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
  • What frightens me is, as usual, the assumption of conformism that may just remove people from services.

    "Present a document" // "No, certainly not to you" // "Do without then"

    The straight will say "no", but their lives will be extremely complicated, possibly in the unawareness of those that just take compliance to the absurd for granted - as the weak call survival paramount and cannot see that their modus is subjective. That we won't have it is something that they cannot even conceive. Adults are noise to them.

    by mdp2021
  • EU council is 27 individual governments each elected by their members. It’s like the US senate pre 17th ammendemnt.
    by hdgvhicv
  • Sort of, if the EU were a country. But the council doesn't consist of separate senators to determine the weight of the vote. And there's also the Commission and Parliament, which are closer to the American government structure as it stands now. The three bodies have different procedures or different decisions and law making processes.

    But generally, the council represents the governments currently ruling the EU member states. A council of member states pushing for laws the comission opposes makes for a very interesting but confusing situation, where the EU is opposed to this legislation but the individual member states are not.

    by jeroenhd
  • I used to think Varoufakis' critique of the EU being a structurally anti-democratic union was just coming from the angle of an edgy leftist that was forced by the Troika to do austerity.

    Day in and day out, the EU proves Varoufakis right.

    by budududuroiu
  • The Troika is a pet name for the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund.

    Calling it the Troika makes it sound like it's some separate thing.

    by inigyou
  • So what platforms will this apply too? What platforms Dow sit already apply too? All SMS, large email providers (Gmail?), WhatsApp, Apple services?
    by wronex
  • There have been a few incidents that make me think Snapchat private chats are monitored. The one with the guy joking to his friends about blowing up a plane or something is the first that comes to mind.

    Tell me how private messaging gets you taken off a plane otherwise. It’s not private. Big tech has put a camera and microphone in everyone’s pocket and they’re monitoring everything.

    The government and big (American) tech are very likely lying to us IMO. How will anyone protest when mass surveillance becomes the law if it’s already in place and you can be labeled a bad actor that gets your life ruined if you dissent?

    by donmcronald
  • 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
  • governments can (and will) shut down or fine the detractors.
    by vlian2088
  • It's a strong signal to start building such an Internet and slowly withdraw from using anything centralized.
    by m132
  • > There is no way to stop these so just lets get going.

    Except for the times they've tried before and public outrage stopped it. So this defeatist attitude works against us.

    by quikoa
  • 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
  • This is what made me disable JavaScript by default in 2018. I didn't even get this banner.
    by m132
  • Wow, yeah, that seems... illegal, no?
    by stavros
  • > Am I crazy or is this website not allowing me to opt out of cookie tracking unless I sign up for a subscription?

    Extremely common practice for newspapers websites, unfortunately.

    by mattrighetti
  • Very common on EU news websites.

    Workarounds include:

    - reader mode

    - "behind the overlay" extension (and others like it)

    - archive.is

    - probably many others

    by GuB-42
  • When they force that, it's an invitation for me to open it in an incognito window. Track all you want, assholes!
    by netsharc
  • As a reminder "EU cookie banners" are not required if you use cookies for site functionality. They are only required if your site uses these to track users.

    This needs repeating, it's a common misconception (deliberately spread by many, too) that the EU requires cookie banners for all cookies.

    by jwr
  • It's not EU cookie banners that have ruined the internet, it's malicious compliance and dark pattens on behalf of those that want to track you.
    by Lio
  • It's called "pay-or-okay" (or "consent-or-pay") and there hasn't been many decisions on it yet which has led noyb to sue German DPAs: https://noyb.eu/en/years-inactivity-pay-or-ok-cases-noyb-sue...

    There is one case where DPA ruled in favor of the company, but it's currently being appealed: https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-ok-der-spiegel-noyb-sues-hamburg-d...

    Another one ruled against company and court agreed: https://noyb.eu/en/court-decides-pay-or-okay-derstandardat-i...

    by buzer
  • They're not going to stop, are they?
    by mattrighetti
  • It certainly seems like they'll stop after they pass it.
    by stavros
  • Who is they?

    These pithy remarks don't really extend the debate or have any nuance - they just sound conspiratorial.

    There are plenty of reasons to "scan" communications.

    There are plenty of reasons to have limits on communication "scanning".

    What part of the spectrum do you fall on?

    by flumpcakes
  • Law enforcement should stop them. In countries like Germany this is very likely illegal and amounts to preparation of terrorist act.
    by varispeed
  • 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
  • "We are in favour of this law, so long as it is not used for its intended purpose."
    by stavros
  • 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
  • >The central bank, council, and commission have to get thoroughly investigated.

    By WHO?! They are THE (unelected) ruling elite. Who's gonna prosecute them?

    by joe_mamba