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

921–930 of 947 posts

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#921

Post by int_19h »

dyauspitr wrote: post #394
bradley13 wrote: post #128

Stupid parliamentary trick: Hold the vote on the day before the summer break - ensuring that many people have already returned to their home countries. Then use a sort of "reverse" parliamentary trick: the default is that this legislation is accepted. They needed an absolute majority - not of voting members, but of all members - to reject it. Result: 314 against, 276 in favor, 17 abstentions, 113 absent The EU is wel…

The internet is pretty stupid now and needs to be reigned in so our sons and daughters aren’t wide eyed zombies. Most of you won’t agree with me but it’s true and something needs to be done so I laud this.

Your sons and daughters will still be wide eyed zombies, it's just that now your government will decide what mush to turn their brains into.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#922

Post by int_19h »

zrn900 wrote: post #910
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…

At this point we have no choice but to conclude that the Eu has been subverted by megacorps as badly as the US political system has been.

Any hierarchical system of governance ends up with sociopaths on top. It's just the nature of hierarchy and bureaucracy that is necessary for it.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#923

Post by int_19h »

exfalso wrote: post #793
sylware wrote: post #720

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Service providers like say Apple and Google can push an update to your phone which will intercept all that data after it has been decrypted.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#924

Post by int_19h »

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #830
int_19h wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany is one prominent example for obvious historical reasons. But https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrenched_clause are not all that uncommon in general.

The page you link contains many interesting examples; but many of them are simply cases of making the vote harder -- requiring unanimous consent to change English-French bilingualism in Canada, for example -- rather than cases where the law simply can not ever be changed by a vote. With regards to Germany, the page says: ...if a constitution provides for a mechanism of its own abolition or replacement, like the Germa…

Ultimately it doesn't matter what the constitution says if a large enough supermajority is unhappy about it. Constitutions by themselves are pieces of paper, they only work when society as a whole chooses to treat them as more than that.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#925

Post by int_19h »

akimbostrawman wrote: post #692
wolvoleo wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just admit then that it's not about jobs, housing or anything else but you just don't want to see brown faces in the street? PS: Part of the issue with sending them back is that the countries they're from won't take them. They can't live at the airport like Tom Hanks either.

> just don't want to see brown faces in the street? They could be green for all everyone cares about. The actual relevant distinction with real word implication is criminal statistics and per capita rates. Not to mention everyday real life bad experiences for people living outside of the sheltered silicon valley world. >countries they're from won't take them That is just wrong. In many places it literally results in…

> That is just wrong. In many places it literally results in a brain drain. Your position literally hurts already poor countries just because you want to see less white faces in the streets.

Countries are not entitled to keep their citizens by force to prop up their economy. If the person doesn't want to stay, why should they be forced to?

You might want to contemplate the fact that you're literally rehashing the same arguments that Soviets and East Germany used to justify their exit visas. Except you're doing it from the other end of the pipe.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#926

Post by ALLTaken »

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…

Social context (pardon the subjective background, I'm trying to only provide what's collectively shared more or less in Germany):

Ursula von der Leyen is hated in Germany as an evil war-mongering gnome. She was previously appointed to replace a highly decorated military general of the Germany Army (Bundeswehr) without having any skills in that area, except being corrupt to the core. She miserably failed the military, cost the state large losses in tax-payer money and was promoted instead being removed. Then she "somehow" became the fierce and corrupt "Queen of the EU".

EDIT (I owe you sources at least):

I think it goes much deeper, I think it's not just corruption, she's a perfect traitor of the EU and Germany. Selling all 500 million europeans out to a foreign state.

- https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/eu-abgeordnete-dr...

- https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article191310021/Urs...

- https://journalistenwatch.com/2026/07/11/ursula-die-skandal-...

- https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/ursula-von-der-le...

- https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/bundeswehr-berater-von-d...

- https://www.zeit.de/thema/ursula-von-der-leyen

- https://trump.news-pravda.com/ukraine/2026/06/24/360828.html

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#927

Post by queenkjuul »

achenet wrote: post #906
nancyminusone wrote: post #799

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

well actually , it's Ronald McDonald, not Donald McDonald (but Donald Duck's first name is indeed Donald)

Oh lol, i assumed trump was the "hamburger clown"

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#928

Post by protocolture »

Hugsbox wrote: post #736
protocolture wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok but the opening quote doesn't say "I agree with this poster that these kids will be retarded"

My brother in christ, please, reading comprehension. The opening quote is saying that a child's formative years will decide how they turn out.

Yes but it doesnt back up the commenters subjective evaluation at all.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#929

Post by HDBaseT »

izacus wrote: post #900
flumpcakes wrote: post #761

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Let's delete it then. Why? Because I don't want such pictures to be kept or archived by anyone. This isn't hard.

I'm unsure how these databases work, although it could simply be a database of hashes, with the file contents deleted. That sounds like the sane, safe way to handle this.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#930

Post by [deleted] »

mrtnmrtn wrote: post #894
TacticalCoder wrote: post #879

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What corrupt things has Ursula done? Or what has she been accused of, exactly? I'm pretty sure that, for a start, backroom deals with Pfizer during the Covid pandemic. She's been accused of deleting evidence (like SMS) and pressuring companies to delete evidence if I'm not mistaken. I don't know what GP means exactly but the EU institutions are a special jurisdiction: for example a belgian policeman cannot go insid…

« I’m pretty sure that » and « if I’m not mistaken » are not words I’m glad to read on HN for such serious accusations. I’m far from being on the commission side on those cases and think that if you want to make a serious case you have to be more rigorous with the evidence and things you say

[deleted]
Post reply on HN