Thank you for sharing. It is unfortunately, once again, needed.
The recent events have been rather dumbfounding. On March 11, the Parliament surprisingly voted to replace blanket mass surveillance with targeted monitoring of suspects following judicial involvement [0]. As Council refused to compromise, the trilogue negotiations were set to fail, thus allowing the Commission's current indiscriminate "Chat Control 1.0" to lapse [1]. This would have been the ideal outcome.
In an unprecedented move, the EPP is attempting to force a repeat vote tomorrow, seeking to overturn the otherwise principled March 11 decision and instead favouring indiscriminate mass surveillance [1, 2]. In an attempt to avoid this, the Greens earlier today tried to remove the repeat vote from the agenda tomorrow, but this was voted down [3].
As such, tomorrow, the Parliament will once again vote on Chat Control. And unlike March 11, multiple groups are split on the vote, including S&D and Renew. The EPP remains unified in its support for Chat Control. If you are a European citizen, I urge you to contact your MEPs by e-mail and, if you have time, by calling. We really are in the final stretch here and every action counts. I have just updated the website to reflect the votes today, allowing a more targeted approach.
It's really surprising to me that this issue keeps coming up time and time again, until I realised that it's non-voted in parties actually trying to pass this stuff!
I didn't realise that the EU parliament simply says yes or no to bills and doesn't actually propose new laws, whilst the EU Commission are appointed and decide on what bills to push through.
hermanzegerman 2 hours ago [-]
The Commission consists of the Member States. So obviously they are also voted-in parties since the government of the Member States is democratically elected
CGamesPlay 2 hours ago [-]
I am always curious when I see these kinds of movement. It seems abundantly clear that the options on any vote in any legislature for a proposed bill are always “yes” and “ask me later”. So when I see things like Fight Chat Control, it feels like the call is “we must tell our legislators to press the ask later button!”
Why? Why has your approach not been toward passing active legislation that protects these rights going forward? Genuinely curious. I understand that finding and pressing the “don’t ask again” button is always harder, but I don’t understand why “we punted on this decision!” is a celebratory moment.
sillysaurusx 27 minutes ago [-]
Because we can barely stop new legislation we don't like, let alone pass new ones we do. You're out-monied by lobbyists at all levels.
Maybe a movement could match a lobbyist in terms of money. I hope so.
hsbauauvhabzb 59 minutes ago [-]
Also curious, as much as the American amendments are problematic, they do at lease create a hard position on things. We are devolving into a space where I’m genuinely scared that the future will become entirely controlled by big money, and it will be too late to change it.
daoboy 4 hours ago [-]
Thank you for what you're doing, this is an important fight.
The story is tragically illustrative of the maxim that you can oppose terrible legislation a hundred times but they only have to pass it once.
peq42 3 hours ago [-]
I swear to god if the UK gives the world yet MORE surveillance state...
largbae 1 hours ago [-]
This one is EU I think, but yes UK and everyone else needs to actually protect their citizens' rights.
Aerroon 3 hours ago [-]
>let's vote on this proposal
>rejected
>let's vote on it again!
Is it still a democracy if you just keep redoing the vote until you get the outcome you want? The politicians involved in this should be ashamed of themselves.
porksoda 2 hours ago [-]
Only if you have more votes after it passes, to vote on unpassing it again
Avicebron 2 hours ago [-]
This only makes sense if each representative is getting feedback from their constituents each time they take the new vote..I think
Calazon 2 hours ago [-]
I feel like we do that pretty regularly in the US.
vaginaphobic 13 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
hermanzegerman 2 hours ago [-]
"Conservatives" feel no shame.
But they are first-class in acting like a victim
It's the same thing as with your republicans.
cindyllm 1 hours ago [-]
[dead]
dinoqqq 4 hours ago [-]
You're a hero
belter 4 hours ago [-]
How can people support your work?
derefr 6 hours ago [-]
So... if we all care so much about shooting down the bad idea, why is nobody proposing opposite legislation: a bill enshrining a right to private communications, such that bills like this one would become impossible to even table?
Is it just that there's no "privacy lobby" interested in getting even one lawyer around to sit down and write it up?
Or is there at least one such bill floating around, but no EU member state has been willing to table it for discussion?
Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications.
Article 8
Protection of personal data
1. Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.
2. Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by law. Everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified.
3. Compliance with these rules shall be subject to control by an independent authority."
narmiouh 6 hours ago [-]
It clearly states here in 2 “consent of the person concerned OR some other legitimate basis laid down the law”, any random law will trump personal consent
troad 4 hours ago [-]
One of the reasons international human rights law is so worthless in actual practice, is that half of it is framed like this. "Everyone has the right to X, except as duly restricted by law." Cool, so that's not a right at all then.
Ditto the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with its 'notwithstanding' clause. (Though they're presently litigating over that, so we'll see what happens!)
Any constitution or human rights instrument full of exemptions, 'emergency powers', 'notwithstanding' clauses, or 'states of exception' is not worth the paper it's written on.
svachalek 4 hours ago [-]
Every contract I have to agree to these days has a "valid until unilaterally invalidated" clause. It feels like we're all just going through the motions.
3 hours ago [-]
alpinisme 57 minutes ago [-]
That is in fact the only way most laws work: freedom of movement, except if you’re arrested and detained in accordance with law. Freedom of speech except when you are falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater or slandering someone. In general all rights have exceptions carved out by law. And any way you carve that exception out (eg to cover those convicted of crimes) can be twisted by a legislature or judicial body that wants to act in bad faith.
(That’s not to say laws shouldn’t make a better attempt to circumscribe exceptions)
troad 42 minutes ago [-]
You're fuzzing the crucial distinction between well defined and narrowly tailored exemptions, which are of course normal, and these exemptions, which are complete blank cheques that effectively neuter the rule they attach to.
No laws are absolute, some laws are more holes than cheese, but a law that says "A government must not punish you for doing X, except in accordance with duly passed criminal laws that make X illegal" is almost entirely pointless. It exists solely to make people feel fuzzy when reading the first half of the sentence, which is the only part you'll ever hear quoted, while not actually impeding anything a government may wish to do to you. This is intentional. Those carte blanche exemptions do not consistently appear across international human rights treaties by some innocuous accident.
layer8 5 hours ago [-]
It doesn’t remove the “right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.” The law cannot be random, it must ensure “fair processing” and be limited to “specific purposes”, and the European Court of Justice as well as the ECHR will decide what constitutes a “legitimate basis” in that context. Furthermore, “Everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her”, which ensures transparency of what is being collected.
Secrecy of correspondence only applies to sealed physical letters, so it has zero applicability to this law and provides zero protection against scanning of private messages.
Also it isn't respected in most types of criminal trials. If a sealed physical letter is opened and proves fraud, for example ...
Muromec 3 hours ago [-]
Secrecy of correspondence still has exceptions. That's what is always lost in these discussions -- every right of every person is not absolute. Just because you have a right to personal property, doesn't mean you don't have to pay taxes or store nuclear material in your basement. That's the hard part.
But end to end encryption with forward secrecy at no cost to user makes your right to private communication absolute. It's a new thing and the balancers can't balance it against other rights of other people, so this happens.
matheusmoreira 2 hours ago [-]
> But end to end encryption with forward secrecy at no cost to user makes your right to private communication absolute
As it should be. Governments should have to suck it up. If they want to know things about someone, they should have to actually assign police to follow them around. Not click a button and have the lives of everyone in the entire world revealed to them.
cwillu 27 minutes ago [-]
The ends still have the decryption keys, so the result is the same as with a physical letter: you have to acquire the physical object holding the key material.
5 hours ago [-]
blks 5 hours ago [-]
I feel we need something much more strongly worded to protect our mail, paper or electronic, messages and other communications from being read, not just “respect”.
The problem is, in all of those member states, they all have carve outs for "national security."
Germany, for exmaple, has secrecy of correspondence that extends to electronic communications, but allows for "restrictions to protect the free democratic basic order" and outlines when intelligence services can bypass the right to privacy.
Italy, France, and Polan also have similar carve outs.
