Crumb
c/privacy · by hatingfedizen@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 39d

EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/eu-parliament-greenlights-chat-control-1-0-breyer-our-children-lose-out/

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/71975475

Today, the European Parliament allowed the suspicionless mass scanning of private communications (“Chat Control 1.0”) to pass, a measure it had rejected twice in March. Although a majority of voting Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) actually opposed the regulation (314 against, 276 in favor, 17 abstentions), the motion to reject it failed to secure the required absolute majority of 361 votes. As a result, mass scanning is now permitted again until 2028.

258 points · 37 comments · view on lemmy.world

37 Comments

melroy@kbin.melroy.org · 97 pts · 39d (7 replies)

This is exactly how democracy is not working. EU just pushed it through. Despite multi rejections!

KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml · 30 pts · 39d (1 reply)

An entire generation is learning in real time, first hand, that Democracy isn't working.

iguessimlemming@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 38d

I insist on calling it democratism - an ambition, nice ideal, doesn't work in practice. Same way they talk about other isms.

knomie@feddit.org · 8 pts · 38d (1 reply)

This is our implementation of democracy not working. One might even argue that our system is not actually democratic, because, as this example shows, neither the will nor the interests of the people are represented.

melroy@kbin.melroy.org · -1 pts · 38d

I never voted for creating the EU

antrosapien@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 39d

System is not working System is working exactly as intended

quick_snail@feddit.nl · 3 pts · 39d

How?

greenbit@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 38d

System is working how they want it to work. Democracy is a far cry

voxel@feddit.org · 47 pts · 39d (1 reply)

I guess our only hope is for the EU court to deem it unlawful?

Korkki@lemmy.ml · 33 pts · 39d

fat chance, but we can pray. Despite this move being illegal as fuck.

airikr@lemmy.ml · 39 pts · 39d (1 reply)

So you just have to nag and nag and nag until they say "sigh, alright then..."?! WTF?!

hneerqe@lemmy.world · 40 pts · 39d

They only have to win once, we have to win everytime

oneser@lemmy.zip · 26 pts · 39d (2 replies)

I see 2 different, but related topics being mixed up in the comments a little.

This is an extension of a measure which has been in place since 2021. This is not the new legislation that was proposed earlier this year and late last year.

I do not believe this is a good thing at all! But we should all be clear what the discussion is.

The first iteration of Chat Control, commonly dubbed "Chat Control 1.0", was introduced as a temporary measure in 2021. It was ultimately ended on 26 March 2026, when a vote to reject its extension passed by one vote. The next iteration of Chat Control, commonly dubbed "Chat Control 2.0", is still under discussion.

source

Tryenjer@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 39d

Ok, but democracy is still failing here if laws are passed in the EU in such a scummy way.

jabberwock@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 9 pts · 39d

It also looks like the Chat Control 1.0 has a carve out for E2E encrypted communications. So I'm not saying don't worry about it, but seems more like a procedural measure than the more ominous and technology-destroying second version.

Referencing this

Ankkuli@sh.itjust.works · 21 pts · 39d (1 reply)

I wish one day there’s news about EU that isn’t just shitty because I’m tired boss.

quick_snail@feddit.nl · 10 pts · 39d

Germans can smoke weed now

wanderer@sopuli.xyz · 20 pts · 39d (5 replies)

So.. what happens next? They start requiring backdoor in all chat apps (for those that do not already have one)? Is PGP now the only way? That would be extremely difficult since "normal" people just don't seem to care at all.

quick_snail@feddit.nl · 9 pts · 39d (4 replies)

PGP is not the only way. And applications that use PFS are preferred.

The article mentions that WhatsApp is exempt. See also Signal, Wire, SimpleX, etc

Ontimp@feddit.org · 4 pts · 39d

Also: Host your own Matrix or XMPP server for your family and friends. Basically nothing anyone could do to prevent you from doing that.

trilobite@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 39d (2 replies)

And why would these apps be exempt if 90% of all communication goes through them?

StumblingWasabi@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 39d

I would guess to get it passed then they can work on revoking those exemtions

quick_snail@feddit.nl · 3 pts · 38d

Don't underestimate the number of communications through email, phone calls, sms, slack, etc.

eleitl@lemmy.zip · 19 pts · 39d

Welcome to the Fourth Reich of Europe, citizen. You'd better like it here. Orelse.

illi@sh.itjust.works · 14 pts · 39d

A symbolic exemption was adopted for encrypted communications—though in practice, service providers do not scan these anyway.

Well I guess that's something at least.

warm@kbin.earth · 10 pts · 39d (9 replies)

Surely it needs more in favor to pass? Ugh I need to reducate myself on this system

illi@sh.itjust.works · 47 pts · 39d (6 replies)

This truly is bonkers.

Although a majority of voting Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) actually opposed the regulation (314 against, 276 in favor, 17 abstentions), the motion to reject it failed to secure the required absolute majority of 361 votes.

More people is against it than in favor, but the number of people against it is not sufficient so it gets passed? How can that ever be possible?

Zak@lemmy.world · 34 pts · 39d (2 replies)

They used a procedural trick which only had to pass by a majority of those present to create a situation where it would need an absolute majority to fail in the next vote.

This happened as many MEPs have already left for their summer break and were therefore absent and unable to vote. It appears that Parliament President Roberta Metsola engineered this, but I haven't looked in to it in detail.

limonfiesta@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 39d (1 reply)

Every MEP who participated in the subversion of democracy in favor of totalitarianism and mass surveillance, is an enemy of the people and should be treated as such.

fubbernuckin@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 38d

And anyone involved in orchestrating this situation is an enemy of the state, as they have clearly exploited a flaw of the system to undermine the authority of lawmakers.

Korkki@lemmy.ml · 17 pts · 39d

They arranged a vote that required absolute majority just before summer break. devious and calculated.

melroy@kbin.melroy.org · 2 pts · 39d

exactly my point..

theherk@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 39d

It would be bonkers, but it is flipped.

hneerqe@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 39d

it's gamed and rigged. there you go.

theherk@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 39d

It does. Click the link where it says that backward. The article just has it wrong.

unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 39d (1 reply)

Although a majority of voting Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) actually opposed the regulation (314 against, 276 in favor, 17 abstentions), the motion to reject it failed to secure the required absolute majority of 361 votes

I'm a bit OOTL. How the hell does that even work?

funkycarrot@discuss.tchncs.de · 8 pts · 39d

From this article:

The procedure now chosen gives the proponents of Chat Control a significant tactical advantage. Since the law is in its second reading, an absolute majority of 361 votes of all parliament members is required for amendments or a renewed rejection on Thursday. In contrast, a simple majority of the MEPs present is sufficient for the other side. As many parliamentarians have historically already departed by the last day before the summer break, the re-enactment of the regulation is considered almost unavoidable.

Had the MEPs rejected the urgency, the draft would have gone to the responsible Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, where a legally sound compromise could have been worked out after the summer break.

garbage_world@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 36d
[ removed ]