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

EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

patrick-breyer.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 947 posts

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#171

Post by Ylpertnodi »

bradley13 wrote: post #128

Stupid parliamentary trick: Hold the vote on the day before the summer break - ensuring that many people have already returned to their home countries. Then use a sort of "reverse" parliamentary trick: the default is that this legislation is accepted. They needed an absolute majority - not of voting members, but of all members - to reject it. Result: 314 against, 276 in favor, 17 abstentions, 113 absent The EU is wel…

>ensuring that many people have already returned to their home countries...

Aren't they fucking paid to be there 'on the last day'?

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#173

Post by u8080 »

ben_w wrote: post #30

(Based on https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/07/07/eu-to-extend-t... and https://www.euractiv.com/news/how-the-epp-pushed-the-chat-sc... as well as the stuff in the link). Here's a quote from the article itself, which works for both pro and con arguments: "What is still NOT being scanned: End-to-end encrypted chats, such as those on WhatsApp, have always been exempt from these scans. Additionally, European provi…

>CSAM detection systems

Blackboxes which scan your messages and photos for anything 3rd party want with undisclosed criteria.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#174

Post by Micrococonut »

Fredkin wrote: post #147

Maybe a dumb question, but what's to stop people from communicating e2e encrypted over totally insecure channels using steganography techniques? You don't need a special app to do this, or maybe you just need a companion app that you type your message into and it gives you the thing you just paste into whatever messaging app / social media you use. The steganography makes it hard for the operator to determine that yo…

Well when it comes to ending encrypted traffic, I would assume if they can’t read your traffic you will be in violation and the police will show up at your door to kindly imprison you for a few years

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#175

Post by jltsiren »

logifail wrote: post #155
jltsiren wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's how multi-party parliamentarism usually works. A minority is not allowed to choose the leader just because they are a slightly larger minority than the others. Because no party has an outright majority, there are weeks of negotiations after the elections, as the parties try to find a compromise acceptable to a majority. Once a deal has been reached, the parliament votes to confirm it. If the vote fails, the pa…

All the European Council's negotiations were private. No public hearings, no public votes, not even any public parliamentary debates(!) about different candidates for the Commission. This is indeed "the EU way", trying to find compromise via party-family bargaining ... in private. > All lead candidates had been tried before her, but all of them failed to obtain majority support in the negotiations. The Parliament did…

All real negotiations are private. When politicians debate or negotiate in public, they inevitably start talking past each other to the general public.

Voting rituals would be a waste of time. The confirmation vote is not just about the President of the Commission but the entire package, including other major positions in the Commission and major policy directions. If no party has a majority, no candidate can hope to get majority support before the whole package has been agreed on.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#176

Post by spwa4 »

Thraway198 wrote: post #163
inferniac wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>for no apparent reason, lately. for some godforsaken reason left-lib parties in europe think accepting infinity migrants forever is the most important thing to do this is becoming more and more unpopular with the voters, leading to right wing parties surging across europe (Denmark, which has an immigration restrictionist left wing government doesnt seem to have an issue here, true mystery) obviously the solution her…

In Canada, there's been a lot of talk about how immigration, "broke the Canadian consensus," around immigration as a good thing. The problem is, there never was a consensus around immigration. The Liberals own stats prove that. What there was was a consensus around multiculturalism and tolerance. Immigration itself, was always split evenly among three camps in Canada: those who want more, those who want less, and tho…

The promise (for the non-insane majority) was that immigration was going to save our economic bacon. That's the orthodox economist viewpoint after all.

Well, it didn't.

The minimum anyone would have to accept is that the economy went to shit while mass immigration was happening ... (in both EU and Canada). So I guess you don't have to accept causation, but they were happening simultaneously, so this reaction by the population is justified in that sense.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#177

Post by spwa4 »

jalapenoj wrote: post #157
wolvoleo wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> for some godforsaken reason left-lib parties in europe think accepting infinity migrants forever is the most important thing to do This is completely BS. Nobody wants to let in unlimited migrants. This is not a goal of anyone, including the left-most left. In fact on the left we are very aware that our welfare systems can't support unlimited people. The left wing parties just wish to honour existing international t…

[flagged]

For the insane part of the left, yes. For the majority, let's be honest: no. And for the centrist voters without whom neither the left nor the right can do anything: absolutely not. Immigration was going to solve our economic troubles. Immigrants would bring welfare. That was the idea.

Well, that didn't happen. As to whether that's to blame on immigration ... I would argue it's to blame on the rate and the source of immigration. At a slow rate, selective immigration brings welfare, certainly. At this rate? Of course not. Infinite, mostly fake, refugees? No they don't bring welfare. Of course not.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#178

Post by [deleted] »

xaitv wrote: post #77
teekert wrote: post #38

This is a nice piece of democracy right here: "a measure it had rejected twice in March. Although a majority of voting Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) actually opposed the regulation (314 against, 276 in favor, 17 abstentions), the motion to reject it failed to secure the required absolute majority of 361 votes. As a result, mass scanning is now permitted again until 2028." "Oh no we can't get a majority to…

What I don't understand, based on this: https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/195775 the votes are the other way around, with the majority being for. I'm guessing that site has it reversed then or I don't fully understand the proposal? Looking at which politicians from my country voted "no" on this site it seems to be mostly the ones that I'd expect to vote "yes", so that would support this site just having the options revers…

[deleted]

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#180

Post by Thraway198 »

spwa4 wrote: post #176
Thraway198 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Canada, there's been a lot of talk about how immigration, "broke the Canadian consensus," around immigration as a good thing. The problem is, there never was a consensus around immigration. The Liberals own stats prove that. What there was was a consensus around multiculturalism and tolerance. Immigration itself, was always split evenly among three camps in Canada: those who want more, those who want less, and tho…

The promise (for the non-insane majority) was that immigration was going to save our economic bacon. That's the orthodox economist viewpoint after all. Well, it didn't. The minimum anyone would have to accept is that the economy went to shit while mass immigration was happening ... (in both EU and Canada). So I guess you don't have to accept causation, but they were happening simultaneously, so this reaction by the p…

I agree that it's justified. SOME immigration is needed in order to save "duh economy," but what we got instead was economic warfare against workers.
Post reply on HN