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

791–800 of 947 posts

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#791

Post by arrowsmith »

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…

Regulation is a good thing for big, established incumbents who can afford expensive lawyers. It keeps them safe from competition.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#792

Post by ToValueFunfetti »

Jensson wrote: post #678
ToValueFunfetti wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That page specifically says the constitution grants rights to the government and reserves the rights of the people. There is a lot in there about the case against the bill of rights, a big part of which is that itemizing the rights implies that they are limited to the list. Editing to clarify that this isn't just semantics: under the 'grant rights to the people' model, a government that grants one set of rights is ju…

So that means there it offers zero protection against private corporations? It seems like that is a bad idea, isn't it better to say people have rights that nobody is allowed to violate instead? Like freedom of speech doesn't matter much if private corporations are allowed to silence you.

Oh, believe me, I've been on the losing side of that issue with you for ages. I absolutely agree it is unethical for anybody to violate anybody's free speech, etc, and that that multiplies with corporate power.

But that means I'm familiar with the counterpoints. A government has the power to use violence: to operate a military that can kill non-citizens and a police force that can put citizens in prison. It's a lot more important to put a check on this than on a corp, even though quantity has a quality of its own. One thing to suppress dissidents by saying they can't use your website; another to put them in the gulags.

And then the other big issue is that corporations are just a bunch of people shaking hands. You have the right to free press, so you can write a newspaper that says what you like. You can sell that paper and you can publish people's op-eds if they give you the copyright permissions. You can refuse to publish the ones you disagree with. You can make agreements with the printing company to scale up and with other authors to contribute as you become popular, and, while this shifts the practical considerations, no amount of these agreements changes your principle right to free press.

For these reasons, it's best not to include this in your constitution. I have no idea what to do instead apart from shaming and boycotting unethical companies, which of course doesn't work when most people don't care an iota about the principle of free speech. Look at Athenian democracy and sigh?

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#793

Post by exfalso »

sylware wrote: post #720
mrtksn wrote: post #14

FTA: What changes with the return of Chat Control 1.0—and what stays the same: *What is coming back:* US tech companies are once again allowed to scan private messages without a warrant or prior suspicion. This affects direct messages on platforms like Instagram, Discord, Snapchat, Skype, and Xbox, as well as emails via Google’s Gmail and Apple’s iCloud. *What remains unchanged:* Public social media posts and files h…

And your REALLY think E2E is going to "protect" you? If the "services" want to watch, don't worry they will, "they don't need your password". But I guess they "do" that only for the very baddies, aka child exploitation, human trafficking, terrorists, killers, drug dealers, etc. We all know here that "information system security" does not exist, this is a fantasy: there is only some "best effort" with a wide spectrum…

What are you talking about. You think service providers can backdoor aes-gcm? There will always be technology that they cannot get around. The only way to backdoor is to explicitly change the encryption.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#794

Post by mmarq »

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…

We, as humanity, really need to stop equating democracy with direct votes and referenda. There are reasons why some bodies are nominated indirectly and through convoluted procedures. In many countries these processes exist to prevent the rise of fascisms or totalitarianism in general.

The EU, in particular, is a community of relatively different states, where you can’t have just direct elections with proportional representation, otherwise the most populous countries will decide for everybody. This is why there is a zoo of directly elected bodies, bodies nominated by the Parliament, others expressing the will of countries’ governments, and complex voting procedures with qualified majorities and veto powers.

In practice the EU has struggled to make national governments ratify trade treaties because their devolved regions were worried about beef prices. It’s not an unstoppable dictatorial behemoth that decides against the will of the people, if 10 farmers in Wallonia can stop it. They still haven’t convinced Germany that an Italian baker can open a bakery in Bavaria without attending a local mandatory 5 year Meister training.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#795

Post by [deleted] »

flossly wrote: post #730
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…

It's worse than a farce. It's actually evil. The way "they" are pushing chat control, and how Ursula is avoiding justice (she has a huge corruption case hanging over her head but manages continuously cancel court dates); this makes a all too clear. The only way to fix this is EU member states become more critical: but for politicians in those states an EU position is the best promotion they can make. So almost nobody…

[deleted]

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#796

Post by rayiner »

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…

You don't have effective representation just because a vote happens somewhere in a causal chain. A body that's appointed by people who are themselves typically indirectly elected is a lot of layers of indirection.

For effective representation, you need a feedback loop between the voting and the policymaking at the other end. If you add all these layers in-between, voters are going to have a hard time figuring out how their voting is actually changing outcomes. Imagine trying to play a video game that has huge lag between the control input and what the character on screen is actually doing.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#797

Post by tryauuum »

tryauuum wrote: post #335
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.

It's hard to compare US and EU internet freedom because a person usually spends most of their life in one place and is clueless about the life in other. I've never lived in US, were there any cases of ISPs blocking websites in USA? Even DNS-level blocking counts

come on guys, stop upvoting me and answer the question please

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#798

Post by Hugsbox »

thin_carapace wrote: post #745
Hugsbox wrote: post #734

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The content children in Asia are exposed to seems to be entirely different in nature. For instance, with Tiktok: it intentionally pushes brainrot content for western users, while in China it pushes educational and in general positive content. Speaking only from what I've read on the subject, and I'm entirely willing to accept that I'm wrong about that, but the point remains that the screens aren't the issue, it's the…

did you read any studies that accounted for brain rot short form content vs non brain rot short form content? from my n=1 sample, this content format is universally destructive, regardless as to specific information conveyed

This I can definitely agree with

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#799

Post by nancyminusone »

hk__2 wrote: post #785
flossly wrote: post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worse than a farce. It's actually evil. The way "they" are pushing chat control, and how Ursula is avoiding justice (she has a huge corruption case hanging over her head but manages continuously cancel court dates); this makes a all too clear. The only way to fix this is EU member states become more critical: but for politicians in those states an EU position is the best promotion they can make. So almost nobody…

Her name is von der Leyen. "Ursula" is fine for your friends, but it’s awkward for a public figure. Do you write "Donald" as well?

yeah, I do write 'Donald', as do a lot of people. Awkward only if you are talking about the duck or the hamburger clown.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#800

Post by barney54 »

hk__2 wrote: post #785
flossly wrote: post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worse than a farce. It's actually evil. The way "they" are pushing chat control, and how Ursula is avoiding justice (she has a huge corruption case hanging over her head but manages continuously cancel court dates); this makes a all too clear. The only way to fix this is EU member states become more critical: but for politicians in those states an EU position is the best promotion they can make. So almost nobody…

Her name is von der Leyen. "Ursula" is fine for your friends, but it’s awkward for a public figure. Do you write "Donald" as well?

I write Donald sometimes. If you say Donald in the right context we know who are talking about. Or Kier or Emmanuel. There is nothing wrong with first names of public figures.
Post reply on HN