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.
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?
That's happens often in parliamentary proceedings: when the other party succeeds in unrecognizably amending the law, the party proposing it will vote against.
Specifically for the European Parliament, this is also why, while it is true it doesn't have the power of legislative initiative, given the ability to amend at will any "law", in practice it doesn't make much of a difference.
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 stronger bargaining position towards those that want limited scanning (as opposed to no scanning) than if they had conceded.
Its time to start trying to push Chat Control 2.0. With enough money and infinite retries eventually all the bad regulations with a power group behind will end being approved.
Perfect name. Who in their right mind would ever vote against the Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse? Imagine if your voters heard that
Yep, and it will make it more difficult to pass legislation designed to actually help combat child exploitation when a large(ish) portion of the population immediately equate "for the children" with a power grab.
this is litterally what they do. point at opposition and try to imply they are pro child abuse. actually really sick to use such a method. I suppose that is what u get for decades long degradation of education and other things. A bunch of childish freaks in power who can only try to chuck eachother under the bus instead of doing something actually good.
they care less and less about it being obvious too.
our new prime minister (NL) was asked about some campaign promises recently (ones important to a lot of his voters actually) and he justs plainly said somethin like: yeah well sometimes u just gotta say shit to get votes.
i mean, its not news ofc... but now they dont even care to mask it. They know the public will just bend over and take it anyway.
Well, chat control 1.0 is about making an existing practice legal, it didn't create the practice of scanning messages for know child sexual abuse material, though I don't know how long that has been going on before the legislation in 2021 passed (but probably for several years at that point, since getting a new law trough takes a while).
The data that wasn’t flagged from scanning is prohibited from being stored in the first place. Data that was flagged is stored as long as needed to confirm and report it. Data that isn’t confirmed must be deleted without delay.
"Protecting children is not optional," said Lena Düpont MEP, EPP Group spokeswoman on Legal and Home Affairs. "We call on the S&D Group to stop hiding behind excuses and finally take responsibility. We cannot afford a safe haven for child abusers online. Every delay leaves children exposed and offenders unchallenged."
Personally, I feel there must be other privacy-preserving ways to address child abusers than mass surveillance.
Also, for the record, here is the list of parties that lobbied for this for Mrs Düpont, alongside very few privacy-focused organisations. Not sure why Canada or Australia are lobbying for EU laws.
ANNEX: LIST OF ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT
- Access Now
- Australian eSafety Commissioner
- Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer (BRAK)
- Canadian Centre for Child Protection
- cdt - Center for Democracy & Technology
- eco - Association of the Internet Industry
- EDPS
- EDRI
- Facebook
- Fundamental Rights Agency
- Improving the digital environment for children (regrouping several child protection NGOs across the EU and beyond, including Missing Children Europe, Child Focus)
- INHOPE – the International Association of Internet Hotlines
- International Justice Mission Deutschland e.V./ We Protect
> 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.
That pretty much _is_ what it is called. It's generally known as Chat Control, but "Chat Control 1" (the thing just rejected) is called "Extension of the temporary derogation from the ePrivacy Directive to combat online child sexual abuse", and "Chat Control 2" (which you'll probably have heard more about; it's the one that keeps reappearing and disappearing) is called "Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse".
European parliament parties are really not particularly cohesive, and the EPP in particular is a bit of a random mess; it is _broadly_ liberal-conservative and pro-European, but its membership is a bit all over the place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_People%27s_Party#Full...
Note that in some countries it has _both ruling coalition and opposition_ member parties.
So what happened previously is that the parliament accepted a modified text for an extension of "chat control 1.0", the conservatives didn't like that draft so they managed to get a redo of the vote on the amendments.
It seems this second time around amendment votes produced a final draft that the parliament as a whole found unacceptable, which apparently includes the majority of the EPP.
It is however quite tedious to go trough this to figure out what the final draft text was that then lead to the outright rejection.
From the tweet, it seems tuta is implying it was the vote in favour of amendment 34 that killed the extension; I guess that's possible but certainly not obvious from the amendment text:
> Reports on the 1325% increase in generative AI produced child sexual material requires voluntary detection to be calibrated to distinguish artificial material and avoid diverting resources from victims in immediate danger. Such measures should prevent the revictimization of children through AI models, while ensuring that this technological development does not justify general monitoring, a relaxation of privacy standards, or the weakening of end-to-end encryption.
I don't quite get what you mean? EPP is technically in power (whatever that means in the European Parliament). But also why would that matter? Or they wanted to force a vote just so they could vote against it (which is not necessarily a stupid strategy in cases like this)?
Judging by https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270, the outliers who seem to want this, would be France, Hungary, Poland and Ireland, all other countries seems to had the majority MEPs voting against it.
It's way more complicated. For instance according to this vote Denmark is overwhelmingly against it. However Denmark most recently was the country that pushed heavily towards this, in fact, under Denmark's leadership the whole thing was revived last time around.
If you look at local politics and news they are all lobbying massively for it (or some people do). The reason is usually "for sake of the children". Parents in particular are heavily in favor of chat control.
It’s more complicated than that. MEPs do not represent countries, so you can say that most MEP from $country were for or against, but that would not necessarily be the position of the country’s government. For that you have to look at what happens in the council of the EU, which is composed of government ministers.
