Chat Control 1.0 is the voluntary carveout rolled forward, nothing more. Breyer is right that this locks the door on stronger action against the real drivers. Even 'voluntary' scanning runs into ePrivacy Article 5(1) and CJEU jurisprudance on general monitoring. Providers keeping client-side scanning are exposed the moment a national court tests it against La Quadrature. The child safety framing keeps eclipsing case law that already limits mass processing of private comms.
EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0
851–860 of 947 posts
Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0
#852Earlier 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 Commission refused to withdraw the proposal after Parliament rejected it, leaving it on the table. The Council disagreed with Parliament’s rejection, formally forcing a second reading. Both the European Commission and the Council itself are not DIRECTLY elected EU bodies. Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto.
The council is the prime minister or president (depending on the system). The commission is the government. The government mostly does what the PM/president tells it to do.
Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0
#853FTA: 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…
Guess what's coming next: > Overview > End-to-end encryption is a term used to describe blocking or preventing any third-party recipient from viewing, reading or becoming aware of information that one individual has sent to another. In response to growing concerns about online data security, many technology companies are adopting this strategy with potentially dire circumstances. > The use of end-to-end encryption wo…
[deleted]
Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0
#854Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, that presents a problem when the news organizations that did investigate are just outright dismissed. The Times did a FOI request and are the ones who published the 12,183 figure which ultimately demonstrated the massive increase year over year. The fact that there were signed petitions, two reports from supposably untrustworthy news organizations (that I could fine, there's probably more), and that it's been d…
You don't have the data on arrests specifically over social media posts, because they don't exist, so you chose to dismiss my reply and attempt an ad hominem. I am not leaning one way or the other 100%, as indicated in my earlier reply. You are just reading what you want to read I agree when there is not precise data available, inferences can be made from other data, but you must not state things like "statistically…
It was an observation, based on my own experiences, of how more and more people are dismissive based on their existing preferences. A refrain if you might. I have no idea what you believe or what your motivations are and I wasn't trying to guess.
But I digress. I'm the only one who has even attempted to provide any sort of data in this thread - which is typical of HN. Cast doubt and force the other party to continue to provide information until some unstated goal is satiated (and I often find the goal tends to move as well). It's a brilliant tactic, basically no effort and you can continue to feel confident in your assumptions. I miss when conversations were reciprocal.
Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0
#855Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
It's very usual to name famous people by their first name. like John, Ringo, George, or Paul. Or Steve and Bill. Or Sam and Dario.
Mario and Luigi.
Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0
#856[flagged]
Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0
#857To hell with children. Create a separate internet for them, no ICANN access unless they are parent-supervised until they hit 13 or so.
> To hell with children.
Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0
#858Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are mixing it with Council ;) Yeah, EU setup is absurdly convoluted but it's simply a result of the consensus that tires to balance difference sources of power (the people and the countries). Ideally the whole EU population should just vote for MEPs in EU parliment, which the would form the government. But that would completely sidestep member states government which they won't ever agree to. And any even mention…
Yup, classic, mixed EP with EC. Makes you wonder if he explained it correctly to his wife (American lawyer), or if she verified. I don't like the way US presidents are elected either, ignoring popular vote, and including gerrymandering. I also don't like how the US president is allowed to bypass Congress.
> he explained it correctly to his wife (American lawyer), or if she verified.
Are you saying I am mixing it up now? My post acknowledged I had mixed it up before: given that the Commission is so powerful, I had thought it was comprised of the heads of state. I’m aware that’s not how it’s structured. I was explaining it to my wife because the reality is very complicated!
> I don't like the way US presidents are elected either, ignoring popular vote and including gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering cannot affect a Presidential election, because the Electoral College is elected based on statewide popular votes. And the logic behind the Electoral College is the exact same as the reason why so many EU bodies have one member per member state. The U.S. President doesn’t only represent the people, he also represents the states as sovereign entities. The states have chosen to move in the populist direction by providing to allocate their electoral votes based on statewide elections, but they have never consented to abandoning the prerogative to do things differently.
Moreover, the electoral college also is deliberately designed to produce more decisive results. In every case where the U.S. electoral college vote produced a different result than the national popular vote, the President’s party still won the Congressional popular vote. In those cases, a pure popular vote for the President would have produced a divided government. Most European countries avoid that by not directly electing their chief executive at all, and instead providing various ways for the party that controls the legislature to also control the executive.
Finally, in terms of “bypassing Congress,” what you’re describing is a general feature of Presidential systems where the executive is led by the same party as the legislature. For example, the French President has limited powers in theory. But in practice he’s very powerful if his party also controls the National Assembly: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2022/05/02/w...
“In most cases, these constitutional provisions end up being diluted in practice. When the president obtains a supporting majority in the Assemblée Nationale, they are less tied to following the Constitution to the letter and are able to propose legislation. In doing so, they then encroach on the role of government and in fact have significant power, often described as more substantial than that of heads of state in other countries.”
Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0
#859Earlier 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
I've lived both in the US and the UK.
The US has the 5th amendment protecting you from self-incrimination, while in the UK you can go to prison for not divulging your encryption password (even if you forgot it!).
The US doesn't have ISP/DNS level blocking for all I'm aware of, but there's the ultimate blocking that sometimes does happen (FBI raiding your servers, even if outside of the US).
The US has the 1st amendment protecting speech, while in the UK people routinely get arrested for social media posts.
Maybe there are areas where the UK is better about privacy/freedom than the US, but no examples immediately come to mind.
Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0
#860Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here in the UK, a large proportion of the population still think the EU is a good idea... Despite all the evidence proving otherwise.
Did leaving the EU actually fixed anything for the UK?
> Did leaving the EU actually fixed anything for the UK?
Yes - it fixed the attribution of our problems. Politicians, leaders, judges, etc will find it harder to "blame the EU" - when then blame is squarely on them.
This will then have an effect during voting.