Having it as a right isn't enough. National security and "public safety" carve outs need to be eliminated. So long as those exist, we have no right to privacy.
layer8 5 hours ago [-]
Rights are never absolute, they always have to be weighed against each other. The weighing can and should be debated, and needs strong protections when put into practice, but demanding an absolute is not reasonable.
kelnos 3 hours ago [-]
Then they're not "rights". They're just things that you get if and when the government feels like it.
matheusmoreira 2 hours ago [-]
Any "right" that is not absolute is a worthless fairy tale. Compromise is the root of all evil.
thfuran 1 hours ago [-]
So you’re saying there can be no worthwhile privacy protections as long as subpoenas and search warrants exist and it’s physically possible for someone to eavesdrop? I guess we might as well switch everything back to http.
soraminazuki 4 hours ago [-]
That's how human rights abuses are justified though. Every single time. This whole thread is talking about exactly that.
lo_zamoyski 2 hours ago [-]
I think the better way to phrase this against both relativism and absolutism is in the following way.
Rights are inherent to human nature, or they are nothing at all. If they could be granted by gov’t, then they can be taken away; they wouldn’t be rights. They allow individuals to fulfill their natural moral duties; you have a right to a good, because you have a prior obligation to pursue it. While the existence of these rights is universal and inalienable, their exercise is not absolute, as they are always limited by justice and the common good of the community. Because these rights are pre-political - they are not legal privileges; the state’s only legitimate role here is to recognize and protect what already exists by nature; any civil law that contradicts them is a perversion of justice rather than a binding law.
So…if privacy is a right (and I would say it is a derivative right, from more basic rights), then it does not follow that its scope is absolutely unrestrained. It’s not difficult to come up with examples where privacy is constrained or abrogated for this reason.
The trouble with broad privacy-violating measures is that they are sweeping in scope and unjustified, making them bad for the common good and a violation of a personal right. It is clearly motivated by technocratic design and desire for control, not the common good and the good of persons. Because it is unjustified, its institution is therefore opposed to reason. It effectively says that no vaild justification need exist. This is a voluntarist, tyrannical order.
The absolutist stance likes to claim that “having justification” is always how rights are violated, but this is wrongheaded. This is tantamount to claiming that we can’t tell a valid justification from an invalid one. But if that were true, then we are in much worse shape than such people suppose. If we cannot discern a valid justification from a bad one, then how can we have the capacity to discern when a right is being violated at all? Furthermore, it is simply not the case as a general political rule that gov’ts will violate rights if those rights are not absolute (which has never been the case anyway). The evidence does not support this thesis. And furthermore, if a gov’t wishes to violate a right, treating it as if it were an absolute doesn’t somehow prevent it from being violated. Some place too much faith in supposed structural elements of gov’t as ways to keep this from happening (like separation of powers), but there is nothing in principle to prevent these branches from cooperating toward such an end.
derefr 4 hours ago [-]
I dunno; I think in practice an absolute sometimes shakes out just fine.
In this case, I see no reason that we would want to draft constitutional rights such that we consider a government's actions taken in pursuit of their national security to be, per se, legal — i.e. warranted, unable to be sued over, etc.
Imagine instead, a much weaker right granted to the state: the right to maintain laws or regulations which require/force government or military employees to do things that violate people's rights and/or the law of the land. But with no limit on liability. No grant of warrant. Just the mildest possible form of preservation: technically constitutional; and not immediately de-fanged the first time the Supreme Court gets their hands on it.
So, for example, some state might introduce a new law saying that soldiers can come to your house and confiscate your laptop. And then the head of that state might actually use that law to invade your home and take your laptop.
Given that the law exists, it would be legal for the head-of-state to give this order. And it would also be legal for the soldiers to obey this order (or to put it another way, court-martialable for the soldiers to disobey this order, since it's not an illegal order.)
But the actual thing that happened as a result of this law being followed, would be illegal — criminal theft! — and you would therefore be entitled to sue the state for damages about it. And perhaps, if it was still reporting on Find My or whatever, you might even be entitled to send police to whatever NSA vault your laptop is held in, to go get it back for you. (Where, unlike the state, those police do have a warrant to bust in there to get it. The state can't sue them for damages incurred while they were retrieving the laptop!)
The courts wouldn't be able to strike down the law (the national-security provision allows the state to declare it 'not un-constitutional", remember?); but since obeying the law produces illegal outcomes, you would be able to punish the government each and every time they actually use it. In as many ways as the state caused you and others harm through their actions.
There is absolutely zero reason why the state shouldn't be expected to "make people whole" for damages it has caused them, each and every time it does something against the people's interest in the name of national security.
And the simplest way to calculate that penalty / make the claiming and distribution of those rewards practical, would be to just not remove liability for these actions taken on behalf of the state, by not granting the state the right to do them in the first place. Just put them in the position of any other criminal, and force them to go to court to defend themselves.
Change my mind!
dmitrygr 4 hours ago [-]
I disagree. A right to privacy not only can be demanded, it should be demanded.
g-b-r 4 hours ago [-]
"to protect the free democratic basic order", the irony.
It's incredible how even with the current surge of autocracy, most politicians can't see that the surveillance tools they crave for, could come under control of people much worse than them.
And can't see what they could do with them.
I think that many current governments in Europe are convinced that more surveillance will stop the autocratic surge. It's insane that they don't see how this is far from guaranteed, and how it will go if they're wrong.
localuser13 3 hours ago [-]
>National security and "public safety" carve outs need to be eliminated. So long as those exist, we have no right to privacy.
This is overly absolutist, or maybe idealistic view. National security and public safety IS more important than individual right to privacy. As an extreme example, if your friend was dying, you had a password to my email, and you knew that you can use information in my inbox to save that person i really hope you would do it.
In general I think that police with a court order should be able to invade someone's privacy (with judge discretion). I mean they can already kick down someone's doors and detain them for several days - checking email doesn't sound too bad compared to it, does it? I think they should also be legally obliged to inform that person in let's say 6 months that they did it.
The problem is that modern world is drastically different than the old world when you needed to physically hunt down letters. Now you can mass scan everyone's emails, siphon terabytes of personal data that stasi could only dream of, and invigilate everyone. This is something that is worth fighting against.
4 hours ago [-]
petermcneeley 6 hours ago [-]
You know that those pieces of paper mean nothing.
port11 5 hours ago [-]
The Charter has been used by the courts to shoot down incoming legislation. So, in a way, those pieces of paper mean everything, as without them legislation would pass without the judiciary branch being a check on the Bloc’s powers. Your comment is merely cynical.
6 hours ago [-]
Macha 6 hours ago [-]
In theory these limit the power of the EU, while anything the EU parliament passes can just be undone as easily by a future EU parliament. If you don't believe the EU charter provides any protection, why would you believe an EU law would be any different?
rvz 6 hours ago [-]
Thank you for telling them. Governments do not care about anyone.
rolandog 6 hours ago [-]
In theory, governments are made up of citizens. In practice, once the citizens are corrupted into corporate shills, they become politicians. They have traded their humanity for business class seats and dining at restaurants that cater to those whose entire personality is talking about their investment portfolio.
einpoklum 5 hours ago [-]
Let's parse this a little.
Article 7 codifies "respect for [one's] private life" and "respect for [one's] private communications". Well, "respect" is a vague notion. This does not clearly imply that the government is not allowed to read your communications, or otherwise spy on you, if it believes it has good reason. It will do so "respectfully", or supposedly minimize the intrusion etc.
As for article 8: Here it is "protection of personal data" and "fair processing". It does not say "protection from government access"; and "processing" is when the government or some other party already has your data. In fact, as others point out, even this wording has an explicit legitimization of violation of privacy and 'protection' whenever there is a law which defines something as "legitimate basis" for invading your privacy.
You would have liked to see wording like:
* "Privacy in one's home, personal life, communications and digital interactions is a fundamental right."
* "The EU, its members, its bodies, its officers and whoever acts on its behalf shall not invade individuals' privacy."
and probably something about a non-absolute right to anonymity. Codified exceptions should be limited and not open-ended.
Muromec 3 hours ago [-]
> This does not clearly imply that the government is not allowed to read your communications, or otherwise spy on you, if it believes it has good reason. It will do so "respectfully", or supposedly minimize the intrusion etc.
Which is... okay? Government gonna government, that's what we pay it to do.
vaginaphobic 9 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
Pay08 6 hours ago [-]
Chat control is already illegal according to EU law, and has previously been ruled as such by the ECHR when Romania was trying to implement a chat control law that did actually pass, in 2014. But documents are documents (even the Rome statute), and can be rewritten.
noir_lord 6 hours ago [-]
It already violates Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter which is supposed to prevent stuff like this.
