7 ms·

European Parliament decided that Chat Control 1.0 must stop

nickslaughter02 6mo ago
Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529609 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529609 > Despite today’s victory, further procedural steps by EU governments cannot be completely ruled out. Most of all, the trilogue negotiations on a permanent child protection regulation (Chat Control 2.0) are continuing under severe time pressure. There, too, EU governments continue to insist on their demand for “voluntary” indiscriminate Chat Control. > Furthermore, the next massive threat to digital civil liberties is already on the agenda: Next up in the ongoing trilogue, lawmakers will negotiate whether messenger and chat services, as well as app stores, will be legally obliged to implement age verification. This would require users to provide ID documents or submit to facial scans, effectively making anonymous communication impossible and severely endangering vulnerable groups such as whistleblowers and persecuted individuals.
- tomhow 6mo ago
  Comments moved thither. Thanks!
- freehorse 6mo ago
  This other link/thread is much better and informative (than a single bluesky tweet). I would suggest comments etc be moved there?
- divan 6mo ago
  Age verification doesn’t necessarily imply identification — eIDAS 2.0 and ISO 18013-5 have selective disclosure by design.
freehorse 6mo ago
The linked tweet is a bit misleading. There were 2 votes, one for amending the existing proposal re: "unknown messages", and the other for the whole proposal itself. The screenshot in the tweet is about the amendment, which was less important than the fact than then the whole proposal was rejected. I think this article [0] discussed here [1] is much more informative, and I suggest merging the current comment thread there [1]. I am not sure of the logic of the amendment, as parties voted differently between proposals (eg left parties voted for the amendment and against the whole, and EPP voted against both, S&D voted in favour of both). In any case, one vote difference for the amendment is not really the point, the actual vote for the whole is what mattered, and this gained a more clear majority against chat control [2]. Not sure if this is higher because it is more "clickbait" (chat control 1.0) or what, but it is a single tweet with a screenshot and no context, imho HN can do better than this. [0] https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/end-of-chat-control-eu-parliament-stops-mass-surveillance-in-voting-thriller-paving-the-way-for-genuine-child-protection/ https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/end-of-chat-control-eu-parl... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529609 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529609 [2] https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270 https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270
- altairprime 6mo ago
  Email the mods and ask them to merge the discussions. They’ll almost certainly do so.
- nickslaughter02 6mo ago
  > EPP voted against both EPP wanted indiscriminate scanning instead, not targeted one (the goal of the amendments).
  - freehorse 6mo ago
    So they voted against the total because it did not include indiscriminate scanning? I am not saying this is not the case, but it does not make sense to me. If indiscriminate scanning does not pass, why not vote for the total even without it, and amend it after it passes and gets normalised at a later point?
    - layer8 6mo ago
      It would have locked in the restrictions, which would be difficult to argue later that they should be removed and the package be opened up again. Without any scanning, it’s much easier to continue arguing that indiscriminate scanning is needed. They remain in a much stronger bargaining position towards those who want limited scanning (as opposed to no scanning) than if they had conceded.
      - btilly 6mo ago
        Exactly. It is much easier to get people to agree to do questionable things, when there is pressure to "do something". A more limited bill takes off the pressure to "do something", and therefore makes the more extreme bill harder to pass later. In this case there is reason to suspect that the real goal of the bill is not catching pedophiles. Instead it is to give police broader powers of surveillance in the name of catching pedophiles, which they will then be able to use for other purposes. This is particularly problematic given the ways that it could be abused by some of the more authoritarian governments in the EU. Yes, I'm thinking of Viktor Orbán of Hungary.
ChrisArchitect 6mo ago
More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529609 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529609

Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529609 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529609 > Despite today’s victory, further procedural steps by EU governments cannot be completely ruled out. Most of all, the trilogue negotiations on a permanent child protection regulation (Chat Control 2.0) are continuing under severe time pressure. There, too, EU governments continue to insist on their demand for “voluntary” indiscriminate Chat Control. > Furthermore, the next massive threat to digital civil liberties is already on the agenda: Next up in the ongoing trilogue, lawmakers will negotiate whether messenger and chat services, as well as app stores, will be legally obliged to implement age verification. This would require users to provide ID documents or submit to facial scans, effectively making anonymous communication impossible and severely endangering vulnerable groups such as whistleblowers and persecuted individuals.

tomhow 6mo ago
Comments moved thither. Thanks!
freehorse 6mo ago
This other link/thread is much better and informative (than a single bluesky tweet). I would suggest comments etc be moved there?
divan 6mo ago
Age verification doesn’t necessarily imply identification — eIDAS 2.0 and ISO 18013-5 have selective disclosure by design.

freehorse 6mo ago

The linked tweet is a bit misleading. There were 2 votes, one for amending the existing proposal re: "unknown messages", and the other for the whole proposal itself. The screenshot in the tweet is about the amendment, which was less important than the fact than then the whole proposal was rejected. I think this article [0] discussed here [1] is much more informative, and I suggest merging the current comment thread there [1]. I am not sure of the logic of the amendment, as parties voted differently between proposals (eg left parties voted for the amendment and against the whole, and EPP voted against both, S&D voted in favour of both). In any case, one vote difference for the amendment is not really the point, the actual vote for the whole is what mattered, and this gained a more clear majority against chat control [2]. Not sure if this is higher because it is more "clickbait" (chat control 1.0) or what, but it is a single tweet with a screenshot and no context, imho HN can do better than this. [0] https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/end-of-chat-control-eu-parliament-stops-mass-surveillance-in-voting-thriller-paving-the-way-for-genuine-child-protection/ https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/end-of-chat-control-eu-parl... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529609 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529609 [2] https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270 https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270

altairprime 6mo ago
Email the mods and ask them to merge the discussions. They’ll almost certainly do so.
nickslaughter02 6mo ago
> EPP voted against both EPP wanted indiscriminate scanning instead, not targeted one (the goal of the amendments).
- freehorse 6mo ago
  So they voted against the total because it did not include indiscriminate scanning? I am not saying this is not the case, but it does not make sense to me. If indiscriminate scanning does not pass, why not vote for the total even without it, and amend it after it passes and gets normalised at a later point?
  - layer8 6mo ago
    It would have locked in the restrictions, which would be difficult to argue later that they should be removed and the package be opened up again. Without any scanning, it’s much easier to continue arguing that indiscriminate scanning is needed. They remain in a much stronger bargaining position towards those who want limited scanning (as opposed to no scanning) than if they had conceded.
    - btilly 6mo ago
      Exactly. It is much easier to get people to agree to do questionable things, when there is pressure to "do something". A more limited bill takes off the pressure to "do something", and therefore makes the more extreme bill harder to pass later. In this case there is reason to suspect that the real goal of the bill is not catching pedophiles. Instead it is to give police broader powers of surveillance in the name of catching pedophiles, which they will then be able to use for other purposes. This is particularly problematic given the ways that it could be abused by some of the more authoritarian governments in the EU. Yes, I'm thinking of Viktor Orbán of Hungary.

ChrisArchitect 6mo ago

More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529609 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529609