EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track • Hacker News Board

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#131

Post by pessimizer » Sun, Jul 05, 2026, 6:29 PM UTC

mdp2021 wrote: post #26

stavros wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We are in favour of this law, so long as it is not used for its intended purpose."

You should elaborate. And explain what you understood as "its intended purpose". My understanding of the vote last Friday was about protracting the 2021 temporary compromise (scan voluntarily until we have a full law), which was suspended at the beginning of April. It is not clear how they proceeded that way. It seems some vertices imposed that they would not accept a legal vacuum there. So, it's not a "law". What ra…

I regret to inform you that a temporary exception to a law is also a law.

edit:

> It seems some vertices imposed that they would not accept a legal vacuum there.

I find this sentence unintelligible. Can you come up with another wording? And who are these "vertices" who have been given approval rights over EU legislation?

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#132

Post by rvnx » Sun, Jul 05, 2026, 6:30 PM UTC

logifail wrote: post #130

flumpcakes wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it currently illegal? If I have a service that let's users communicate, why is it illegal to look through those communications? (especially after they've signed my 400 page EULA). It would make moderation impossible otherwise. Or are we saying this is being used for something specific that happens to be illegal?

> It would make moderation impossible otherwise. Why would you need to moderate private messages between users?

Protect the kids bla bla bla...

Always the same political excuse

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#133

Post by sunaookami » Sun, Jul 05, 2026, 6:33 PM UTC

vrganj wrote: post #74

surgical_fire wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those narratives pop up from users that have a clear anti-EU bias (and I suspect they might not even be from the EU considering how ignorant they seem to be about how it works, its function ans structure, etc.

Call it what it is: Propaganda designed to stir anti-EU sentiment from groups that would benefit from being able to divide and conquer Europe.

You see an article about how the EU tries to force a law after it got struck down by forcing it through with a legal trick and all you can think of is how any comment that critizes this is propaganda? Get a grip

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#134

Post by briandear » Sun, Jul 05, 2026, 6:35 PM UTC

mattrighetti wrote: post #94

vrganj wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is the US president (Electoral College), the UK PM (Parliament) etc etc, yet you never hear complaints here from the same types. Their opposition is ideological, democracy is just an excuse because their true views would be too unsavory to say out loud.

The criticism is about accountability, not whether the system is democratic. The UK pm and the POTUS are both ultimately accountable through elections. In the UK, a general election can change the government. In the US, people vote specifically for presidential electors, even if it’s through the Electoral College. The EU commission is different. People don’t vote for commissioners or the president, and they can’t vot…

100%. This is why many of us have a problem with the EU. And world governments in general — the more power they have and the further away from the elections that keep them accountable, the more tyrannical they become.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#135

Post by Ray20 » Sun, Jul 05, 2026, 6:37 PM UTC

sph wrote: post #96

Lio wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah and Peter Hummelgaard is about to touch you on the penis. > "We must break with the totally erroneous perception that it is everyone's civil liberty to communicate on encrypted messaging services," What an arsehole. https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/danish-justice...

What is it with Danish Social Democrats and wanting to enact mass surveillance at any cost?

Isn't this natural for any "Social" ideologies? They imply a system of centralized redistribution, which implies a powerful repressive apparatus and an omnipresent surveillance system.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#136

Post by briandear » Sun, Jul 05, 2026, 6:38 PM UTC

Lio wrote: post #54

petcat wrote: post #7

Am I crazy or is this website not allowing me to opt out of cookie tracking unless I sign up for a subscription? I know the EU cookie banners have basically ruined the internet, but this seems like a whole 'nother level of obnoxious.

It's not EU cookie banners that have ruined the internet, it's malicious compliance and dark pattens on behalf of those that want to track you.

No. The cookie banners have ruined the internet. The banners haven’t fixed anything. Business as usual, just click here.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#137

Post by briandear » Sun, Jul 05, 2026, 6:39 PM UTC

jwr wrote: post #57

petcat wrote: post #7

Am I crazy or is this website not allowing me to opt out of cookie tracking unless I sign up for a subscription? I know the EU cookie banners have basically ruined the internet, but this seems like a whole 'nother level of obnoxious.

As a reminder "EU cookie banners" are not required if you use cookies for site functionality. They are only required if your site uses these to track users. This needs repeating, it's a common misconception (deliberately spread by many, too) that the EU requires cookie banners for all cookies.

Yet every website still has them.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#138

Post by briandear » Sun, Jul 05, 2026, 6:40 PM UTC

wronex wrote: post #14

stavros wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, yeah, that seems... illegal, no?

Im pretty sure it is illegal. In my understanding, it must be equally easy to reject and accept. And the website MUST continue working under either choice. Which is not the case here. I think the lawmakers should have made all forms of tracking illegal instead. That would make law writing and following easier. And closer to the spirit of what they are trying to accomplish and what everyone wants (except you Silicon V…

I hate the tracking too. But how to websites monetize free content otherwise? Advertising doesn’t work if you can’t price it. Without tracking, everything becomes a paywall.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#139

Post by pessimizer » Sun, Jul 05, 2026, 6:51 PM UTC

stavros wrote: post #112

bitcurious wrote: post #108

Hn is a goofy place. It feels like on odd days we see posts like this, about the EU creating this legal framework for the destruction of privacy. On even days we see posts about quitting American saas in favor of Europeans on the basis of privacy. Somehow the dots never connect.

Doesn't the mere fact that the EU is trying to pass laws to erode privacy indicate that there is privacy to erode? The US doesn't need to pass such laws because there are no protections.

> The US doesn't need to pass such laws because there are no protections.

The US desperately needs fundamental definitions and protections in regard to privacy, but the fact that it is extremely common for European countries to prosecute illegal speech and associations is a big difference. Americans are trying to defend themselves against the secondary effects of surveillance. Europeans can just jail you for saying magic words, or associating with organizations that have been proscribed.

Also, as of a day or two ago, Europeans can be prosecuted for sharing any RT (Russia Today) content, even in private, regardless of content. These are things that the Bill of Rights makes unthinkable in the US. We can bring assault rifles to anti-government protests; if they're seized we can sue to get them back, and to be compensated for being bothered.

The constitutional documents of European countries and supranational institutions might have been largely cribbed from the US's set, but anything like the Bill of Rights in them is virtually never written as an absolute right. It's stuff like Citizens are guaranteed freedom of expression except in cases where it is necessary to prevent expression to maintain safety or the public order.

Re: EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

#140

Post by vintermann » Sun, Jul 05, 2026, 6:52 PM UTC

flumpcakes wrote: post #82

neobrain wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this had been temporarily permitted until recently, and AFAIK they continue doing so illegally at the moment.

Why is it currently illegal? If I have a service that let's users communicate, why is it illegal to look through those communications? (especially after they've signed my 400 page EULA). It would make moderation impossible otherwise. Or are we saying this is being used for something specific that happens to be illegal?

Moderation is when others remove publicly posted content because you don't want to see it. (Censorship is when others remove publicly posted content because they don't want you to see it.) You don't need moderation for your private communication.