The reality is that they'll just keep pushing it from different angles, they only have to get lucky once, we (or EU citizens, we left and have our own issues) need to be lucky every time - much like an adverserial relationship where you are on the defending side from a cyberattack...funny that really.
weakened_malloc 2 hours ago [-]
(I mentioned this in another comment)
Because the people voting it down are the elected MEPs, whilst the people putting it up to parliament are the European Commission. The EC are appointed, rather than elected. Which means the powers that be just appoint people who are going to push through laws like this, that they want. The MEPs can't put up bills to be voted on.
follie 5 hours ago [-]
I think the greatest risk to the EU is the sheer volume of communications it allows to travel without end-to-end encryption. Financial, infrastructure, personal political sentiment.. What doesn't a foreign enemy get volumes of minable data on?
thewebguyd 6 hours ago [-]
The right to private communication is already enshrined in the EU.
Article 7, EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: Respect for private and family life (and probably a couple other sections in there as well).
The problem is national security exceptions. Chat control and other similar bills are trying to carve out exceptions to privacy laws under the excuse of national security.
Also its politically cheap to introduce surveillance or to expand state power, it's comparatively extremely difficult to pass laws that specifically restrict state power.
Privacy laws are well and good, but they exist. The problem is we need to stop allowing "public safety" or "national security" to be a trump card that allows exceptions to said laws, and good luck getting any government to ever agree that privacy is more important than national security.
dgxyz 6 hours ago [-]
There’s no point. The only way you can fix this is to pretty heavily market the situation and publicise and shame the lobbyist scum pushing this. And their associated ties.
vaylian 5 hours ago [-]
Past laws of this type are:
- The GDPR
- The ePrivacy directive, which is explicitly derogated (sabotaged) by chat control 1.0
amarant 5 hours ago [-]
If this law, or some future version of it, passes, I will derive great pleasure from a simple bash script sending a gdpr right to be forgotten request to eye European parliament in a daily basis
throwaway27448 5 hours ago [-]
I don't think that's a very sensical right (like most rights, frankly). Everyone has limits to the privacy they can expect. But we should have a social contract where we can expect privacy between mutually consenting parties intending to have private communication (eg not in a public square) without reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed.
Muromec 3 hours ago [-]
>... without reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed.
How is that supposed to work with e2e encrypted chats?
tekne 4 hours ago [-]
Technology means there is only one truly stable compromise, imo: I am free to use whatever technical means at my disposal to encrypt my communications and those of my customers (!), and you can try to read them as much as you want.
Combined with the right to communicate across borders, you can get quite a bit of privacy: a server in both sides of a geopolitical conflict and they've got to collaborate to track you.
And yet metadata collection is both unavoidable (if you don't collect it, your geopolitical opponents will) and should be enough. We don't need chat control in a world where I get precision-targeted ads -- it's not even about freedom of speech or privacy, it's about freedom of thought.
Muromec 3 hours ago [-]
> a server in both sides of a geopolitical conflict and they've got to collaborate to track you.
With a server on the other side of a geopolitical conflict (actual conflict, not a mere discontinuity in legalscape) you trade a risk of the government reading your chats for a risk of the same government (which you don't trust for a good reason) locking you up for treason and espionage.
Noaidi 6 hours ago [-]
You don’t care by writing new legislation, you care by forming boycotts against the corporations that are not fighting back against the scanning. The world is not controlled by democracy, it is controlled by money and the oligarchs.
JoshTriplett 4 hours ago [-]
We can do more than one thing. Do not cede the weapon of lobbying to be used solely by opponents. You can get a lot done by talking to people.
JXavierH 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
Stagnant 6 hours ago [-]
Okay so I had to look in to it because the site is not really doing a good job explaining it at all. Turns out[0] that they are voting for the extension of the temporary regulation thats been in effect since 2021 (Regulation (EU) 2021/1232). So this is about the "voluntary scanning of private communications" (which is still bad, but has been in effect for almost 5 years already).
Note that the amendment was already amended on 11th March to set expiry to Aug 2027 and to also exclude E2E communications.
kleiba 6 hours ago [-]
If you're ever unsure about whether a proposed EU regulation may be good or bad, just look at whether Hungary supports it: if so, it's bad; if not, it might be good. Egészségére!
orleyhuxwell 6 hours ago [-]
I'm Polish and I was positivity shocked that we oppose it. I remember attending some protests against ACTA which as far as I remember was supposed to be something similar, back in my student days. It was -17°C and people still showed up. Apparently we have some culture of opposing censorship and invigilation by state. May come in handy if the democratic decline keeps progressing...
warkdarrior 5 hours ago [-]
Do you mean "surveillance" by the word "invigilation" here?
subscribed 4 hours ago [-]
Could be a wordplay due to the fact "invigilation" can be translated to and from the Polish word with a _very_ heavy and long connotations to the USSR state surveillance, oppression and abuse.
Surveillance would be a more "modern" (even if more natural or seemingly correct word), without this sort of the implied baggage.
nomel 6 hours ago [-]
There a practical reason for this? like more alignment with lobbyists, for whatever financial reasons?
Macha 6 hours ago [-]
Hungary is governed by a Russia aligned autocrat. This generally does not align with the priorities of the rest of the EU.
lpcvoid 5 hours ago [-]
Orban is an evil politician, and Fidez is an evil party.
jiggawatts 6 hours ago [-]
Over the last two decades Hungary reversed course from a democracy joining the west to an authoritarian dictatorship in bed with the Russians.
Hence, everything their government does is the opposite of what a typical European Union member would approve of.
IshKebab 5 hours ago [-]
I wonder what it would take to expel them from the EU...
wolvoleo 3 hours ago [-]
It's simply not possible. EU law has no provisions for kicking a malignant country out. It was simply not foreseen. They can only decide to leave themselves. Which orban will never do because his oligarchs make billions off EU subsidies.
If it were it would have happened already.
jiggawatts 2 hours ago [-]
EU2: the no-Hungary club
subscribed 4 hours ago [-]
Orban is a Putin asset.
afh1 5 hours ago [-]
Where are all those "as an EU citizen" commenters? You are but a subject of an ultra-national government whose sole objective is ever increased control over your life and euros.
latexr 4 hours ago [-]
As a EU citizen, it pisses me off that the US is (with others outside the EU) trying this hard to lobby to undermine our democracy and freedom of speech.
And I’d still take this clusterfuck over the alternative current state of the US. At least this situation we can (and have been) striking down, despite all the naysayers on HN. Here’s to hoping we’re able to do so again!
3 hours ago [-]
cbeach 3 hours ago [-]
We Europeans have a pathological habit of blaming Orange Man Bad for all our many problems (which are often the fault of the EU and our socialist, collectivist tendencies)
latexr 1 hours ago [-]
> We Europeans have a pathological habit of blaming Orange Man Bad for all our many problems
Speak for yourself. I don’t even think Trump is to blame for all the US’s problems (he’s a symptom of a much larger system), let alone the EU’s.
I also mentioned others outside the EU and US, as does the link I posted.
Furthermore, I don’t think I personally know anyone from the EU who blames “all our many problems” on the US.
Muromec 3 hours ago [-]
>You are but a subject of an ultra-national government whose sole objective is ever increased control over your life and euros.
Yes, but who isn't? Not the other side of the pond for sure.
moffkalast 4 hours ago [-]
As an EU citizen I have to remind you that as a (most likely) US citizen, you've had the Patiot act sanction the NSA to have free reign for this sort of thing for the past 25 years.
We've shot it down before, and we'll shoot it down again, regardless of how relentless Palantir lobbying gets.
pessimizer 4 hours ago [-]
> you've had the Patiot act sanction the NSA to have free reign for this sort of thing for the past 25 years.
This is not true. No part of the Patriot Act required all people all private messages and photos to be scanned or have a backdoor to encryption. You're saying this to minimize what's about to happen to Europe, which is not helpful. The NSA made deals with private companies to tap lines, and used its influence and US intelligence's secret ownership of a Swiss encryption company to encourage us to use broken algorithms.
> We've shot it down before, and we'll shoot it down again, regardless of how relentless Palantir lobbying gets.
I wish you luck. But there's nothing keeping the EU from doing, and having always done, what the NSA has also done. What you're trying to stop is the requirement to serve your communications to your rulers on a silver platter.
leugim 6 hours ago [-]
So they will pass it until is a yes?
RobotToaster 6 hours ago [-]
Exactly what happened when Ireland rejected the Lisbon treaty, they were told to vote again until they voted the "right" way.
koolala 6 hours ago [-]
Like UI saying "Yes" | "Ask later"
askonomm 4 hours ago [-]
That's literally the entire Microslop Winblows set up screen flow. There's no "no", only "confirm".
paulddraper 5 hours ago [-]
Almost happened with Brexit referendum.
