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

361–370 of 947 posts

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#361

Post by gus_massa »

teekert wrote: post #219
dmichulke wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Found this, source: https://fightchatcontrol.eu/ On 7 July, MEPs voted 331–303 to fast-track the return of Chat Control 1.0 mass scanning. A binding vote follows Thursday, 9 July, where an absolute majority of 361 MEPs is needed to stop it. Take action now to demand they defend your private messages. "Yes" means stop control, because it's a "proposition de rejet" we're looking at. rejet = reject. Parties in favor of…

Maybe the voters also got confused and that's why it passed?

They have one job (with a high salary), a lot of personal assistants and technical support from specialist from their own party. They only have to remember if they have to press the red or the blue button.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#362

Post by GiorgioG »

spikels wrote: post #347
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…

Not only was Chat Control 1.0 already rejected twice by the European Parliament but: - This vote took place on last day of the session when many MEPs had already left for Summer vacation - 112 MEPs of 719 didn't vote. - The vote was called only two days before as an "Rule 170 - Urgent procedure" - 73 MEPs missed the vote making it "urgent". Normally it takes months of procedure to come up for a final vote.

So 112 MEPs didn't do their job...got it.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#363

Post by londons_explore »

inigyou wrote: post #51
londons_explore wrote: post #13

The defence against this is widespread truly peer to peer messaging services, where there is no company at the middle to tell you add backdoors. Who is working on that? I suspect the main challenge is not technical, but human - persuading users to switch messenger apps is almost impossible.

Session was recently shut down due to lack of funding. True P2P implies knowing the IP addresses of the people you're talking to.

Or it can be many-server, with tens of thousands of server operators and one selected at random.

Only the server operators then know your IP, and they don't know who you are or what you're saying.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#364

Post by parineum »

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…

> It is shocking that 276 members of parliament would vote to support this. Are so many so naive? Or being paid off?

There are a lot of countries in the EU that aren't shining beacons of democracy.

The EU makes sense as an economic block but some of the countries in it are politically unaligned with what people think of when they think of the EU.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#366

Post by rowanG077 »

GiorgioG wrote: post #362
spikels wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only was Chat Control 1.0 already rejected twice by the European Parliament but: - This vote took place on last day of the session when many MEPs had already left for Summer vacation - 112 MEPs of 719 didn't vote. - The vote was called only two days before as an "Rule 170 - Urgent procedure" - 73 MEPs missed the vote making it "urgent". Normally it takes months of procedure to come up for a final vote.

So 112 MEPs didn't do their job...got it.

Politicians can take vacations. Many things went wrong here but this ain't it.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#367

Post by zazaulola »

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't live in the EU. Sorry for the silly question.

Is there any EU law that prohibits minors from encrypting their messages or using, for example, PGP keys?

How can they protect children if the children deliberately encrypt their messages?

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#369

Post by natebc »

nick486 wrote: post #82
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…

I'm really surprised at the hurry. The EU, and many EU governments, have been ramming through deeply unpopular legislation at a breakneck pace for no apparent reason, lately. It feels like the last turn in a board game where everyone is busy taking points with no regard for the impact of the decisions on the theoretical next turn - because there is no next turn. Its really weird. > blame-laundering mechanism Also, I'…

Didn't Steve Bannon do a tour in Europe recently to dispense some of his strategy?

This smells like him, honestly.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#370

Post by ClumsyPilot »

gib444 wrote: post #322
fschuett wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

That’s even worse
Post reply on HN