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

751–760 of 947 posts

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#751

Post by fosk »

zkmon wrote: post #748
fosk wrote: post #719

The EU is a farce, an undemocratic virtue signaling organization, and this is why: - The Parliament voted against the first reading of this proposal twice in 2026, the first time they only supported limited cases for it, while the second time they actually defeated it fully. - The Commission didn't care, and kept the proposal on the table by refusing to withdraw it. - Once the Commission does that, the proposal goes…

Some folks (mostly Americans) tend to think that their laws, their definitions of terms like "democracy", their beliefs, their norms, their culture - are all universal. You need to specify which EU laws does this violate. "undemocratic" by your definition. There is no universally precise definition of "democratic". Because I'm sure EU council knows how to be democratic by their own definition of the term. They have a…

Literally the voice of the EU voters has been suppressed on this matter despite the Parliament (elected by them) voted twice on denying this full proposal.

By any definition of the term, this is not a democracy and it's a technocracy at best.

Edit: I am Italian.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#752

Post by joe_mamba »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #469
joe_mamba wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only in some bubbles. But most normies I know are massive EU fanboys and showing them the malicious things the EU is doing, they just shrug at best, or call you a Putin supporter at worst. They'll only realize this when the jackboot is on their neck. But probably not even then because in some EU countries government obedience is like a religion.

What is "normies" in this context? I'm neurodivergent, and on various nerdom bell curve tails, including know more than averga bear about technology societal implications and misuses, but I still wouldn't use that term; here in particular, it seems a strong pejorative for anybody who disagrees with your world view :-/

>What is "normies" in this context?

normie = normal "average" people; People who aren't terminally online and up to date on tech and politics drama. Exactly the ones oblivious to negative things the EU is doing in the background, because stuff like Eurovision or the World Cup takes up more of their attentions span than complex tech or politics.

>here in particular, it seems a strong pejorative

Only because that's how you choose to see it.

> for anybody who disagrees with your world view

So having a world view where government surveillance state should NOT be OK makes me the bad guy?

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#753

Post by fosk »

lou1306 wrote: post #740
munksbeer wrote: post #724

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please could you cite your sources for this. I think what you've typed is not representative of what happened here. My understanding is that the EU Council forced this second-reading, not the Commission. To provide evidence for my argument: https://fightchatcontrol.eu/ Look at "Timeline". This is the Council, not the Commission. This is your elected heads of state. This is "democracy" in action. "Council and EPP atte…

The Council must go at some point. It is a "legislative" body... composed of members of the _executive_ branch of the individual countries. Granted, that's not the only problem with EU governance, but it is a rather glaring anomaly in terms of transparency and accountability. Furthermore, at least in the case of Italy & other parliamentary systems, there's something like 3 levels of indirection between the people and…

How are we going to change it? They are simply going to pass a second-reading on a proposal to bring it back and use the same trick over and over again. All it takes is for one person to be "sick" at home for them to get it their way.

The EU voters have practically gifted their future to a bunch of technocrats. Over time (decades), it will get worse too, as inevitably power corrupts them more and more.

The EU is simply never going to represent the EU voters when it goes against their agenda. Want proof? They just did it.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#754

Post by zkmon »

fosk wrote: post #751
zkmon wrote: post #748

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some folks (mostly Americans) tend to think that their laws, their definitions of terms like "democracy", their beliefs, their norms, their culture - are all universal. You need to specify which EU laws does this violate. "undemocratic" by your definition. There is no universally precise definition of "democratic". Because I'm sure EU council knows how to be democratic by their own definition of the term. They have a…

Literally the voice of the EU voters has been suppressed on this matter despite the Parliament (elected by them) voted twice on denying this full proposal. By any definition of the term, this is not a democracy and it's a technocracy at best. Edit: I am Italian.

Are you saying EU Council made an illegal Act that violates the provisions in other Acts? Why don't anyone talk about references to those violations?

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#755

Post by flumpcakes »

voodooEntity wrote: post #586

Some people say im rather pessimistic - but i still kinda hoped that the EU will not go down this path. That said - i was obviously wrong. I don't really know what else to say than : this breaks a fundamental foundation of privacy. Sure i was never 100% aligned with EU level decisions (neither with my residing country one's) but that's just... wrong on so many levels... how can i even still argue to people that EU an…

This is extending an existing law that expired.