Lio 6 hours ago [-]
Heads I win, tails you loose. :(
It takes only one win to remove our rights but once they’re gone you’ll never get them back.
seanthemon 6 hours ago [-]
Modern democracy
tosti 6 hours ago [-]
Wait until you find out it's actually already implemented and they're trying to legitimise it.
AnssiH 5 hours ago [-]
The proposal they are voting on is about continuing the current time-limited implementation (voluntary scanning, Regulation (EU) 2021/1232).
This is not about mandatory scanning.
cess11 5 hours ago [-]
It was one of the things Ylva Johansson infamously said about it, Microsoft and Apple are already doing it so what's the big deal?
while not pass:
try to pass something stupid, malevolent or that hurts people and democracies
rogerthis 4 hours ago [-]
Yes. The anchor chain got broken sometime ago. It's still there, but nobody want it anymore.
fidotron 6 hours ago [-]
Or, as is also seen elsewhere, wildly popular ideas simply get curiously stuck.
Either way those elected to supposedly serve are the only ones winning.
Acrobatic_Road 6 hours ago [-]
They only have to win once. You have to win every time.
Kenji 6 hours ago [-]
Of course. They literally spell their playbook out for you:
“We decide something, then put it out there and wait for a while to see what happens.
If there is then no great outcry and no uprisings, because most people do not even understand what has been decided, then we continue—step by step, until there is no turning back.”
— Jean-Claude Juncker
slopinthebag 2 hours ago [-]
There is a lot of people who will nod and agree with that statement, as long as the decisions are one's that they agree with.
elzbardico 6 hours ago [-]
They never quit.
They just waited for something else to dominate the news, so they could fly it under the radar.
The war started, so, they felt it was now or never.
fooqux 6 hours ago [-]
It's not now or never. It's now, or the next attempt or the next.
jiggawatts 6 hours ago [-]
Who is "they"?
That's the key question!
There's a small group of very powerful people that keep pushing this agenda.
Who are those people?
Find out.
Publicize their names. Make their corruption visible and linked to their identity.
In case anyone has an issue with this: Remember! This is what they want! For you! Not for them. Only the plebs.
adammarples 5 hours ago [-]
This isn't a conspiracy... "They" are the EPP, a democratically elected party acting fully in public with their names attached to everything.
2postsperday 4 hours ago [-]
[dead]
drnick1 4 hours ago [-]
> The "Chat Control" proposal would legalise scanning of all private digital communications, including encrypted messages and photos.
How would this be enforced in practice? In other words, what would prevent E.U. users from using encrypted services outside of the jurisdiction of the E.U., to "illegally" encrypt their hard drives or to run their own private encrypted comms servers?
Muromec 2 hours ago [-]
The same way you can't send money to the best Korea and watch porn on youtube.
There is a long chain of actions that ends with you having e2e on your phone (or what not). At the starts of it there is your physical body living in jurisdiction and transacting with (mostly) other people being somewhat present in the same jurisdiction using government-captured money. There are multiply choke points, controlling which will not result in 100% enforcement, but will make whatever you want to do a huge pain in the ass, so most people will not bother (case in point -- jailbraking). Whoever is left self-selects themselves for selective enforcement.
cbeach 3 hours ago [-]
They won’t need to enforce this rigorously. They’ll just need to show some scary examples of people being arrested or having computers seized for using illegal forms of encryption. The mainstream media will go along with the EU, demonising these dangerous individuals, who must have been up to something nefarious if they were using technologies sanctioned by the EU
ZetsuBouKyo 2 hours ago [-]
it's probably best to go with client-side encryption and share keys with friends privately. that pretty much fixes all the privacy issues after the initial registration, but maintaining that extension with all the company and their updates is a bit of a headache.
wolvoleo 3 hours ago [-]
Yeah that didn't take long. Of course they keep pushing it. I knew the big 'win' of the 11th was a bit premature and overcelebrated.
The dark forces behind all this set to gain a lot of profits once it passes :(
foweltschmerz 6 hours ago [-]
This is the same EU that blocks and hinders innovation in the name of privacy?
flexagoon 1 hours ago [-]
Which law are you talking about? Genuine question, because I know about EU laws that are "in the name of privacy" and about those that (arguably) "hinder innovation", but I don't know which one fits both
askonomm 4 hours ago [-]
You are aware that EU is not a single country, right? I know American education is third-world levels these days, so unfortunately I have to ask this.
nozzlegear 35 minutes ago [-]
You are aware that the US has 50 different states + DC who all affect those education rankings, right? The average education level of someone from Massachusetts is going to be much higher than someone from Alabama, in the same way that the average education level of someone from Estonia of all places is going to be higher than Cyprus.
u8080 3 hours ago [-]
4 Member States Opposing
23 Member States Supporting
0 Member States Undecided
layer8 5 hours ago [-]
The EU isn’t a single mind. There are a multitude of factions trying to get through all kinds of things.
5 hours ago [-]
JodieBenitez 5 hours ago [-]
"for sure"
MrBruh 6 hours ago [-]
You can directly call your representatives by looking them up here:
It can fail 100 times and it won't count, and the one time this surveillance legislation passes it will become law. Thanks EU, nice show of democracy.
jacknews 21 minutes ago [-]
so much for 'democracy'
keep voting until you get the right answer
at least EU are voting I suppose. some governments just go ahead and mass-surveil illegally
mastermedo 5 hours ago [-]
What does this mean for a non-eu citizen communicating with an eu citizen? Is it as simple as using signal/matrix instead of whatsapp/messenger?
Vinnl 4 hours ago [-]
Just a heads up that this is being posted late in the European evening here, so that will affect who's commenting.
gib444 4 hours ago [-]
Posted 9:30-11:30pm. Plenty of us awake
It won't all be non-Europeans if that's what you're implying
4 hours ago [-]
mnewme 6 hours ago [-]
Fun fact: the parties that want this are actually those who criticise the EU the most
amarant 5 hours ago [-]
Yes well, they're running out of good arguments to show how bad the EU is, so they have to force some bad decisions through so that they may have something to cry about.
God I love politics
cbeach 3 hours ago [-]
Not true. In the UK, the only party that would repeal the heinous “Online Safety Act” are Reform UK, which is headed by notorious Euroskeptic MP Nigel Farage.
Muromec 2 hours ago [-]
"would"
baal80spam 6 hours ago [-]
But of course it's back.
dokyun 6 hours ago [-]
So much for "digital soverignty".
Muromec 2 hours ago [-]
Being able to make this policy choice in either direction is in fact an example of digital sovereignty. We just don't like what the sovereign has decided this time.
nunobrito 5 hours ago [-]
They aid the truth because the complete slogan was about EU's digital sovereignity. Not really your sovereignity nor mine.
rdevilla 2 hours ago [-]
They should just ask the Americans. If you are not a US citizen you have zero rights, and any old creep in Silicon Valley can riffle through your personal information with impunity.
I realize I am just recapitulating the modus operandi of Five Eyes here...
nozzlegear 29 minutes ago [-]
Are you advocating for some kind of global citizenship or bill of rights here? Isn't the point of data sovereignty the implicit understanding that you're not a citizen of other countries and don't have rights there?
jedisct1 2 hours ago [-]
The US doesn't even have to ask, people already give AI providers all their data and full control over all their devices.
HelloUsername 6 hours ago [-]
Why's there '?foo=bar' in the URL?
mrbruh2 6 hours ago [-]
To get around the "dupe" filter, it was trying to mark it as a dupe of a 7 month old post.
brcmthrowaway 6 hours ago [-]
It's a web bug
2 hours ago [-]
retinaros 3 hours ago [-]
Few days ago we had a guy explaining to us at the top of hn page that we should migrate data to europe. Sometimes I miss the internet of before mass surveillance abd ads everywhere
max_ 5 hours ago [-]
The lack of accountability after what was exposed in the Epstein files illustrates that not one in power actually care about kids.
"Save the kids", is just a ploy to run scams.
crest 4 hours ago [-]
Let the damn politicans go first and make all their private messages public. Yes everything from boring I'm stuck in traffic honey over nudes to insider trading and lobbying.
Nice website! Sadly, url stays the same across all coutries. I can't send anyone direct link.
hkon 5 hours ago [-]
ofc, they only need to get it approved once. they will try until they succeed
hsuduebc2 5 hours ago [-]
I absolutely don't understand how anyone can support this in the context of rising authoritarianism. Even people in my country which are talking about this phenomena support it. I strongly suspect that they do absolutely know shit about why it's problematic.
