41–49 of 49 posts
This is one of the main reasons UK left EU. National politicians use the EU to bypass national democracy and then blame the EU publicly to deflect of their true involvement. Uk was a leading EU country via being one of the largest financial contributors, and UK was behind many of the decisions they later blamed on 'EU Bureaucrats'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd say this is more about being able to identify and crush any nascent political movements that threaten the status quo in their infancy, but no reason not to let the implementers wet their beak to get buy in.
This is bullshit. No "nascent political movement" spread with user-to-user end-to-end encrypted messages. People spread their shitty opinions as loudly as they can on public platforms. Those already scanned.
https://cybernews.com/tech/microsoft-dutch-data/
This is precisely the type of surveillance that can be achieved by breaking encryption or by placing local control agents on devices.
A chat control mandate massively empowers big tech and the US government hosting those corporations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is anti-democratic about trying to assemble a coalition to change lawmakers' minds and get them to vote differently? It is rather core to democracies that decisions aren't set in stone and if you disagree with the majority you can always try to renegotiate. While most greens and progressives may be against this particular law, I rather doubt that if they introduced a progressive green law for a vote and failed t…
I get your point, but I think there are several issues: - Chat Control gets pushed by lobbyists, who have far more/better access to politicians than citizens. It is true that there are also some non-profits lobbying in this case, but the surveillance economy companies that are pushing this behind the scene have very deep pockets and very deep access. - Chat Control gets pushed over and over again by the EC, which is…
Depending on the target audience, public actors can even avoid disclosing their actions in existing transparency registries. Technically it is very elegant.
To clarify for fellow readers, since this is a messy situation: This is about a new temporary measure to legally allow instant-messaging providers to scan their users' messages. Providers lost that legal right when the previous interim act (the Interim Derogation of the ePrivacy Directive, sometimes called "Chat Control 1.0") expired on 4 April 2026. Several large providers have said they'll keep scanning regardless.…
Given the insistance to pass this and the will of EU enforcement agencies to be able to monitor all communications in a Stasi-like manner, there is a large chance that the EC is applying the "salami technique" here. First, install a monitoring system "for the kids", then you can expand for surveillance, and repression of incorrect political thought. Just like what China and Russia are doing, which has started the sam…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Non-democracies speedrun towards surveillance even faster. Democracy is the best we have and this action is anti-democratic. The other part of the story is that as long as Europe continues to vote radical rights + conservatives, we are going to get more and more of this. Most greens and progressives fight this tooth and nail.
>The other part of the story is that as long as Europe continues to vote radical rights + conservatives, Which itself happened due to a democratic deficit regarding migration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The other part of the story is that as long as Europe continues to vote radical rights + conservatives, Which itself happened due to a democratic deficit regarding migration.
The majority is for migration, the problem is far right propaganda