Really you should have felt betrayed back in 2011.

This isn't Chat Control 2.0 - which is the thing that has been getting attention for the last few years.

E2E encryption should not be broken, we should find other ways to catch and find predators.

Scanning messages in platforms (Chat Control 1.0)? I honestly thought this has always been done, I don't consider any platform private.

A lot of Internet regulations are just catching up to ones that exist in meat space.

I think what scares people when the regulations come to the Internet is that they are highly automated, and I think there's potential for mass injustices when automated systems.

At the same time, the abuse of children has also been automated and amplified by the Internet. https://youtu.be/QYcAFanHwf8?t=1666

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#756

Post by burnerRhodov3 »

munksbeer wrote: post #739
fosk wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parliament rejects the proposal: https://oeil.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/en/procedure-file/pdf?r... Council pushes it forward: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2026... From the last article: "The Council position will now be examined by the European Parliament, under second reading.". Note that this is technically accurate under absolute majority rules for rejection (not for approving), but practi…

The EU Council are the democratically elected leaders of the member states. How is them deciding the direction not "democratic"?

it's more like a .. asymmetric confederation. Democratically elected leaders, conspire together in a confederation, to elect a body that is above and beyond the leaders of the democracy. I honestly don't think we have a proper label for what the EU [edit* council] has become. If you are looking at it from the OP's perspective, it's more of a "democratic deficit." It is an institutional design that prioritizes efficiency, expert consensus, and national vetoes over direct voter control and transparency.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#757

Post by joe_mamba »

geysersam wrote: post #597
joe_mamba wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Military spending != military capability and will to use force. For example, Germany spends way more than France on defense but has a less capable military and with no nuclear capability to boot. From force projection capability, the EU is toothless and lacks the spine to twist some arms in order to see its interests represented on the world stage. It's a pushover despite all that military. The reality is that you ne…

> the EU is toothless and lacks the spine to twist some arms in order to see its interests represented on the world stage. The rhetoric right now is just bizarre. Why should the EU force countries against their will using military? Do you have zero idealism or regard for internationally agreed upon rules? Do you want a world where might is right?

International rules are meaningless without hard power to enforce them.

Your rules in your country are real because you have judges and police to enforce those rules.

But internationally, there's no planetary police force(other than the US when it wishes to act like one), so solving disputes is dependent to how strong your military is, or on you capability to inflict pain on the offending country through other means like economy or trade.

That why the US walks away unscalved from international conflicts and the EU keeps getting buried further.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#758

Post by flumpcakes »

u8080 wrote: post #173
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.

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

Well the criteria is CSAM?

Do you have any evidence that these systems have been used to imprison someone that wasn't CSAM related?

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#759

Post by gls2ro »

fosk wrote: post #747
munksbeer wrote: post #739

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU Council are the democratically elected leaders of the member states. How is them deciding the direction not "democratic"?

The Council of the European Union - that pushed this forward - is composed of national ministers that are directly elected to the Council itself and are simply there because they are appointed as ministers under their own country's constitutional system. Ministers are appointed, not elected. Unlike the European Parliament which is directly elected by EU citizens. Conveniently, the EU citizens have been silenced on th…

> Ministers are appointed, not elected.

I dont understand this line of reasoning about EU:

Ministers are appointed by people we vote. In most democracies the entire government is appointed and maybe indirect voted as a whole (by parliament and maybe directly by citizens).

What I am trying to say is people who proposed this are representatives of those countries (even if indirect their citizens votes vor the party that appointed them).

So representation is not the problem. The problem is citizens (at large) voting only on personal interest and not thinking or not understanding the second order effects. If you don't like what Council did here make sure next round of elections the party that proposed those ministers will not get elected in your country an should not have the power to form a government.

We seem to expect country officials to be even better when playing at EU level and think about yet a greater good than they are doing in their own countries.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#760

Post by steinvakt2 »

bigyabai wrote: post #269
tjwebbnorfolk wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

To be fair, lack of regulation didn't stop us in America from passing the Patriot Act.

USA allows overreach from both government and corporations. But pretends to hate a strong government. EU allows overreach from government, but limits corporations. And pretends for it to be about rights, but in practice it's about keeping the overreach to themselves (the government).
Post reply on HN