I wonder if they would support that every of paper mail would be opened and checked. I strongly doubt that.
layer8 5 hours ago [-]
It’s a symptom of authoritarianism rising. It wouldn’t be rising if there wasn’t anyone who supports things like that.
hsuduebc2 4 hours ago [-]
That I would understand, but these policies are supported by most liberal politics from my country and opposed by some populists or "strong hand" politicians. I somehow understand that various russian agents are against that, because that can theoretically be used against them but these liberal democrats are somewhat mystery for me.
stinkbeetle 5 hours ago [-]
Because social cohesion is also breaking down (which is also by design). People increasingly do not trust and can not rely on neighbors and their fellow citizens to share similar interests and look out for one another. And they have much less power to organize with other citizens to petition their government.
So they feel they must turn to the state for protection.
hermanzegerman 2 hours ago [-]
Because they fall for the "Its for protecting the Children" Bullshit
hirvi74 1 hours ago [-]
An encrypted message has never sexually violated and traumatized a child, but I'd bet good money that many politicians have. So, it's quite apparent what we need to protect children from in my opinion.
elzbardico 6 hours ago [-]
Please, could the bootlickers of the European Union stop downvoting every single criticism of it?
Are you so obtuse to be unable to figure out that by being like annoying school marms you are just making people start to pay more attention to the populists?
JodieBenitez 5 hours ago [-]
> Please, could the bootlickers of the European Union stop downvoting every single criticism of it?
Hey, let's call this "forum control" :)
freehorse 6 hours ago [-]
I don't think criticisms of chat-control-like legislation attempts are downvoted here?
Pay08 6 hours ago [-]
This guy has gone on a small anti-EU tirade elsewhere in the thread.
hagbard_c 5 hours ago [-]
If my experience is anything to go by the answer is 'yes':
> The clearest example of lobbying (chat control) has repeatedly been struck down.
They can try as often as they want and they only have to win once. We - as in those who don't want this Orwellian monster to be written into law - have to win all the time.
That comment was quickly voted down. It is unclear whether this was the usual "don't like this person so I'll downvote all his last posts" or targeted at my statement on how these proposals keep on popping up no matter how often the people - in Greek that spells 'δημόσιο' or 'dèmosio', the root of 'democracy' - have made clear they don't want it.
layer8 5 hours ago [-]
One reason to downvote it is because laws having some stability is generally a good thing. It also doesn’t prevent laws being passed that strengthen the right to privacy.
The argument is a too simplistic criticism of the legislative process. And it’s independent from criticizing the actual laws that are attempted to be passed. It applies equally to desirable and undesirable laws.
hagbard_c 3 hours ago [-]
In that case the down-voters could have replied with something like that instead of knee-jerk-pressing that down-vote arrow in an attempt to get rid of a dissenting opinion. I would have responded by pointing out that the repeated attempts at pushing through laws which are clearly unwanted by the voting public has no stabilising effect and only undermines the trust in the legislative process. That my argument of 'they can try as often as they wish because they only have to win once while we have to win every time' is not simplistic but realistic.
I would be interested to hear your reasoning behind that statement by the way, in what way is it 'simplistic'? Why should it be acceptable for politicos to keep on attempting to push through unwanted laws while it is clearly not allowed for e.g. commercial entities to keep on pestering you with unwanted offers? Here's the very same EU on the subject [1]:
Persistent unwanted offers
Under EU law, companies may not make persistent and unwanted offers to you by telephone, fax, e mail or any other media suitable for distance selling.
I propose a similar law for politicos:
Persistent unwanted law proposals
Under EU law, politicians may not make persistent attempts to push through law proposals which have been voted down several times before.
The law text needs to make clear that it is not allowed to keep on trying to push through essentially identical law proposals which have been voted down by $X sessions of the EU parliament. After having been voted down $X times there is a mandatory moratorium of $Y years before a similar law can be brought up to the vote again.
> Why should it be acceptable for politicos to keep on attempting to push through unwanted laws
Think about what would happen if it was somehow prohibited to propose “sufficiently similar” laws again. Opposing parties would start gaming that rule by proposing the weakest flawed version possible for a law, so that it is rejected, which will in consequence prevent a better version of it from being admissible for consideration. Factions being in the majority will proactively propose and reject some laws just in case that, in the next legislative period, other factions gain majority. Similarly, minority factions will be discouraged from even proposing any laws, for fear of canceling future chances when they are rejected. Furthermore, who will judge what is “similar enough” to fall under the rule? Politicians will just start playing games to make it just dissimilar enough to go through.
Sometimes you downvote things because they are so obviously amiss that they aren’t even worth discussing. I understand that it can be frustrating if you don’t think they are amiss, but that’s just how it is.
vrganj 6 hours ago [-]
Framing this as the EU's attempt is antieuropean propaganda.
It is the Conservatives attempt. The EU parliament is the entity that shot it down last time.
elzbardico 6 hours ago [-]
EU is not a synonym of Europe. EU propagandists don't get to define what Europe means.
Second. Who gave you the right to define antieuropean union propaganda as a sin.
Some people may hate it, some people may love it, other want to change it.
It was created by vote, surely it can be whatever the fuck the way the people want by vote.
vrganj 6 hours ago [-]
EU is a synonym for Europe in colloquial conversation the same way USA is a synonym for America.
GalaxyNova 5 hours ago [-]
this is just wrong
Findecanor 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
vrganj 6 hours ago [-]
Das musst du jetzt aber mal den Amerikanern erklären ;-)
Findecanor 6 hours ago [-]
Oder... sie könnten jemanden aus Süd- oder Mittelamerika fragen, was das Wort „Amerika“ für ihn bedeutet.
vrganj 5 hours ago [-]
Entiendo como se sienten los otros Americanos.
But it doesn't change the fact of the matter that in English (and not only English! German, too, as demonstrated), these words have different meanings.
Findecanor 6 hours ago [-]
I don't follow EU politics that much, but I know that one of the strongest proponents for it has been from the Swedish Social Democratic party, which has dominated Swedish politics.
So, in my view this is not really a "left" or "right" thing, but something that is pushed by people you could call "the establishment".
vrganj 6 hours ago [-]
The vote has literally been scheduled by the EPP, the EU grouping of conservative parties.
Pay08 6 hours ago [-]
And that means only they can support it? This isn't the USA, there's no 2 party system where everything "we" do is good and everything "the other side" does is bad.
hermanzegerman 2 hours ago [-]
It means they, the EPP, are the driving force behind the current effort.
vrganj 6 hours ago [-]
I'm not saying only they support it, nor do I believe most groupings in the EU are "good". I'm only saying the ones currently working on overturning the parliament vote are the Conservatives, seeing how they're the ones trying to force a revote.
oytis 5 hours ago [-]
European Commission is basically as close to being EU's government as it can be, it is fair to say these are the people that represent EU now. Much like it's fair to say that US is bombing Iran even if not all of the US is doing that.
pcrh 6 hours ago [-]
Exactly. EU legislation is currently far more respecting of privacy than is legislation in the UK or the US.
For various, and unclear, reasons, there is substantial backing to change this.
EmbarrassedHelp 5 hours ago [-]
In the UK, Apple is now blocking users from using any web browser to access "non-PG" content unless the user submits to privacy violating age verification. Apple blocks you at the OS level, making VPNs useless.
ab5tract 6 hours ago [-]
Can you clarify what you mean? The linked website makes it seem that the majority MEPs of the supporting countries are on board. Are all of the (listed as) supporting countries currently under conservative governments?
AnssiH 6 hours ago [-]
The majority of the MEPs are not onboard mandatory scanning, otherwise that would've been passed already.
The site is conflating mandatory scanning with voluntary scanning (status quo). The upcoming vote is about continuing the voluntary scanning (which would otherwise expire).
vaylian 5 hours ago [-]
The "voluntary" scanning is still mass surveillance of private messages. We as technologist tend to rely on technical methods to protect our private data. But non-technical people should also enjoy confidential communication, even if they don't actively protect their conversations.
lostmsu 5 hours ago [-]
> voluntary scanning
What is that? A setting in OS?
u8080 3 hours ago [-]
Service could voluntary opt-out, like Pavel Durov did.
vrganj 6 hours ago [-]
To quote the banner on said website:
> The Conservatives (EPP) are attempting to force a new vote on Thursday (26th), seeking to reverse Parliament's NO on indiscriminate scanning.
