I read this part I couldn't continue, it boiled my blood. > *EU politicians exempt themselves from this surveillance under "professional secrecy" rules. They get privacy. You and your family do not. Demand fairness.

A lot of actual pedophiles will be exposed if it was used on politicians, we don't want that.

While we're talking about corrupt politicians, why is this all happening all at once?

America, Great Britain, and the EU are all creating tracking, monitoring, and censorship regulations. All at the same time.

We're turning the internet into the 1984 inevitability it was predicted to become.

We need a Bill of Rights against this. But the public is too lay to push for this. Bolstering or eroding privacy rights will never happen in the direction we want, only the one we don't. It's so frustrating.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#97

Post by mantas »

charcircuit wrote: post #16
mantas wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As Juncker, ex president of European Commision said, you keep trying till it passes at some point. Good luck revoking it later…

You can keep trying to revoke it until it passes too.

Yeah, right. I wonder if revokers would have same privacy as those who try to pass it…

Re: Fight Chat Control

#98

Post by r33b33 »

echelon wrote: post #96
jaharios wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of actual pedophiles will be exposed if it was used on politicians, we don't want that.

While we're talking about corrupt politicians, why is this all happening all at once? America, Great Britain, and the EU are all creating tracking, monitoring, and censorship regulations. All at the same time. We're turning the internet into the 1984 inevitability it was predicted to become. We need a Bill of Rights against this. But the public is too lay to push for this. Bolstering or eroding privacy rights will ne…

They are gearing for WW3 and population control.

This is obvious.

Get out of EU.

Now.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#99

Post by mantas »

croes wrote: post #14
uncircle wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, the marvels of modern democracy. No serious way to enact change, politicians still do whatever the hell they want, and we still believe that voting for someone else will change things. It’ll soon be like the UK, that if you campaign against this kinda stuff, the party in power publicly calls you a paedophile. Because only people with something to hide want privacy. Privacy is a losing proposition. Governments hav…

People don’t want change. If really someone gets the power who wants to change things they fight them too. People want that everything stays the same. Problem is climate change and other problems make change inevitable.

People don’t want change, yet politicians are pushing sleazy changes left and right.

Change like straws ban and attached caps? Such change, wow.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#100

Post by x775 »

lucideer wrote: post #60

A little context here since this website is highly misleading: - EU Council holds more power in Europe than EU Parliament - EU Council is pushing this regulation - this website misrepresents the positions of most members of EU Parliament - it shows "Supports" despite most of them being "Unknown" Overall, while people should be encouraged to contact their MEPs, I suspect many are already very informed on this & strong…

Ultimately, both the EU Council and the European Parliament must agree on legislation for it to pass. The Parliament acts as a co-legislator with equal legislative power in this process, effectively representing the citizens while the Council represents the member states governments. Both have to agree. In the case of Chat Control, Denmark, as the current EU Council Presidency, revived the proposal (after it previously failed to reach agreement during both the Belgian and Polish Presidency). In order for this to pass at the Council level, at least 15/27 member states must support it. If this were to happen, it would then reach the European Parliament and would have to be approved there as well. However, as support at the Council level seems greater than in previous renditions (supported further by Denmark's insistence on an expedited vote scheduled for October 14), it seems prudent to target beyond merely the Council-level.
Post reply on HN