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

321–330 of 947 posts

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#321

Post by zelphirkalt »

mrtksn wrote: post #33
lrae wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Chat Control 2.0 was the big one in those regards. (Also, LOL @ Skype mention.)

Then I'm not very moved about this. I always assumed that anything unencrypted is scanned one way or another. What I care is not having a backdoor for E2E, i.e. like client-side scanning telling me what I am allowed to talk about like with the LLMs. CSAM excuse is a great excuse to turn every conversation to what we have with AI today.

If reading messages that are not for ones eyes is OK, then it is a much smaller step to the next level, which is to also being able to read encrypted messages. Slowly boiling the frog.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#322

Post by gib444 »

fschuett wrote: post #90
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…

Democracy is when you just try and try again and again until it passes with 51/49. Then its democratic and legitimized and only evil terrorists would oppose those laws we have all democratically agreed upon. Also, see the case of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%BCseyin_Do%C4%9Fru - if you aren't liked by the EU courts, they just accuse you of "collusion with Russia" and ban your bank account via "sanction policies…

> Also, see the case of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%BCseyin_Do%C4%9Fru - if you aren't liked by the EU courts, ...

This was done by the Council of Europe (an organisation made up of a mix of member state foreign ministers and member state parliament members)

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:...

No court was involved as far as I can tell...

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#323

Post by bluescrn »

graemep wrote: post #309
wolvoleo wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, don't forget some of these wars are caused by us. The Western countries invaded Iraq under false pretenses so Dubya could make his Halliburton buddies happy. As a result and pure neglect to form a legit democratic government after the war a power vacuum ensued which caused the rise of ISIS which contributed to the war in Syria. Which directly caused the mass migration on foot from Syria. In this way we do have…

> The Western countries invaded Iraq under false pretenses True, but I would say the current refugees are not those who most need refuge. Religious minorities who are the most threatened by ISIS are under-represented. > it is already possible to quickly reject asylum-seekers from known-safe countries. It does not happen though. it happens in the end, but the system in ridiculously slow and inefficient. > And the pres…

Surely those who need refuge from the worst Islamic regimes are the women, not the men?

As for the housing market, yes, it'd still be in a bad state with zero migration. But at the moment, it seems that we can't build enough to keep up with the migration alone. And when we do manage to build loads of homes, we completely neglect most of the infrastructure needed to support them.

We haven't built a reservoir since the 90s. Transport is a real problem, with the roads overloaded and in bad condition while rail projects seem impossibly slow and costly (HS2 is probably the last one the UK will ever attempt?). And then there's the NHS, policing+prisons, education system, and so on.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#324

Post by lyu07282 »

sunshine-o wrote: post #103
budududuroiu wrote: post #6

Roberta Metsola's actions this week jeopardise the legitimacy of the EU project as a whole. It's clear that member countries use the EU as a blame-laundering mechanism to pass domestically unpopular laws, but the forcing of this vote under the urgency procedure that requires absolute majority to reject, on the last EP session before summer break is so blatant that it might awaken people that might've overlooked the s…

What should worry everybody is the big picture (trying to abstract from politics, ideologies and specific situation). In recent years we had: - Europe is now at war with Russia (neighbor) - Its relationship with the US is rapidly deteriorating (main partner, de facto protector) - Its relationship with China is also rapidly deteriorating - It is getting very antagonistic with it own citizen and some individual member…

Isn't it interesting that if you remove the US from that list, it all aligns with US foreign policy? How fortuitous that EU interests just happen to coincide so well with our American friends.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#325

Post by Y-bar »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #216
Y-bar wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Multiple things can be true at the same time. There can exist strong consumer protections against misuse of their personal data by various entities. And there can simultaneously also exist governmental overreach against citizens private data. The world is complex, few things are truly binary.

There will surely be some people who applaud your post for pointing this out. But the vast majority of people don't see "government spies on me" vs "private industry spies on me" as a meaningful distinction and there are MANY MANY recent examples of this: the discourse around Flock, the discourse around ICE using personal information to trace dissenters, the discourse around DOGE and Palantir. But I suppose the OP sa…

I see a significant distinction between these two things. And I see chat control as a significant intrusion in my personal life.

Laws and democracy is a constant fight, no democracy was complete and perfect the day it was announced.

We lost a battle now. And unlike people like you who only resort to insults I am not willing to give up just because of this setback. I will continue to fight for these rights.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#327

Post by villish »

simplyluke wrote: post #294
globular-toast wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly doesn't seem to make much difference, though. If anything the UK is less authoritarian than the US now.

How many people are arrested for social media posts and other speech in each country?

A guy was arrested for a joke he posted on social media about Charlie Kirk. He spent some time in jail but ended up winning a lawsuit. So the answer isn't exactly 0 in the US

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#328

Post by broadsidepicnic »

Ruphin wrote: post #261
budududuroiu wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Internet Watch Foundation, the group, funded almost entirely by big tech, who pushed for this vote to be held under emergency procedure, is already at work lobbying for the end of E2EE [1]. In a couple years time, Chat Control 2.0 will come about, and the same tyrants will use the EU admission [2] that there is no evidence that suspicionless scanning of private communications has led to an increase in criminal co…

Why would big tech be in favor of having to scan message content? It puts more regulatory requirements in place on their activities. Would they not be in favor of _less_ regulation so they can provide services to their users with fewer legal considerations? If big tech _wanted_ to they could already backdoor their encryption and scan the message content, they don't need regulation to do that. The only thing that chan…

Why? To know more to train AI and sell your info to third parties. To spearhead ads to you.

Why an earth would a big tech company say no to gather more info on its users? Show me the first one

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#330

Post by redsocksfan45 »

wolvoleo wrote: post #274
u8080 wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, this happens when you sacrifice public dialog for short-term gains calling everyone who does not agree with your points "far-right", "nazi", "russian asset". There will be literal fascists and people will support them just because they promise(probably bait-and-switch, but does not matter) to address public problems instead of gaslighting that problems are non-existent.

We call them that because it's true. The far right parties don't want to solve problems. They thrive on anger and hate. If they actually would solve something people would stop voting for them. Because anger and hate are the only things they have to offer. They don't care about solving problems around migrants. It really boils down to people just not wanting brown faces in 'their' streets.

[dead]
Post reply on HN