This does not mean that only EPP supports the bill, though.
vrganj 6 hours ago [-]
No, but it does mean the attempt is attributable to them.
iso1631 6 hours ago [-]
There are two elements to the EU
The Council, which is headed by the government of each member state in equal measure - similar to the Senate in the US
And Parliament, which are directly elected by the people, with each member state having representitives in proportion to their population, so Germany has far more than Ireland. This is similar to Congress.
Now this site says Germany supports it, but then says that MEPS
> 49 oppose, 47 in favor (45 confirmed, 2 presumed based on government stance)
I would thus infer that the "most member states" refer to the national governments (that were elected by their population) position and not the direct MEP position.
However a quick look at the json it's loading and I can't see
Now as the parliament has blocked it, a grouping, the "EPP" (Think Ronald Reagan type republicans) is trying to use their influence to bring it back to a vote.
> "The Conservatives (EPP) are attempting to force a new vote on Thursday (26th), seeking to reverse Parliament's NO on indiscriminate scanning. This is a direct attack on democracy and blatant disregard for your right to privacy."
sgt 5 hours ago [-]
Is that fair? Ireland should surely have a say the same way Germany does in parliament too, if it's affecting Ireland just as much. If one considers countries as units.
vrganj 3 hours ago [-]
That's the whole idea, the parliament doesn't.
The Council is the representation of the countries. The Parliament of the people.
Pay08 6 hours ago [-]
This is how political messaging has worked since I was born.
freehorse 6 hours ago [-]
The last version of chat control was pushed by Denmark, which presided the european council until december, and with a social democratic prime minister (coalition government with social democrats the majority). The "conservatives push for chat control" is not really accurate, a bit part of social democrats are also supporting it.
vrganj 6 hours ago [-]
That is true, but this attempt is led by the Conservatives. Not more, not less.
hermanzegerman 2 hours ago [-]
Many people here seem to have great difficulty with reading comprehension
soulofmischief 6 hours ago [-]
Fight Chat Control is a website maintained by a European. It is no more anti-European than I, an American, speaking about the latest antics of our conservative-led government and saying, "The US government is attempting to ____".
izacus 6 hours ago [-]
Yeah, it's like saying "USA wants to poison children still!" when a Republican files another deranged bill in their state.
ImJamal 6 hours ago [-]
It seems like it is bipartisan to me. Do you have the statistics to back up your claim?
9dev 6 hours ago [-]
This. There's a very specific group of twisted people that drive this, but equating that with the entire EU is flat out wrong.
u8080 3 hours ago [-]
Who are those people?
dgxyz 6 hours ago [-]
The trick here is to make it impossible to do so.
Don’t put your shit in the cloud and use proper E2E secure messaging.
For me the entire idea of the cloud is dead due to exposure like this.
vaylian 5 hours ago [-]
People on HN but also criminals will know how circumvent this. But the average person will be completely lost in this surveillance apparatus. It's going to affect the wrong people.
dgxyz 5 hours ago [-]
I’ve been eternally surprised at how non technical people work around problems. I mean I have a totally technology illiterate family member who worked out how to torrent films and watch them and install ublock and Firefox.
Muromec 2 hours ago [-]
>People on HN but also criminals will know how circumvent this.
If they force their spyware into Android/iOS you are running out of options.
drnick1 4 hours ago [-]
Then guess what, criminals will use Linux phones running semi-custom apps for their encrypted business while honest citizens will be spied on.
dgxyz 5 hours ago [-]
Pixel and GrapheneOS or something. Already considering it.
NexRebular 5 hours ago [-]
Gotta get back in time. The Symbian S60/S80 platform will rise again!
nunobrito 5 hours ago [-]
Like others said: this is implemented on operating system level, locally.
There isn't much escape other than using messengers which encrypt the data locally. Geogram radio is doing this.
dgxyz 5 hours ago [-]
I’d rather use an older or open source OS without it
lostmsu 5 hours ago [-]
That's one of the tricks. The other trick is to vote in universal right for encrypted communication once and for all.
tekne 4 hours ago [-]
Encryption is mathematics -- making this an issue of freedom not only of speech, but of thought.
dgxyz 5 hours ago [-]
That’s the best answer. But you’re up against paid up lobbyists.
spwa4 5 hours ago [-]
But don't worry, exceptions for ALL officials are built in. And I do mean ALL officials. In this bill, for example, pedophile gym teachers are perfectly safe from getting scanned.
Gym teachers are also the largest group of people convicted for pedophilia. So you can be sure they are keeping their priorities straight. States, and the monopoly telco's are also protected from paying even the tiniest amount of money for companies to do these scans, all costs are entirely offloaded to app developers.
So the priorities are clear:
1) protecting the state from even the tiniest amount of responsibility, even at the cost of children getting abused
2) keeping some 50 foreign states from the same
3) keeping a whole list of organizations safe from inspections
4) keeping the state safe from actually spending any amount of money on these scans
...
n) protecting children
tjwebbnorfolk 5 hours ago [-]
does this violate GDPR?
Muromec 2 hours ago [-]
>GDPR Article 2 Material scope
>2. This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data:
>by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security.
gib444 5 hours ago [-]
Maybe...in a world where lawmakers didn't put huge exemptions into GDPR for governments and law enforcement etc. Which they did.
iam_circuit 3 hours ago [-]
[dead]
Rendered at 02:38:49 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
Thank you for sharing. It is unfortunately, once again, needed.
The recent events have been rather dumbfounding. On March 11, the Parliament surprisingly voted to replace blanket mass surveillance with targeted monitoring of suspects following judicial involvement [0]. As Council refused to compromise, the trilogue negotiations were set to fail, thus allowing the Commission's current indiscriminate "Chat Control 1.0" to lapse [1]. This would have been the ideal outcome.
In an unprecedented move, the EPP is attempting to force a repeat vote tomorrow, seeking to overturn the otherwise principled March 11 decision and instead favouring indiscriminate mass surveillance [1, 2]. In an attempt to avoid this, the Greens earlier today tried to remove the repeat vote from the agenda tomorrow, but this was voted down [3].
As such, tomorrow, the Parliament will once again vote on Chat Control. And unlike March 11, multiple groups are split on the vote, including S&D and Renew. The EPP remains unified in its support for Chat Control. If you are a European citizen, I urge you to contact your MEPs by e-mail and, if you have time, by calling. We really are in the final stretch here and every action counts. I have just updated the website to reflect the votes today, allowing a more targeted approach.
Happy to answer any questions.
[0] https://mepwatch.eu/10/vote.html?v=188578
[1] https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/the-battle-over-chat-contro...
[2] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/OJQ-10-2026-03...
[3] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PV-10-2026-03-...
It's really surprising to me that this issue keeps coming up time and time again, until I realised that it's non-voted in parties actually trying to pass this stuff!
I didn't realise that the EU parliament simply says yes or no to bills and doesn't actually propose new laws, whilst the EU Commission are appointed and decide on what bills to push through.
Why? Why has your approach not been toward passing active legislation that protects these rights going forward? Genuinely curious. I understand that finding and pressing the “don’t ask again” button is always harder, but I don’t understand why “we punted on this decision!” is a celebratory moment.
Maybe a movement could match a lobbyist in terms of money. I hope so.
The story is tragically illustrative of the maxim that you can oppose terrible legislation a hundred times but they only have to pass it once.
>rejected
>let's vote on it again!
Is it still a democracy if you just keep redoing the vote until you get the outcome you want? The politicians involved in this should be ashamed of themselves.
But they are first-class in acting like a victim
It's the same thing as with your republicans.
Is it just that there's no "privacy lobby" interested in getting even one lawyer around to sit down and write it up?
Or is there at least one such bill floating around, but no EU member state has been willing to table it for discussion?
"Article 7
Respect for private and family life
Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications.
Article 8
Protection of personal data
1. Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.
2. Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by law. Everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified.
3. Compliance with these rules shall be subject to control by an independent authority."
Ditto the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with its 'notwithstanding' clause. (Though they're presently litigating over that, so we'll see what happens!)
Any constitution or human rights instrument full of exemptions, 'emergency powers', 'notwithstanding' clauses, or 'states of exception' is not worth the paper it's written on.
(That’s not to say laws shouldn’t make a better attempt to circumscribe exceptions)
No laws are absolute, some laws are more holes than cheese, but a law that says "A government must not punish you for doing X, except in accordance with duly passed criminal laws that make X illegal" is almost entirely pointless. It exists solely to make people feel fuzzy when reading the first half of the sentence, which is the only part you'll ever hear quoted, while not actually impeding anything a government may wish to do to you. This is intentional. Those carte blanche exemptions do not consistently appear across international human rights treaties by some innocuous accident.
