No, not really. It's because they retracted the proposal before going to vote, because they knew it wouldnt pass after Germany publicly said they would vote against.
Then they changed some stuff and send it again, which is now rejected as it seems.
Yes, I think we're all assuming the law came into parliament the regular way. I assumed the "they" are supposed lobbyists who are standing behind and outside the regular entity..
Am I missing something or are you pulling a Nielsen on me?
"Coffee?"
"Yes, I know."
i don't understand, was EPP for or against the extension ? Cause my understanding was that they asked to have a second vote even if the first one already rejected the extension.
I don't understand the votes on that website, most people from EPP voted 👎 (against the extension) but that means they are against chat control? Or in favor? What european parties are opposing to the chat control, I want to know which parties we can trust on this matter.
as another comment said, EPP was against this proposal due to it being not strict enough. They want full control of your chat (e2ee ones too). they were afraid that this would set a precedent for limits for chat control and voted againts
also, I was surprised that in my conservative country no MEP voted with acceptance. but maybe it's because the proposal included adding clauses like this?
(v) not applied to interpersonal communications to which end-to-end encryption is, has been or will be applied;
That sounds kinda reasonable then. If the company has access to the chat logs in plain text, they should probably be scanning it for CSAM. Though the use of AI to identify it is concerning, given the low accuracy. And I guess there's also the risk of communications with someone's doctor being flagged.
it's indicative of the system we're in. our oligarchs have enough money to pay people to push for this in perpetuity while the rest of us are forced to give up some degree of our lives to fight it off on a field of battles that's tilted towards money; they will win eventually unless the system itself is changed.
Green = "opposing", red = "supporting".... "chat control extension". I guess the greens are against the chat control proposal, though that's hardly clear, and there seem to be more reds than greens so that suggests the chat control proposal was accepted, or is there some other layer to this? Also the stance of a state bears no relation to that of its representatives. Very confusing
Well the proposal is to extend the temporary exemption that expires on April 4.
As it is now under this exemption THEY ARE ALREADY doing their dystopian scanning.
Since there is no legal framework to do this they and it's against the current laws they use this exemption until they can force the final law that legalizes it.
It's not the topic of the vote I'm trying to clarify but rather trying to make sense of that web page showing who is voting for what, and how, if at all that is connected to the European Parliament vote. That website suggests overwhelming support for the proposal at both state and representative level, I'm not sure what to make of that.
Yeah it seems to be backwards, they voted for an "Extension of the temporary derogation", which I assume means if do you want to take more time to discuss this problem vote yes, or vote no to enact the newly proposed law now. Which is why the greens are paradoxically for the proposal and the EPP is against. Another layer of shenanigans to confuse people I guess.
It could be, although it also seems that "opposing" representatives are usually of the left/green persuasion and the right wing is mostly "supporting", which is not what I'd expect to see in that case. All I can say for sure is that it's very confusing.
The site is quite confusing, but I don't understand why you think the result is unexpected. The general trend between left/right leaning is absolutely 100% what I expected, but there are some parties that surprise me.
I think that Patrick posted it. basically the ones against where the conservatives, both left and right where against (even if there were some people inside those parities who voted to continue the scanning)
EDIT: apparently EPP voted against not because they want to support privacy but because the proposal was not enough invasive. they were afraid that it would have stopped their Chat control 2.0 proposal.
EPP and ECR voted against extension, but IIRC the reason is that they wanted stricter controls instead. Most other parties were largely in favour of extending the current chat control mandate.
True, was confused.
This was the result on the initial proposal, not the vote on extension of the exemption.
So as I understand it, we already have chat control since there is no legal framework (initial proposal didn't pass) and this exemption allows them to spy on us.
Good, but pretty meaningless overall while they still allow lobbying to take place.
They pretend to care that lobbying means corruption from corporate interests, but doing anything meaningful to stop lobbying entirely and punish anyone still doing it would be "authoritarian communism" now, wouldn't it?
They'll just change a few things and try again. I feel like we've been hearing about chat control on and off for about 5 years now and I can't imagine it'll go away soon.
72 Comments
Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 132 pts · 133d
Why was chat control allowed to be presented again in the first place.
chigga@lemmy.world · 81 pts · 133d
this is the real thing, this is almost certainly unconstitutional.
greedy corps going against law as usual.
themurphy@lemmy.ml · 62 pts · 133d
No, not really. It's because they retracted the proposal before going to vote, because they knew it wouldnt pass after Germany publicly said they would vote against.
Then they changed some stuff and send it again, which is now rejected as it seems.
Now they need to wait, but they didnt before.
chigga@lemmy.world · 25 pts · 133d
So this war is far from an end huh?
undeffeined@lemmy.ml · 38 pts · 133d
They won't stop pushing until they get it
Gumus@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 12 pts · 132d
We have to win every time. They only need to win once.
