HN

Need help?
<- Back
European Parliament decided that Chat Control 1.0 must stop

European Parliament decided that Chat Control 1.0 must stop

lemoncookiechip

Comments (105)

  • freehorse
    The linked tweet is a bit misleading. There were 2 votes, one for amending the existing proposal re: "unknown messages", and the other for the whole proposal itself. The screenshot in the tweet is about the amendment, which was less important than the fact than then the whole proposal was rejected.I think this article [0] discussed here [1] is much more informative, and I suggest merging the current comment thread there [1].I am not sure of the logic of the amendment, as parties voted differently between proposals (eg left parties voted for the amendment and against the whole, and EPP voted against both, S&D voted in favour of both). In any case, one vote difference for the amendment is not really the point, the actual vote for the whole is what mattered, and this gained a more clear majority against chat control [2].Not sure if this is higher because it is more "clickbait" (chat control 1.0) or what, but it is a single tweet with a screenshot and no context, imho HN can do better than this.[0] https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/end-of-chat-control-eu-parl...[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529609[2] https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270
  • gmuslera
    Its time to start trying to push Chat Control 2.0. With enough money and infinite retries eventually all the bad regulations with a power group behind will end being approved.
  • elephanlemon
    I’m confused by> This means on April 6, 2026, Gmail, LinkedIn, Microsoft and other Big Techs must stop scanning your private messages in the EUIt had already passed and started?
  • miohtama
    Here is the EPP's plea to get this passed earlier.They even used a teddy bear image.https://www.eppgroup.eu/newsroom/epp-urges-support-for-last-..."Protecting children is not optional," said Lena Düpont MEP, EPP Group spokeswoman on Legal and Home Affairs. "We call on the S&D Group to stop hiding behind excuses and finally take responsibility. We cannot afford a safe haven for child abusers online. Every delay leaves children exposed and offenders unchallenged."Personally, I feel there must be other privacy-preserving ways to address child abusers than mass surveillance.Also, for the record, here is the list of parties that lobbied for this for Mrs Düpont, alongside very few privacy-focused organisations. Not sure why Canada or Australia are lobbying for EU laws.ANNEX: LIST OF ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT- Access Now- Australian eSafety Commissioner- Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer (BRAK)- Canadian Centre for Child Protection- cdt - Center for Democracy & Technology- eco - Association of the Internet Industry- EDPS- EDRI- Facebook- Fundamental Rights Agency- Improving the digital environment for children (regrouping several child protection NGOs across the EU and beyond, including Missing Children Europe, Child Focus)- INHOPE – the International Association of Internet Hotlines- International Justice Mission Deutschland e.V./ We Protect- Internet Watch Foundation- Internet Society- Match Group- Microsoft- Thorn (Ashton Kutcher)- UNICEF- UN Special Rapporteur on the right to privacyhttps://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2020-0258_...
  • wewewedxfgdf
    Just rename it to something something save the children something something. Instant approval no matter what is in the bill.
  • nickslaughter02
    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, the next massive threat to digital civil liberties is already on the agenda: Next up in the ongoing trilogue, lawmakers will negotiate whether messenger and chat services, as well as app stores, will be legally obliged to implement age verification. This would require users to provide ID documents or submit to facial scans, effectively making anonymous communication impossible and severely endangering vulnerable groups such as whistleblowers and persecuted individuals.
  • Freak_NL
    Did that vote pass with a difference of one single vote? Tight squeeze there.
  • schubidubiduba
    Nice to see that democracy can work
  • the_mitsuhiko
    This will come back because too many EU countries want it.
  • whywhywhywhy
    It doesn’t matter they can just keep trying and paying people off until it gets through.Someone somewhere really really wants this and has the time and resources so it’s an inevitability.
  • dethos
    That was a close one. This is getting harder and harder. It is important not to be naive to the point of thinking this is over.
  • cynicalsecurity
    A big W, for now.Until we meet again.
  • Havoc
    They’ll keep trying.
  • AJRF
    See you again next week!
  • canticleforllm
    How long until they stage an incident to occur so they can pass CC 1.1? 6 months? 2 years?
  • ChrisArchitect
  • greenavocado
    That margin is really small
  • umren
    Chat Control 3.0 will go through
  • varispeed
    This is a clear case of a terrorist attack attempt (Chat Control fulfils definition of terrorism fully). Chat Controls would be illegal in Germany.This is sad that this has gotten this far. If they wanted to pass a law to blow up citizens, do you think European Parliament would seriously consider it? It is exactly the same calibre of idiocy.I would expect German authorities to issue arrest warrants and properly investigate this.For context:If terrorism is defined as using violence or threats to intimidate a population for political or ideological ends, then “Chat Control” qualifies in substance. Violence doesn’t have to leave blood. Psychological and coercive violence is recognised in domestic law (see coercive control offences) and by the WHO. It causes measurable harm to bodies and minds.The aim is intimidation. The whole purpose is to make people too scared to speak freely. That is intimidation of a population, by design.It is ideological. The ideology is mass control - keeping people compliant by stripping them of private spaces to think, talk, and dissent.The only reason it’s not “terrorism” on paper is because states write definitions that exempt themselves. But in plain terms, the act is indistinguishable in effect from terrorism: deliberate fear, coercion, and the destruction of free will.
  • Ms-J
    Maybe it is time to make start a prediction market?Any time a scumbag politician tries this again:"Mr. Jones, secretary of communications for the state, TTL (Time-to-live) left. 2 Hours? 1 Day? 1 Week?"It would stop fast.Anyone want to build this? There is a lot of money being left on the table.
  • anthk
    Goid news, now stop the age bullshit in CA.
  • spwa4
    ... again?
  • fdezdaniel
    [dead]
  • sailfast
    “Congrats all we maybe fixed the problem we created in the first place! Let’s celebrate!”Also - wasn’t this program voluntary? This seems like the height of backslapping. Would have been better if they just sat on their hands and did nothing in the first place.