The text was watered down, and hopefully it will not clear parliament in any meaningful way. As a dane I wonder if our social democrats are so gong-ho for law this to compensate for the fact that the former king maker in the party was recently jailed on pedophelia charges. But I think they just have a power fetisch.
wkat4242 14 hours ago [-]
There's people saying that the 'watered down' version is kinda the same. I lack the legal knowledge to verify but as I understand it, it no longer mandates scanning content, but it does allow it 'voluntarily' and it does mandate that big providers do something against csam, which can only be done... by scanning content. So it's the same proposal just in a more roundabout way.
Also it requires everyone to ID themselves in chat apps so that they can be determined to not be a minor which will kill anonymous chatting :(
What does "adopt #ChatControl negotiating mandate" mean?
throwaway89201 15 hours ago [-]
If you're asking about "negotiating mandate" here: it's a step in the EU legislative process, which is initiated by the Commission by proposing legislation. The Council of the European Union (which consists of member state government representatives) discusses the proposal and adopts a "negotiating mandate" (or not), which is the allowed negotiation space the Council's presidency has to negotiate with Parliament about the proposal.
If such a mandate is given, a trilogue between Commission, Council and EU Parliament usually starts.
Basically, the same as before re: invasive searches of your property except now surrounded by weasel wording so it seems voluntary but won't be. But the same mandatory dox'ing yourself for future corporate leaks.
nickslaughter02 19 hours ago [-]
"EU government ambassadors set to adopt #ChatControl negotiating mandate tomorrow without discussion, including "voluntary" mass scanning and anonymity-destroying age verification."
64718283661 13 hours ago [-]
It feels like yesterday that it was turned down again. Clearly this is going to pass soon, unfortunately. Idiotic.
GuestFAUniverse 17 hours ago [-]
Chat controls. Again?
How can this even be legal? -- to try and try and try ... against all odds.
Doesn't make any sense to discuss that on a bi-yearly basis.
dfawcus 16 hours ago [-]
Because of the nature of the treaties forming the EU, and the structures it generates.
It is basically a regulatory union, constructed so as to transpose power to the center, then hold it there.
It can't allow the people to have too much say, as that is "populism", which gets in the way of the bureaucracy doing its thing.
The only way to end / prevent this proposal from being repeated until "success" is to pass another treaty entrenching that something like Chat Control is forbidden.
That is an extremely low probability event, and gets lower as more member states join.
potato3732842 13 hours ago [-]
>is to pass another treaty entrenching that something like Chat Control is forbidden.
That'll work about as well as "shall pass no law", "papers and effects" and "infringed".
You gotta mean it. Everyone's gotta mean it. And by mean it I mean make peace with all the potential bad things that entails.
constantcrying 14 hours ago [-]
The EU is notoriously, and by design, unresponsive to democratic pressures.
>to try and try and try ... against all odds. Doesn't make any sense to discuss that on a bi-yearly basis.
This is quite naive. These people know what they are doing and it isn't too uncommon to consider certain packages of law multiple times.
Used to be that you could get pretty decent amounts of both in pretty rich nations but not anymore.
incognito124 14 hours ago [-]
Switzerland?
supermatt 14 hours ago [-]
What about the proposal for amendments of VÜPF? user identification, mandatory metadata retention, removal of e2ee, etc for any service with over 5k users.
silexia 14 hours ago [-]
The EU is turning into a totalitarian bureaucratic nightmare.
supermatt 13 hours ago [-]
It appears that you are an American who has conveniently forgotten about FISA, EARN IT, CLOUD act, PATRIOT act, LAED, etc, etc.
You realise this hasn’t passed, right? It’s a proposal.
Seriously you should look to yourself and what you guys have actually passed into law before you start throwing stones at others.
hn_throw2025 3 hours ago [-]
I’m not in the US, and glad to no longer be in the EU.
My point is that there is zero chance of this unpopular legislation being repealed once the EU have forced it through.
I would rather take my chances in a sovereign parliamentary democracy. I know the UK has draconian anti privacy laws on the statute books and have retained a lot of EU rules by default. But we still cling to the belief that parliaments cannot bind the hands of future parliaments, and we expect manifestos to be published and debated prior to elections. A lot of this has been pushed to the background while the UK has been governed by incompetent untrustworthy technocrats cut from the same cloth as the Eurocrats they yearn to be, but a political tsunami is on the way. You can feel it. The globalist establishment will rage against it as ghastly Populism, but I see it as a renaissance of Democracy. It gives me hope that unpopular laws can be amended or repealed.
zb3 12 hours ago [-]
In the USA they have 1st amendment, in the EU we don't have it so these things are not just about aiding law enforcement in the traditional sense - this is for Chinese-style censorship.
supermatt 6 hours ago [-]
The EU has near equivalent rights to the 1st amendment under the charter of fundamental rights of the EU and the ECHR, with very specific exclusions and reasons to permit suspension - whereas in the USA those exclusions aren’t codified but decided by a court on an ad-hoc basis (defamation, incitement, true threats, obscenity, fraud, etc).
Basically, the EU gives you the rules up front and the USA decides after the fact.
TacticalCoder 12 hours ago [-]
[dead]
zrn900 10 hours ago [-]
Yes. It stopped being a big umbrella that brings together European peoples, and turned into a centralized control machine subverted by corporate lobbyists.
burnt-resistor 16 hours ago [-]
Fuck control-freak, big mother, panopticon bullshit.
Privacy or bust.
Rendered at 12:00:46 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
Also it requires everyone to ID themselves in chat apps so that they can be determined to not be a minor which will kill anonymous chatting :(
https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/eu-chat-control-proposal-st...
If such a mandate is given, a trilogue between Commission, Council and EU Parliament usually starts.
Basically, the same as before re: invasive searches of your property except now surrounded by weasel wording so it seems voluntary but won't be. But the same mandatory dox'ing yourself for future corporate leaks.
It is basically a regulatory union, constructed so as to transpose power to the center, then hold it there.
It can't allow the people to have too much say, as that is "populism", which gets in the way of the bureaucracy doing its thing.
The only way to end / prevent this proposal from being repeated until "success" is to pass another treaty entrenching that something like Chat Control is forbidden.
That is an extremely low probability event, and gets lower as more member states join.
That'll work about as well as "shall pass no law", "papers and effects" and "infringed".
You gotta mean it. Everyone's gotta mean it. And by mean it I mean make peace with all the potential bad things that entails.
>to try and try and try ... against all odds. Doesn't make any sense to discuss that on a bi-yearly basis.
This is quite naive. These people know what they are doing and it isn't too uncommon to consider certain packages of law multiple times.
Used to be that you could get pretty decent amounts of both in pretty rich nations but not anymore.
You realise this hasn’t passed, right? It’s a proposal.
Seriously you should look to yourself and what you guys have actually passed into law before you start throwing stones at others.
My point is that there is zero chance of this unpopular legislation being repealed once the EU have forced it through.
I would rather take my chances in a sovereign parliamentary democracy. I know the UK has draconian anti privacy laws on the statute books and have retained a lot of EU rules by default. But we still cling to the belief that parliaments cannot bind the hands of future parliaments, and we expect manifestos to be published and debated prior to elections. A lot of this has been pushed to the background while the UK has been governed by incompetent untrustworthy technocrats cut from the same cloth as the Eurocrats they yearn to be, but a political tsunami is on the way. You can feel it. The globalist establishment will rage against it as ghastly Populism, but I see it as a renaissance of Democracy. It gives me hope that unpopular laws can be amended or repealed.
Basically, the EU gives you the rules up front and the USA decides after the fact.
Privacy or bust.