Bloomcole@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 132d
April 3, already planned
leagman1@feddit.org · 4 pts · 133d
Who are they?
guy@piefed.social · 5 pts · 133d
The Commission probably since they're the only entity who can propose law
leagman1@feddit.org · 4 pts · 133d
How do I respond to this^^
Yes, I think we're all assuming the law came into parliament the regular way. I assumed the "they" are supposed lobbyists who are standing behind and outside the regular entity..
Am I missing something or are you pulling a Nielsen on me? "Coffee?" "Yes, I know."
guy@piefed.social · 3 pts · 133d
Oh, sorry. Thought you actually didn't knew, my bad!
mathemachristian@lemmy.ml · 77 pts · 132d
Why do we have to keep fighting our own government for our rights? Why can't our government just represent us?
Cantaloupe@lemmy.fedioasis.cc · 31 pts · 132d
Governments don't represent the common people anymore.
mathemachristian@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 132d
We should topple the EU then tbh
orc_princess@lemmy.ml · 22 pts · 132d
Because unfortunately our rights are opposed to the will of capital and they serve capital first and foremost
anugeshtu@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 132d
To put it in Douglas Adams words: Because the politicians are lizards ;)
lb_o@lemmy.world · 72 pts · 132d
BY ONE FUCKING VOTE!
https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189574
Vote out every single fucker who is trying to limit our freedoms!
1984@lemmy.today · 23 pts · 132d
Thats actually insane in itself that it got that close. Next time they will succeed. :/
People are so stupid to support this. They dont seem to understand that its never about protecting anyone and its always about building dystopia.
freeman@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 132d
Even worse I think there was one more vote for the extension but they need 50% +1 to pass and there were 24 abstentions.
chigga@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 132d
i don't understand, was EPP for or against the extension ? Cause my understanding was that they asked to have a second vote even if the first one already rejected the extension.
ChairmanMeow@programming.dev · 2 pts · 132d
IIRC (but could be wrong) the EPP wanted stricter chat controls, not an extension of what was already there.
orosus@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 132d
I don't understand the votes on that website, most people from EPP voted 👎 (against the extension) but that means they are against chat control? Or in favor? What european parties are opposing to the chat control, I want to know which parties we can trust on this matter.
chigga@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 131d
as another comment said, EPP was against this proposal due to it being not strict enough. They want full control of your chat (e2ee ones too). they were afraid that this would set a precedent for limits for chat control and voted againts
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 128d
does it mean that this vote was only about the extension of the regulation that allowed voluntary participation in scanning for chat providers?
honestly, that's the lesser of the worries, we know facebook and fo are scanning all messages going through them no matter what
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 128d
also, I was surprised that in my conservative country no MEP voted with acceptance. but maybe it's because the proposal included adding clauses like this?
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-10-2026-0070_EN.html
Tenderizer@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 127d
That sounds kinda reasonable then. If the company has access to the chat logs in plain text, they should probably be scanning it for CSAM. Though the use of AI to identify it is concerning, given the low accuracy. And I guess there's also the risk of communications with someone's doctor being flagged.
On reflection it's still a dumb law.
ordnance_qf_17_pounder@reddthat.com · 69 pts · 133d
Can it just fuck off for good this time?
chigga@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 133d
PLEASE
eldavi@lemmy.ml · 18 pts · 133d
it's indicative of the system we're in. our oligarchs have enough money to pay people to push for this in perpetuity while the rest of us are forced to give up some degree of our lives to fight it off on a field of battles that's tilted towards money; they will win eventually unless the system itself is changed.
ceigid@feddit.org · 55 pts · 133d
Will they just revote again then until it passes?
chigga@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 133d
hopefully no. but we are still in danger
melroy@kbin.melroy.org · 11 pts · 133d
This is indeed the plan. Only 1 time is enough to get this through the system. But it requires 500 times saying no first.
guy@piefed.social · 3 pts · 133d
When the European Union is low-key IRA
OrganicMustard@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 133d
That would make us Margaret Thatcher, which is very gross
guy@piefed.social · 3 pts · 133d
Well based on the seats in the parliament, most eu voters are rightwing to some degree. So it's Tatcher going undercover IRA to bomb herself?
iamtherealwalrus@lemmy.world · 42 pts · 133d
Where can I see who voted for and against? I want to know if I need to change who I vote for next EU election.
MoffKalast@lemmy.world · 33 pts · 133d
Scroll down and select your country: https://fightchatcontrol.eu/
It's always the ones you most expect.
bampop@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 132d
Green = "opposing", red = "supporting".... "chat control extension". I guess the greens are against the chat control proposal, though that's hardly clear, and there seem to be more reds than greens so that suggests the chat control proposal was accepted, or is there some other layer to this? Also the stance of a state bears no relation to that of its representatives. Very confusing
Bloomcole@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 132d
352 against
248 pro
44 undecided
A simple majority will do
bampop@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 132d
I'm talking about a web page linked to by MoffKalast, see comments above
Bloomcole@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 132d
Well the proposal is to extend the temporary exemption that expires on April 4.
