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

761–770 of 947 posts

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#761

Post by flumpcakes »

izacus wrote: post #645
Jtarii wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a more realistic system would be hashing images and comparing them to known CSAM in some database. I think Apple was going to implement something like this a few years ago before scrapping it.

I don't really want governments, Apple or Google to build databases of CSAM, thank you :/

It already exists. Most CSAM tools are checking against a hash database.

Why would you NOT want this to exist? This seems the only method to not raise false positives.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#763

Post by flumpcakes »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #236
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…

Getting the criminals is not the point here, mass control is. How many of your friends do this now? The criminals might do it, but why, when they can just meet in person and talk there, without a digital recording of what they talk? Combine the 'age verification' (show your ID when you register) with this (we can read what you type), add some AI (to profile the people), and you have all the info you'd ever want on an…

Any evidence what so ever for the "mass control" claim?

I do not want E2E comms broken, but these posts on hackernews always bring out such outlandish claims.

You can't be applying the "mass control" claim for the attempts at stopping the spread of CSAM? So can you point to any evidence of wide spread "mass control" with Chat Control 1.0?

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#764

Post by patates »

mike_hearn wrote: post #669
patates wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very weird case. I don't think anyone can survive here in Germany on a 503€ allowance he gets, and let alone having some probable but unproven ties to a state considered an enemy since only recently, I would find crippling someone to that degree harsh even for a convicted war criminal. He's apparently not even allowed to pay rent!

It's not that weird. There are other cases like it. Jacques Baud is a Swiss guy and was sanctioned by the EU Commission for "spreading Russian propaganda". At the time he was living in Brussels and the EU became a prison that he's not allowed to leave. https://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/2025/article/ancien-espion-su... The sanctions imposed on December 15 by the European Union against Jacques Baud and eleven other people…

Thanks for the example but there being other cases and me as an average person who follows the news having no idea about all this make it even weirder for me.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#765

Post by abc42 »

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…

Two things are not quite correct in your text:

1. The Council triggered the second reading by adopting its own position and sending it back. You made it sound like the Commission just steamrolled it unilaterally.

2. The scheduling conspiracy is false. Parliament itself voted (331-304) on July 7 to fast-track this. Also, the votes in March and July were pretty stable: 311 against in March, 314 against in July.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#766

Post by sampo »

munksbeer wrote: post #724
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…

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…

I think what you've typed is not representative of how EU works.

The Council [1], also known as the Council of the European Union and the Council of Ministers, does not consist of heads of state. The body that consists of heads of state is the European Council [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_European_Union

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Council

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#767

Post by munksbeer »

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…

This is a bizarre argument. Emmanuel Macron sits on the EU Council. He has no democratic mandate?

The entire point of the EU design is that ultimately the member states national governments (the heads of) are the most powerful and set the direction. It was done this way because people didn't like the idea of EU ministers. There was even a huge objection to the change that introduced the Parliament, the MEPs that you are now saying should hold ultimate power.

And this is the problem. People decide up-front that the EU is "not democratic" and then they adjust their arguments and data to fit this narrative.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#768

Post by munksbeer »

gls2ro wrote: post #759
fosk wrote: post #747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tha…

The design of the EU which gives the member states elected politicians (heads of state) the most power is very intentional.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#769

Post by munksbeer »

burnerRhodov3 wrote: post #756
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"?

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 efficie…

> Democratically elected leaders, conspire together in a confederation, to elect a body that is above and beyond the leaders of the democracy.

Sorry, what are you talking about here?

The Commission is subservient to the EU Council. The EU Council consists, by design, of all the heads of the nation states.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#770

Post by freedomben »

vorticalbox wrote: post #704
hraxz wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a simpleton thing to say. All I know is I am glad I am childfree and don't have to deal with this.

if you child breaks the law and are under the age of an adult you as a parent are responsible, as a parent you are responsible to feed, wash, look after, keep dangerous stuff like medicine out of reach, if you live in a place that allows gun you have to keep that away too. but suddenly because its a screen suddenly that responsibility to parent goes away? i'm not trying to provoke I simple don't understand the other…

As a minor did you never do anything your parents wouldn't have approved of? Did you really have no way of hiding some of your activities from your parents?
Post reply on HN