Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

European Parliament decided that Chat Control 1.0 must stop

bsky.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–27 of 27 posts

Re: European Parliament decided that Chat Control 1.0 must stop

#21

Post by tompagenet2 »

torstenvl wrote: post #13
btilly wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. It is much easier to get people to agree to do questionable things, when there is pressure to "do something". A more limited bill takes off the pressure to "do something", and therefore makes the more extreme bill harder to pass later. In this case there is reason to suspect that the real goal of the bill is not catching pedophiles. Instead it is to give police broader powers of surveillance in the name of c…

> This is particularly problematic given the ways that it could be abused by some of the more authoritarian governments in the EU. > Yes, I'm thinking of Viktor Orbán of Hungary. Lol what? The UK leads [edit: in Europe overall, obviously not the EU] with approximately 18 per 100k prosecuted for online speech. Germany is at about 4 per 100k. Poland at about 0.8 per 100k. Hungary about 0.1 per 100K. For any definition…

This figure in the UK is unsourced and I'm fairly sure is not true (or at least not what you've labelled it), and has been quoted out of context by people trying to stir trouble not reasoned debate. I'll assume good faith here and say the start of the video lays out why the figure is not what you've labelled it to be

https://youtu.be/tB3WVygAM8I?si=2KVNjw7mc29sNbQw

Re: European Parliament decided that Chat Control 1.0 must stop

#22

Post by btilly »

christkv wrote: post #20
btilly wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue isn't how much free speech online is being punished. It is how surveillance could be used to reinforce authoritarianism. The UK does a lot of prosecuting people for having said nasty things online that someone else didn't like. Hungary is far more inclined to surveil political opponents, put people in their network in jail without fair trial, surveil successful businesses whose bribes were insufficient, fin…

Sources please

UK prosecutions happen in public. So I presume that the Hungary accusations need justification.

Lack of fair trials: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20251120IP...

Illegal surveillance of political opposition: https://rm.coe.int/pegasus-and-similar-spyware-and-secret-st...

Strong arming companies into bribes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Fidesz

Not only are there not similar reports about the UK, but its better position in international corruption rankings points to a culture that would be less likely to tolerate this.

Any further questions about why there should be concerns about how Hungary would be likely to abuse a law like this?

Re: European Parliament decided that Chat Control 1.0 must stop

#23

Post by tomhow »

nickslaughter02 wrote: post #2

Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529609 > Despite today’s victory, further procedural steps by EU governments cannot be completely ruled out. Most of all, the trilogue negotiations on a permanent child protection regulation (Chat Control 2.0) are continuing under severe time pressure. There, too, EU governments continue to insist on their demand for “voluntary” indiscriminate Chat Control. > Furthermore,…

Comments moved thither. Thanks!

Re: European Parliament decided that Chat Control 1.0 must stop

#24

Post by subscribed »

btilly wrote: post #12
layer8 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would have locked in the restrictions, which would be difficult to argue later that they should be removed and the package be opened up again. Without any scanning, it’s much easier to continue arguing that indiscriminate scanning is needed. They remain in a much stronger bargaining position towards those who want limited scanning (as opposed to no scanning) than if they had conceded.

Exactly. It is much easier to get people to agree to do questionable things, when there is pressure to "do something". A more limited bill takes off the pressure to "do something", and therefore makes the more extreme bill harder to pass later. In this case there is reason to suspect that the real goal of the bill is not catching pedophiles. Instead it is to give police broader powers of surveillance in the name of c…

Its never about paedophiles.

A huge ring has been uncovered in the us, with the broad international link, and none of these with mountains of evidence against them is harmed.

Instead they serve in the prominent public positions sometimes silencing and killing their victims.

If the reason in the arguments for the bill is about protecting the children, you can be sure as hell that's a strawman.

Re: European Parliament decided that Chat Control 1.0 must stop

#25

Post by subscribed »

torstenvl wrote: post #13
btilly wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. It is much easier to get people to agree to do questionable things, when there is pressure to "do something". A more limited bill takes off the pressure to "do something", and therefore makes the more extreme bill harder to pass later. In this case there is reason to suspect that the real goal of the bill is not catching pedophiles. Instead it is to give police broader powers of surveillance in the name of c…

> This is particularly problematic given the ways that it could be abused by some of the more authoritarian governments in the EU. > Yes, I'm thinking of Viktor Orbán of Hungary. Lol what? The UK leads [edit: in Europe overall, obviously not the EU] with approximately 18 per 100k prosecuted for online speech. Germany is at about 4 per 100k. Poland at about 0.8 per 100k. Hungary about 0.1 per 100K. For any definition…

I'm quite sure they thought about the UK as well, given the practice of prosecuting for lawful speech, jailing or arresting for planning peaceful protests (or threatening to arrest a man with an EMPTY placard), jailing for opposing the genocide or voicing support for the unlawfully proscribed organisation.

Etc.

Re: European Parliament decided that Chat Control 1.0 must stop

#26

Post by torstenvl »

btilly wrote: post #22
christkv wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sources please

UK prosecutions happen in public. So I presume that the Hungary accusations need justification. Lack of fair trials: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20251120IP... Illegal surveillance of political opposition: https://rm.coe.int/pegasus-and-similar-spyware-and-secret-st... Strong arming companies into bribes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Fidesz Not only are there not similar reports abo…

> Lack of fair trials: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20251120IP...

That link literally does not have anything to do with fair trials.

Re: European Parliament decided that Chat Control 1.0 must stop

#27

Post by divan »

nickslaughter02 wrote: post #2

Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529609 > Despite today’s victory, further procedural steps by EU governments cannot be completely ruled out. Most of all, the trilogue negotiations on a permanent child protection regulation (Chat Control 2.0) are continuing under severe time pressure. There, too, EU governments continue to insist on their demand for “voluntary” indiscriminate Chat Control. > Furthermore,…

Age verification doesn’t necessarily imply identification — eIDAS 2.0 and ISO 18013-5 have selective disclosure by design.
Post reply on HN