EU Council forces Chat Control via fast-track

Join the discussion

• Hacker News
• Hn is a goofy place. It feels like on odd days we see posts like this, about the EU creating this legal framework for the destruction of privacy. On even days we see posts about quitting American saas in favor of Europeans on the basis of privacy. Somehow the dots never connect.
  by bitcurious
• The dots connect very normally, politicians make mistakes. People need to protest against it.
  by bilekas
• A rational person could argue both against EU surveillance laws and in favour of more EU digital independence.
  by vanviegen
• As you might have learned from life, things are not binary.
  by heyheyhouhou
• Doesn't the mere fact that the EU is trying to pass laws to erode privacy indicate that there is privacy to erode? The US doesn't need to pass such laws because there are no protections.
  by stavros
• At that point it has become clear to most Europe is not a democracy anymore. It has lost any legitimacy.
  by sunshine-o
• Talk about overreacting.
  by cbg0
• At the end of the day, regimes do not depend on legitimacy but on force.
  by rixed
• What percentage of people support Chat Control?
  by inigyou
• The same as every other fascist control measure. Voted down. Voted down. Voted down. Then forced through through some obscure mechanism bypassing the will of the people and becoming law forever.
  by superkuh
• > Then forced through through some obscure mechanism bypassing

  It was extending a recently expired law that has existed since 2011.

  I don't think your comment is reflecting on what has actually happened. "Chat Control" as people know it has not passed into law.

  by flumpcakes
• This means the council has systematically overridden the will of both EU parliaments and states' objections in pushing this legislation. TLDR: there are, roughly and not 100% accurately speaking, 4 ways to make legislation at the EU level

  1) commission + parliament (meaning the EU commission has initiative (veto rights over any law, like the US president), and parliament can only "propose amendments", which pass with 50% of votes, or deny). This is what normally happens.

  Parliament denied the law. Twice.

  Member states vetoed the legislation at least 3 times (it doesn't technically work like this but member states can force the commission to veto legislation, and Belgium, Hungary and Denmark have done so) (technically member states can force the EU commission not to introduce legislation and because nobody else can do so either, this is normally effectively a veto)

  2) council + parliament. This is where we are. If the executives of the member states (NOT parliaments) want to push through a vote, they can use this path. The difference is that only 2/3 majority of parliament can stop the law from passing or put in amendments.

  Technically, this is meant for bypassing the EU commission. But of course, in reality it is for getting past the Danish and potential Belgian and Hungarian and other's vetoes. The commission really wants this.

  3) council + commission. This completely overrides any legislative involvement in ... well, legislation. They have already threatened to do this.

  4) the council can just force legislation through without anyone's approval

  Normally "democracy" in the EU means that legislation requires BOTH a majority of Europeans to agree (Parliament) AND no executive government. Both have already been bypassed.

  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). It means current scanning is illegal.

  Just so we're clear, this basically means that all messengers (not any specific one) will have to intercept everyone's messages, scan for specific words, and if found report the whole chat history to the police.

  Of course, it already turned out "BTW carrousel" (an illegal tax avoidance strategy) is one of the sentences they scan for to "protect the children".

  The article itself also contains evidence against the idea that this protects children (that child protection investigations keep increasing despite the scanning not taking place anymore)

  by spwa4
• This is completely wrong. Under the ordinary legislative procedure (used for Chat Control 1.0 & 2.0) the Commission proposes an act, then the Council and Parliament can approve it, reject it or amend it.

  The act can be approved only if and when the Council and Parliament approve the exact same text

  by CrisMystik
• >Technically, this is meant for bypassing the EU commission. But of course, in reality it is for getting past the Danish and potential Belgian and Hungarian and other's vetoes. The commission really wants this.

  Excuse me? That is quite an assertion. You're saying the EU Commission, the civil servants appointed by the EU Council, are somehow controlling the EU Council to push this agenda?

  I don't believe that is true. Please provide evidence.

  In the article, it talks explicitly about this being driven by the heads of state.

  by munksbeer
• > Although the Council emphasizes that the *scans will be limited to the absolutely necessary extent* and that no general, indiscriminate surveillance will take place

  I'm 100% sure that this is the case and about the good intentions of the proposers.

  /s

  by vb-8448
• As always the EU does not disappoint regarding it's stance on privacy. What a joke.
  by rdm_blackhole
• This is democracy manifest. What a joke.
  by sph
• We have been enjoying a succulent Chinese meal.
  by stavros
• It is a bit strange why EU countries allow their own credibility and legitimacy get steadily dragged down, bit by bit, by all these thousands of dubious statements, tricks, manoeuvres, and so on.

  Do they just not care about weakening their own societies?

  by MichaelZuo
• Governments don’t work for people. Yet they use terms like democracy all the time. The repeated attempts at chat control are so blatantly anti civil rights but also disrespectful of democratic principles. Why do EU citizens tolerate this? Are they okay being made a fool of or is this just not an issue for them after all?
  by SilverElfin
• > Why do EU citizens tolerate this?

  Some EU citizens want it? You'd be surprised on the views of some people.

  by flumpcakes
• Because they don't understand this is mass surveillance. I bet not even some of the politicians do, or they don't grasp the full consequence. They see the child narrative and fall for it.
  by grg0
• Well, we don't tolerate it, that's why it hasn't passed yet. They keep trying, though.
  by stavros
• How do you suggest people be intolerant? Essentially all the parties work toward these goals, so voting is ineffective. Speech is (more-or-less) allowed until it turns into strident protest, at which point the water cannons are brought out and a few token agitators are prosecuted for their instigation. I wouldn't want to call this tyranny, because I might get a knock on the door.
  by theodric
• Just saying I would buy a chat control legislation calendar, where each month of the calendar has significant meeting days of deliberation bodies, elections/nominations of people to relevant boards, as well as historical dates of previous attempts to pass chat control.

  Just so the cycle is easily knowable.

  by glenstein
• i thought apple is already doing this on all it's devices?
  by ascotan
• This is illegal in Spain.
  by anthk
• The main argument for this seems to be that they catch many pedos by using image recognition tech on facebook etc.

  Thus, discontinuing the permit to use these techniques did have enforcement numbers of those crimes found drop significantly.

  I'm wondering if they've given up real policing of these crimes completely?!

  Spreading pedo content on Facebook, those people have to be the dumbest of the dumb? Everyone spending even a single critical thought on their crimes won't be caught by this.

  And they say enforcement numbers drop significantly? Meaning they don't catch many other people? What the fuck are they even doing? Did they completely give up trying to find the real criminals, and instead fall back on sugar-coated figures to conceal that failure?

  by Grollicus
• These pro-surveillance narratives don't even attempt to look plausible, they are aimed at the average Joe/Mohammed/whoever with attention span of 10ms and IQ of a guppy.
  by wartywhoa23
• it will %100 pass at some point. no way around it.
  by kingleopold