Last but not least, a number of EU countries enshrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrecy_of_correspondence in their constitution.
Also it isn't respected in most types of criminal trials. If a sealed physical letter is opened and proves fraud, for example ...
But end to end encryption with forward secrecy at no cost to user makes your right to private communication absolute. It's a new thing and the balancers can't balance it against other rights of other people, so this happens.
As it should be. Governments should have to suck it up. If they want to know things about someone, they should have to actually assign police to follow them around. Not click a button and have the lives of everyone in the entire world revealed to them.
Germany, for exmaple, has secrecy of correspondence that extends to electronic communications, but allows for "restrictions to protect the free democratic basic order" and outlines when intelligence services can bypass the right to privacy.
Italy, France, and Polan also have similar carve outs.
Having it as a right isn't enough. National security and "public safety" carve outs need to be eliminated. So long as those exist, we have no right to privacy.
Rights are inherent to human nature, or they are nothing at all. If they could be granted by gov’t, then they can be taken away; they wouldn’t be rights. They allow individuals to fulfill their natural moral duties; you have a right to a good, because you have a prior obligation to pursue it. While the existence of these rights is universal and inalienable, their exercise is not absolute, as they are always limited by justice and the common good of the community. Because these rights are pre-political - they are not legal privileges; the state’s only legitimate role here is to recognize and protect what already exists by nature; any civil law that contradicts them is a perversion of justice rather than a binding law.
So…if privacy is a right (and I would say it is a derivative right, from more basic rights), then it does not follow that its scope is absolutely unrestrained. It’s not difficult to come up with examples where privacy is constrained or abrogated for this reason.
The trouble with broad privacy-violating measures is that they are sweeping in scope and unjustified, making them bad for the common good and a violation of a personal right. It is clearly motivated by technocratic design and desire for control, not the common good and the good of persons. Because it is unjustified, its institution is therefore opposed to reason. It effectively says that no vaild justification need exist. This is a voluntarist, tyrannical order.
The absolutist stance likes to claim that “having justification” is always how rights are violated, but this is wrongheaded. This is tantamount to claiming that we can’t tell a valid justification from an invalid one. But if that were true, then we are in much worse shape than such people suppose. If we cannot discern a valid justification from a bad one, then how can we have the capacity to discern when a right is being violated at all? Furthermore, it is simply not the case as a general political rule that gov’ts will violate rights if those rights are not absolute (which has never been the case anyway). The evidence does not support this thesis. And furthermore, if a gov’t wishes to violate a right, treating it as if it were an absolute doesn’t somehow prevent it from being violated. Some place too much faith in supposed structural elements of gov’t as ways to keep this from happening (like separation of powers), but there is nothing in principle to prevent these branches from cooperating toward such an end.
In this case, I see no reason that we would want to draft constitutional rights such that we consider a government's actions taken in pursuit of their national security to be, per se, legal — i.e. warranted, unable to be sued over, etc.
Imagine instead, a much weaker right granted to the state: the right to maintain laws or regulations which require/force government or military employees to do things that violate people's rights and/or the law of the land. But with no limit on liability. No grant of warrant. Just the mildest possible form of preservation: technically constitutional; and not immediately de-fanged the first time the Supreme Court gets their hands on it.
So, for example, some state might introduce a new law saying that soldiers can come to your house and confiscate your laptop. And then the head of that state might actually use that law to invade your home and take your laptop.
Given that the law exists, it would be legal for the head-of-state to give this order. And it would also be legal for the soldiers to obey this order (or to put it another way, court-martialable for the soldiers to disobey this order, since it's not an illegal order.)
But the actual thing that happened as a result of this law being followed, would be illegal — criminal theft! — and you would therefore be entitled to sue the state for damages about it. And perhaps, if it was still reporting on Find My or whatever, you might even be entitled to send police to whatever NSA vault your laptop is held in, to go get it back for you. (Where, unlike the state, those police do have a warrant to bust in there to get it. The state can't sue them for damages incurred while they were retrieving the laptop!)
The courts wouldn't be able to strike down the law (the national-security provision allows the state to declare it 'not un-constitutional", remember?); but since obeying the law produces illegal outcomes, you would be able to punish the government each and every time they actually use it. In as many ways as the state caused you and others harm through their actions.
There is absolutely zero reason why the state shouldn't be expected to "make people whole" for damages it has caused them, each and every time it does something against the people's interest in the name of national security.
And the simplest way to calculate that penalty / make the claiming and distribution of those rewards practical, would be to just not remove liability for these actions taken on behalf of the state, by not granting the state the right to do them in the first place. Just put them in the position of any other criminal, and force them to go to court to defend themselves.
Change my mind!
It's incredible how even with the current surge of autocracy, most politicians can't see that the surveillance tools they crave for, could come under control of people much worse than them.
And can't see what they could do with them.
I think that many current governments in Europe are convinced that more surveillance will stop the autocratic surge. It's insane that they don't see how this is far from guaranteed, and how it will go if they're wrong.
This is overly absolutist, or maybe idealistic view. National security and public safety IS more important than individual right to privacy. As an extreme example, if your friend was dying, you had a password to my email, and you knew that you can use information in my inbox to save that person i really hope you would do it.
In general I think that police with a court order should be able to invade someone's privacy (with judge discretion). I mean they can already kick down someone's doors and detain them for several days - checking email doesn't sound too bad compared to it, does it? I think they should also be legally obliged to inform that person in let's say 6 months that they did it.
The problem is that modern world is drastically different than the old world when you needed to physically hunt down letters. Now you can mass scan everyone's emails, siphon terabytes of personal data that stasi could only dream of, and invigilate everyone. This is something that is worth fighting against.
Article 7 codifies "respect for [one's] private life" and "respect for [one's] private communications". Well, "respect" is a vague notion. This does not clearly imply that the government is not allowed to read your communications, or otherwise spy on you, if it believes it has good reason. It will do so "respectfully", or supposedly minimize the intrusion etc.
As for article 8: Here it is "protection of personal data" and "fair processing". It does not say "protection from government access"; and "processing" is when the government or some other party already has your data. In fact, as others point out, even this wording has an explicit legitimization of violation of privacy and 'protection' whenever there is a law which defines something as "legitimate basis" for invading your privacy.
You would have liked to see wording like:
* "Privacy in one's home, personal life, communications and digital interactions is a fundamental right."
* "The EU, its members, its bodies, its officers and whoever acts on its behalf shall not invade individuals' privacy."
and probably something about a non-absolute right to anonymity. Codified exceptions should be limited and not open-ended.
Which is... okay? Government gonna government, that's what we pay it to do.
The reality is that they'll just keep pushing it from different angles, they only have to get lucky once, we (or EU citizens, we left and have our own issues) need to be lucky every time - much like an adverserial relationship where you are on the defending side from a cyberattack...funny that really.
Because the people voting it down are the elected MEPs, whilst the people putting it up to parliament are the European Commission. The EC are appointed, rather than elected. Which means the powers that be just appoint people who are going to push through laws like this, that they want. The MEPs can't put up bills to be voted on.
Article 7, EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: Respect for private and family life (and probably a couple other sections in there as well).
The problem is national security exceptions. Chat control and other similar bills are trying to carve out exceptions to privacy laws under the excuse of national security.
Also its politically cheap to introduce surveillance or to expand state power, it's comparatively extremely difficult to pass laws that specifically restrict state power.
Privacy laws are well and good, but they exist. The problem is we need to stop allowing "public safety" or "national security" to be a trump card that allows exceptions to said laws, and good luck getting any government to ever agree that privacy is more important than national security.
- The GDPR
- The ePrivacy directive, which is explicitly derogated (sabotaged) by chat control 1.0
How is that supposed to work with e2e encrypted chats?
Combined with the right to communicate across borders, you can get quite a bit of privacy: a server in both sides of a geopolitical conflict and they've got to collaborate to track you.
And yet metadata collection is both unavoidable (if you don't collect it, your geopolitical opponents will) and should be enough. We don't need chat control in a world where I get precision-targeted ads -- it's not even about freedom of speech or privacy, it's about freedom of thought.
With a server on the other side of a geopolitical conflict (actual conflict, not a mere discontinuity in legalscape) you trade a risk of the government reading your chats for a risk of the same government (which you don't trust for a good reason) locking you up for treason and espionage.
[0]: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sedcms/documents/PRIORITY_INF...
Note that the amendment was already amended on 11th March to set expiry to Aug 2027 and to also exclude E2E communications.
