EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

Post by winterismute » Fri, Jul 10, 2026, 1:18 PM UTC

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…

Post by root-parent » Fri, Jul 10, 2026, 1:19 PM UTC

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?

Post by Vinnl » Fri, Jul 10, 2026, 1:24 PM UTC

CrisMystik wrote: post #118

Vinnl wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To understand whether/to what extent this is brazen, I'd be interested to learn the reasoning why urgency procedures are possible, and in particular, why the apparent majority against shouldn't have been enough, and what is needed to classify something as urgent.

The urgency procedure is not the issue here, the problem is that this was Parliament's second reading, and the treaties (article 294 TFEU) say: > Second reading > 7. If, within three months of such communication, the European Parliament: > (a) approves the Council's position at first reading or has not taken a decision, the act concerned shall be deemed to have been adopted in the wording which corresponds to the pos…

Post by Idesmi » Fri, Jul 10, 2026, 1:25 PM UTC

fnord123 wrote: post #776

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…

This is really strange since the European Commission strongly recommends that staff use Signal[1]. [1]: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26073615-c-2025-5430...

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 10, 2026, 1:26 PM UTC

winterismute wrote: post #801

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…

While I agree that this setup is not very good, the EU Commission is essentially the equivalent of a government in a parliamentary or presidential democracy, and almost all such democracies I know about either have or have developed "ways" for the government to "push through" the will of the "chamber(s)". However, we do not consider those as farces as well, or so it seems to me, I guess mostly because those governmen…