Birbla

Discussion summary

The EU is pushing through fast-track legislation for Chat Control, raising concerns about privacy erosion and democratic legitimacy. Discussions highlight differing viewpoints on EU surveillance laws and digital independence.

What the discussion says

  • Some see it as a threat to privacy and democracy.
  • Others argue for EU digital independence and rational debate.
  • Critics believe laws are forced through despite public opposition.
“The EU creating legal frameworks that threaten privacy.”
— bitcurious
“EU laws suggest there is privacy to erode.”
— stavros

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • There is no way to stop these so just lets get going. The sooner we have age and ID verification on every single website and app the sooner we will have a working decentralised internet that avoids it.
    by abroszka33
  • Am I crazy or is this website not allowing me to opt out of cookie tracking unless I sign up for a subscription?

    I know the EU cookie banners have basically ruined the internet, but this seems like a whole 'nother level of obnoxious.

    by petcat
  • They're not going to stop, are they?
    by mattrighetti
  • The politicians voting for this are either thoroughly stupid or corrupt. From the linked site:

    > The position adopted by the Council today paves the way for providers of Internet services to resume their efforts to detect and report material on child sexual abuse to the police.

    - Jim O’Callaghan, Irish Minister of Justice, Interior and Migration

    Except that many of those providers are not European. Good job handling all of your citizens' data to foreign entities, Jim. Way to go, champ.

    I don't know how to put it nicely, but some members of the Council need to cease operations, or be ceased.

    by grg0
  • Please email your members of parliament: https://fightchatcontrol.eu
    by stavros
  • Do also see:

    # Italy warns against Chat Control mass surveillance, but votes in favour of it (digitalcourage.social)

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48783340

    Do, because already there nuances (towards the better or worse) are revealed, which are not evident in journalism as we have it. The whole story needs more investigation than the stubs.

    But the way they are managing it in the workflow does not seem too linear...

    by mdp2021
  • The central bank, council, and commission have to get thoroughly investigated. The amount of questionable decisions coming from those three in the recent (15) years is extremely unsettling. The parliament and courts are practically the only institutions preventing things from hitting the fan at this point, and struggling to do so, it seems.
    by m132
  • For context, this refers to "Chat Control 1.0", allowing facebook and other messaging providers to scan chats for harmful content (which they had been temporarily allowed to do by a recently expired law).

    This is still problematic, but the far more dangerous Chat Control 2.0 that would weaken end-to-end-encrypted messengers like Signal is not being discussed here.

    Not to diminish the gravity of the new development, but the defeatist "no way to prevent this" narratives that are already popping up here are getting old -- when in fact it looks like 2.0 is off the table for good because protest against it has proven effective.

    by neobrain

Explore Birbla archives