Surveillance would be a more "modern" (even if more natural or seemingly correct word), without this sort of the implied baggage.
Hence, everything their government does is the opposite of what a typical European Union member would approve of.
If it were it would have happened already.
https://digitalcourage.social/@echo_pbreyer/1162053712243153...
And I’d still take this clusterfuck over the alternative current state of the US. At least this situation we can (and have been) striking down, despite all the naysayers on HN. Here’s to hoping we’re able to do so again!
Speak for yourself. I don’t even think Trump is to blame for all the US’s problems (he’s a symptom of a much larger system), let alone the EU’s.
I also mentioned others outside the EU and US, as does the link I posted.
Furthermore, I don’t think I personally know anyone from the EU who blames “all our many problems” on the US.
Yes, but who isn't? Not the other side of the pond for sure.
We've shot it down before, and we'll shoot it down again, regardless of how relentless Palantir lobbying gets.
This is not true. No part of the Patriot Act required all people all private messages and photos to be scanned or have a backdoor to encryption. You're saying this to minimize what's about to happen to Europe, which is not helpful. The NSA made deals with private companies to tap lines, and used its influence and US intelligence's secret ownership of a Swiss encryption company to encourage us to use broken algorithms.
> We've shot it down before, and we'll shoot it down again, regardless of how relentless Palantir lobbying gets.
I wish you luck. But there's nothing keeping the EU from doing, and having always done, what the NSA has also done. What you're trying to stop is the requirement to serve your communications to your rulers on a silver platter.
It takes only one win to remove our rights but once they’re gone you’ll never get them back.
This is not about mandatory scanning.
Makes me think about this clip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjhsLq3-ZWE
Either way those elected to supposedly serve are the only ones winning.
“We decide something, then put it out there and wait for a while to see what happens.
If there is then no great outcry and no uprisings, because most people do not even understand what has been decided, then we continue—step by step, until there is no turning back.”
— Jean-Claude Juncker
That's the key question!
There's a small group of very powerful people that keep pushing this agenda.
Who are those people?
Find out.
Publicize their names. Make their corruption visible and linked to their identity.
In case anyone has an issue with this: Remember! This is what they want! For you! Not for them. Only the plebs.
How would this be enforced in practice? In other words, what would prevent E.U. users from using encrypted services outside of the jurisdiction of the E.U., to "illegally" encrypt their hard drives or to run their own private encrypted comms servers?
There is a long chain of actions that ends with you having e2e on your phone (or what not). At the starts of it there is your physical body living in jurisdiction and transacting with (mostly) other people being somewhat present in the same jurisdiction using government-captured money. There are multiply choke points, controlling which will not result in 100% enforcement, but will make whatever you want to do a huge pain in the ass, so most people will not bother (case in point -- jailbraking). Whoever is left self-selects themselves for selective enforcement.
The dark forces behind all this set to gain a lot of profits once it passes :(
23 Member States Supporting
0 Member States Undecided
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/portal/en
keep voting until you get the right answer
at least EU are voting I suppose. some governments just go ahead and mass-surveil illegally
It won't all be non-Europeans if that's what you're implying
God I love politics
I realize I am just recapitulating the modus operandi of Five Eyes here...
"Save the kids", is just a ploy to run scams.
A shame the EU is just simulation of democracy.
Best case in point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_corruption_scandal_at_th...
I wonder if they would support that every of paper mail would be opened and checked. I strongly doubt that.
So they feel they must turn to the state for protection.
Are you so obtuse to be unable to figure out that by being like annoying school marms you are just making people start to pay more attention to the populists?
Hey, let's call this "forum control" :)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47412060
> The clearest example of lobbying (chat control) has repeatedly been struck down.
They can try as often as they want and they only have to win once. We - as in those who don't want this Orwellian monster to be written into law - have to win all the time.
That comment was quickly voted down. It is unclear whether this was the usual "don't like this person so I'll downvote all his last posts" or targeted at my statement on how these proposals keep on popping up no matter how often the people - in Greek that spells 'δημόσιο' or 'dèmosio', the root of 'democracy' - have made clear they don't want it.
The argument is a too simplistic criticism of the legislative process. And it’s independent from criticizing the actual laws that are attempted to be passed. It applies equally to desirable and undesirable laws.
I would be interested to hear your reasoning behind that statement by the way, in what way is it 'simplistic'? Why should it be acceptable for politicos to keep on attempting to push through unwanted laws while it is clearly not allowed for e.g. commercial entities to keep on pestering you with unwanted offers? Here's the very same EU on the subject [1]:
Persistent unwanted offers
Under EU law, companies may not make persistent and unwanted offers to you by telephone, fax, e mail or any other media suitable for distance selling.
I propose a similar law for politicos:
Persistent unwanted law proposals
Under EU law, politicians may not make persistent attempts to push through law proposals which have been voted down several times before.
The law text needs to make clear that it is not allowed to keep on trying to push through essentially identical law proposals which have been voted down by $X sessions of the EU parliament. After having been voted down $X times there is a mandatory moratorium of $Y years before a similar law can be brought up to the vote again.
[1] https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treat...
Think about what would happen if it was somehow prohibited to propose “sufficiently similar” laws again. Opposing parties would start gaming that rule by proposing the weakest flawed version possible for a law, so that it is rejected, which will in consequence prevent a better version of it from being admissible for consideration. Factions being in the majority will proactively propose and reject some laws just in case that, in the next legislative period, other factions gain majority. Similarly, minority factions will be discouraged from even proposing any laws, for fear of canceling future chances when they are rejected. Furthermore, who will judge what is “similar enough” to fall under the rule? Politicians will just start playing games to make it just dissimilar enough to go through.
Sometimes you downvote things because they are so obviously amiss that they aren’t even worth discussing. I understand that it can be frustrating if you don’t think they are amiss, but that’s just how it is.
It is the Conservatives attempt. The EU parliament is the entity that shot it down last time.
Second. Who gave you the right to define antieuropean union propaganda as a sin.
Some people may hate it, some people may love it, other want to change it.
It was created by vote, surely it can be whatever the fuck the way the people want by vote.
But it doesn't change the fact of the matter that in English (and not only English! German, too, as demonstrated), these words have different meanings.
So, in my view this is not really a "left" or "right" thing, but something that is pushed by people you could call "the establishment".
For various, and unclear, reasons, there is substantial backing to change this.
The site is conflating mandatory scanning with voluntary scanning (status quo). The upcoming vote is about continuing the voluntary scanning (which would otherwise expire).
What is that? A setting in OS?
> The Conservatives (EPP) are attempting to force a new vote on Thursday (26th), seeking to reverse Parliament's NO on indiscriminate scanning.
The vote itself is being forced by the EPP. This article by an MEP has more info: https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/the-battle-over-chat-contro...
The Council, which is headed by the government of each member state in equal measure - similar to the Senate in the US
And Parliament, which are directly elected by the people, with each member state having representitives in proportion to their population, so Germany has far more than Ireland. This is similar to Congress.
Now this site says Germany supports it, but then says that MEPS
> 49 oppose, 47 in favor (45 confirmed, 2 presumed based on government stance)
I would thus infer that the "most member states" refer to the national governments (that were elected by their population) position and not the direct MEP position.
However a quick look at the json it's loading and I can't see
Now as the parliament has blocked it, a grouping, the "EPP" (Think Ronald Reagan type republicans) is trying to use their influence to bring it back to a vote.
> "The Conservatives (EPP) are attempting to force a new vote on Thursday (26th), seeking to reverse Parliament's NO on indiscriminate scanning. This is a direct attack on democracy and blatant disregard for your right to privacy."
The Council is the representation of the countries. The Parliament of the people.
Don’t put your shit in the cloud and use proper E2E secure messaging.
For me the entire idea of the cloud is dead due to exposure like this.
Criminals in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Trojan_Shield
There isn't much escape other than using messengers which encrypt the data locally. Geogram radio is doing this.
Gym teachers are also the largest group of people convicted for pedophilia. So you can be sure they are keeping their priorities straight. States, and the monopoly telco's are also protected from paying even the tiniest amount of money for companies to do these scans, all costs are entirely offloaded to app developers.
So the priorities are clear:
1) protecting the state from even the tiniest amount of responsibility, even at the cost of children getting abused
2) keeping some 50 foreign states from the same
3) keeping a whole list of organizations safe from inspections
4) keeping the state safe from actually spending any amount of money on these scans
...
n) protecting children
>2. This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data:
>by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security.