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

EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament

techradar.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 163 posts

Re: EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament

#81

Post by LudwigNagasena »

spwa4 wrote: post #52

Why follow the EU's press release instead of stating what's happening? The EU parliament voted - many times. They voted AGAINST having this law at all. The EU council is now threatening to fully override parliament, but "gives parliament another chance" to agree, in hopes this makes the member states more likely to cooperate. More correct would be to state the in power EU governments have decided to use the EU counci…

The EU parliament and the head of states that comprise the EU council are elected by the EU citizens. Why is there such discordance between the two? Isn’t it mostly the same people from the same parties?

Re: EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament

#82

Post by surgical_fire »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #78
surgical_fire wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You speak as if the EU is somehow divorced from the national governments, and is imposing its will to the helpless states that compose it. The commissioners that propose laws are appointed by each national government. The national governments of each member state is all in on this. NATO is not a political institution. It is a defense treaty (this one completely outside the realm of democracy).

A defence treaty is obviously a very political institution.

Obviously not in the sense the person I was replying to meant, considering their claim is that the EU should not be considered one.

Re: EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament

#84

Post by LudwigNagasena »

Sad to see Europe morph from postal secrecy to chat control. I can’t imagine 19th century intellectuals would do anything other than laugh in the face of censors who would suggest that the governments need to read personal correspondence to protect children and/or national interests against Prussia/Russia/China.

Re: EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament

#85

Post by Aeolun »

snet0 wrote: post #66
general1465 wrote: post #22

Is there still a loophole for politicians not to be tracked? Because if so, some people will make a lot of money by creating a political party and turning citizens into politicians for yearly fee and thus bypassing this whole law.

You can read the proposal and found out, if you're interested. > In the light of the more limited risk of their use for the purpose of child sexual abuse and the need to preserve confidential information, including classified information, information covered by professional secrecy and trade secrets, electronic communications services that are not publicly available, such as those used for national security purposes,…

Oh, so sharing all those restricted materials is fine, as long as you limit it to your company.

Re: EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament

#86

Post by buzer »

miohtama wrote: post #32

The trick is that because they could not pass the proposal that enforces message scanning, now this proposal defines "high risk activities" and in the case of high risk activity, the national authorities can force someone to comply (i.e. start to scan messages, block, stop activity). Here is the actual text: https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15318-2025-... High risk classification is at the end of the…

> - Making design choices such as ensuring that E2EE is opt-in by default, rather than opt-out would require people to choose E2EE should they wish to use it, therefore allowing certain detection technologies to work for communication between users that have not opted in to E2EE

So you make it so that when the user starts the application you ask them "Your current configuration allows government, and probably some hackers as well, to see your messages. Do you want to enable encryption? Your government's suggestion is that you should say 'No' here. That's also what the foreign intelligence agencies suggest" "Yes, enable encryption" "No". That's clearly opt-in, you even provide the government's recommendation. And of course you then ask that whenever they open the application if they selected "No", we have learned that it's completely fine to keep asking same question from the user.

Oh, and make sure that the other party is clearly aware that the other side has not enabled encryption.

Re: EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament

#87

Post by LudwigNagasena »

Aeolun wrote: post #83

How is it possible this thing can just keep coming back and back? There should be a law that gives these kinds of bills a cooldown period of 2 years or so that prevents them from being reintroduced with slightly different wording.

Because the EU citizens keep voting for those politicians. It’s as simple as that. There are dozens of different parties in each EU country, but people keep voting for parties that push chat control.

Re: EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament

#88

Post by orwin »

jasonvorhe wrote: post #49

Good old salami tactics still work. Same goes for going way over target to then settle for your actual goal. Good old democracy at work.

Democracy worked well here. The executive wanted more power (once again), the parliament refused, twice, despite _a lot_ of lobbying and pressure from the executive branch. Good job to the tech industry for counterlobbying (i'm not saying that often i swear), good job us for mobilizing, and also la quadrature and other NGO privacy watchdog for mobilization that allowed the EU parliement to resist somewhat, and forced a compromise that will any overreach tentative in the hand of judges.

What europe needs to be careful of is that the EUCJ keep its power. I _know_ people on both side of the political spectrum dislike judges (because they defend the status quo for the left, and the rule of law for the right) but multiple time this past 3 years i've seen mediatic assaults on EUCJ and ECHR that expend their political power again and again and again. We have to keep executive power from limiting judiciary power. Already executive branches are powering through legislative in a lot of country (France, UK, US, and EU which isn't a country but have similar institution), we absolutely have to keep the third branch as a check against government overreach.

Re: EU Council approves Chat Control mandate for negotiation with Parliament

#89

Post by binary132 »

mrtksn wrote: post #46

>At the beginning of the month, the Danish Presidency decided to change its approach with a new compromise text that makes the chat scanning voluntary, instead. Hmm, so this will probably make the life for those who don't scan quite hard and if they experience a high profile scandal getting out of it will not be easy I assume. I'm not sure what to think of it, not being mandatory and requiring risk assessment sounds…

you people need to disabuse yourselves of the idea that only a Trumpian type regime could possibly have any interest in finding and incapacitating “enemies of the state”.
Post reply on HN