As it is now under this exemption THEY ARE ALREADY doing their dystopian scanning.
Since there is no legal framework to do this they and it's against the current laws they use this exemption until they can force the final law that legalizes it.
mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca · 0 pts · 132d
it's explained right there above the vote summary
bampop@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 132d
It's not the topic of the vote I'm trying to clarify but rather trying to make sense of that web page showing who is voting for what, and how, if at all that is connected to the European Parliament vote. That website suggests overwhelming support for the proposal at both state and representative level, I'm not sure what to make of that.
MoffKalast@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 132d
Yeah it seems to be backwards, they voted for an "Extension of the temporary derogation", which I assume means if do you want to take more time to discuss this problem vote yes, or vote no to enact the newly proposed law now. Which is why the greens are paradoxically for the proposal and the EPP is against. Another layer of shenanigans to confuse people I guess.
https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189574
bampop@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 132d
It could be, although it also seems that "opposing" representatives are usually of the left/green persuasion and the right wing is mostly "supporting", which is not what I'd expect to see in that case. All I can say for sure is that it's very confusing.
EDIT: thanks for that link 😁
iLStrix@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 132d
The site is quite confusing, but I don't understand why you think the result is unexpected. The general trend between left/right leaning is absolutely 100% what I expected, but there are some parties that surprise me.
chigga@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 133d
I think that Patrick posted it. basically the ones against where the conservatives, both left and right where against (even if there were some people inside those parities who voted to continue the scanning)
EDIT: apparently EPP voted against not because they want to support privacy but because the proposal was not enough invasive. they were afraid that it would have stopped their Chat control 2.0 proposal.
WaxRhetorical@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 133d
For those of us out of the loop, who is Patrick?
kapulsa@feddit.org · 12 pts · 133d
Probably Patrick Breyer, who often posts about privacy issues in the EU parliament.
https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/
WaxRhetorical@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 133d
Thanks!
dingleberrylover@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 133d
Definitely not a Krusty Krab
baguettefish@discuss.tchncs.de · 3 pts · 133d
i think they mean patrick breyer from the german pirate party
Bloomcole@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 132d
What?
I see conservatives+ extreme right pro. Also some fake left
Against greens -real left.
(Not absolute since they vote individually)
But by faction:
pro: EPP,ECR, ID/Patriots
Against: EFA, The Left, Renew Europe, S&D(divided)
Undecided: S&D, Renew Europe
ChairmanMeow@programming.dev · 1 pts · 132d
https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189574
EPP and ECR voted against extension, but IIRC the reason is that they wanted stricter controls instead. Most other parties were largely in favour of extending the current chat control mandate.
Bloomcole@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 132d
True, was confused.
This was the result on the initial proposal, not the vote on extension of the exemption.
So as I understand it, we already have chat control since there is no legal framework (initial proposal didn't pass) and this exemption allows them to spy on us.
iLStrix@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 132d
Stop right there. The conservatives are mostly PRO chat control. Please correct your comment and/or look at the votes again.
chigga@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 132d
sorry I was mislead due to the results, apparently EPP voted against cause it was not ENOUGH invasive. I will edit it now.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 39 pts · 133d
Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 38 pts · 132d
Why can't they vote on a ban to do any chat control bills? Stop this nonsense from happening again.
Bloomcole@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 132d
If you have money you can ask the lobbyists.
umbrella@lemmy.ml · 29 pts · 133d
a4ng3l@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 133d
Let’s celebrate this victory… even though it’s concerning that it is a recurring topic :-/
iByteABit@lemmy.ml · 13 pts · 133d
Good, but pretty meaningless overall while they still allow lobbying to take place.
They pretend to care that lobbying means corruption from corporate interests, but doing anything meaningful to stop lobbying entirely and punish anyone still doing it would be "authoritarian communism" now, wouldn't it?
TommySoda@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 133d
They'll just change a few things and try again. I feel like we've been hearing about chat control on and off for about 5 years now and I can't imagine it'll go away soon.
Kazel@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 10 pts · 133d
see u all on monday
lb_o@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 132d
Dude, we're protesting now until all those fuckers who voted in favor of chat control are voted out of parliament. We have names!
HuntressHimbo@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 133d
Saw this then scrolled more to see the EU going after porn sites for age verification. 😞
prex@aussie.zone · 6 pts · 133d
About fucking time for some good news.
lb_o@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 132d
It is concerning news, because we narrowly dodged it this time by one vote.
Skankhunt420@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 132d
I imagine they're thinking, "Well we will see what the new vote next month has to say about that!"
brbposting@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 132d
Congratulations!
PixeIOrange@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 132d
If politicans say something the opposite seems to happen so good bye private chats :(
NGC2346@sh.itjust.works · -9 pts · 133d
OccasionallyFeralya@lemmy.ml · 12 pts · 133d
Ew dawg get a grip