It is not exceptional for most MEP from a member state to be in the opposition at the national level, particularly in contexts where it is seen as a protest vote. Turnout is usually low for European elections, so they tend to swing a bit more than national elections.
The countries are free to repropose similar things through the council (basically the representatives of the ruling party in each country), but the MEPs are free to strike it down. The MEPs are elected through PR in each country so often have broader representation than the council.
Did it work? One political party (EPP) didn't like the result of the previous vote and so they forced a re-vote.
> After the European Parliament had already rejected the indiscriminate and blanket Chat Control by US tech companies on 13 March, conservative forces attempted a democratically highly questionable maneuver yesterday to force a repeat vote to extend the law anyway.
The measure voted on is "Extension [of Chat Control 1.0]", it was voted 36% "for" and 49% "against" (so result is "against"), and looking at "Political groups", majority of EPP MEPs voted "against" (137 out of 164 votes).
EPP is appalling and I'm revolted that many large so-called "moderate, centre-right, liberal-conservative" parties are happily part of it and indeed actively pushing extremely anti-citizen, anti-human agendas with the help of the far right.
It does matter. Even if it eventually passes, the later and more gutted it is, the better.
Saying that it doesn’t matter is just defeatist (and unfortunately always parroted on HN) and plainly wrong. Defeatists have been proven wrong time and again.
Also making sure this is as painful and costly as possible to pass will discourage future attempts. If we just rolled over and let it happen that would signal that it's easy to pass legislation like this and we would get a lot more like it
In 2016 the UK demonstrated that there is a way for the public to vote down the corpus of bad EU legislation.
Of course our national govts have been pretty woeful ever since, but in 2029 we will have the opportunity to vote for genuine, dramatic change, with strong options on both the left and right side of politics.
Regarding the creeping surveillance state, Reform UK have explicitly stated they will repeal the awful Online Safety Act.
This is how we wrestle control back from the establishment.
The UK has shown that they can vote down bad EU legislation, and pass a lot of pretty awful legislation that's worse than anything the EU ever produced
But I'm sure voting for Nigel Farage one more time will fix everything
This is a clear case of a terrorist attack attempt (Chat Control fulfils definition of terrorism fully). Chat Controls would be illegal in Germany.
This is sad that this has gotten this far. If they wanted to pass a law to blow up citizens, do you think European Parliament would seriously consider it? It is exactly the same calibre of idiocy.
I would expect German authorities to issue arrest warrants and properly investigate this.
For context:
If terrorism is defined as using violence or threats to intimidate a population for political or ideological ends, then “Chat Control” qualifies in substance. Violence doesn’t have to leave blood. Psychological and coercive violence is recognised in domestic law (see coercive control offences) and by the WHO. It causes measurable harm to bodies and minds.
The aim is intimidation. The whole purpose is to make people too scared to speak freely. That is intimidation of a population, by design.
It is ideological. The ideology is mass control - keeping people compliant by stripping them of private spaces to think, talk, and dissent.
The only reason it’s not “terrorism” on paper is because states write definitions that exempt themselves. But in plain terms, the act is indistinguishable in effect from terrorism: deliberate fear, coercion, and the destruction of free will.
“Congrats all we maybe fixed the problem we created in the first place! Let’s celebrate!”
Also - wasn’t this program voluntary? This seems like the height of backslapping. Would have been better if they just sat on their hands and did nothing in the first place.
This gave companies permission to do things which would ordinarily be illegal under the ePrivacy directive, but did not make it mandatory for them to do so. That permission is now revoked (or will be when the derogation they were trying to extend expires in two weeks).
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-parl...
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47529609
[2] https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270
[delayed]
> EPP voted against both
EPP wanted indiscriminate scanning instead, not targeted one (the goal of the amendments).
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?
That's happens often in parliamentary proceedings: when the other party succeeds in unrecognizably amending the law, the party proposing it will vote against.
Specifically for the European Parliament, this is also why, while it is true it doesn't have the power of legislative initiative, given the ability to amend at will any "law", in practice it doesn't make much of a difference.
Which is sometimes why amendments are added, as wrecking motions.
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 stronger bargaining position towards those that want limited scanning (as opposed to no scanning) than if they had conceded.
Its time to start trying to push Chat Control 2.0. With enough money and infinite retries eventually all the bad regulations with a power group behind will end being approved.
Or it will get a new name. Just like „Chat Control“ is far from the first name for this BS.
Sweep it under ProtectEU.
> The European Commission wants a backdoor for end-to-end encryptions for law enforcement
https://www.techradar.com/pro/security/the-european-commissi...
It's not named "Chat Control". It's just what it's commonly known by. It's basically the same as "Obamacare".
Exactly. Its real name is “Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chat_Control
Perfect name. Who in their right mind would ever vote against the Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse? Imagine if your voters heard that
Yep, and it will make it more difficult to pass legislation designed to actually help combat child exploitation when a large(ish) portion of the population immediately equate "for the children" with a power grab.
we can learn from our American friends and call it something like CHILDREN SAFETY ACT. So you want to hurt children, huh? I hope not
That’s already (kind of) the name it has. “Chat Control” is a name given by critics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chat_Control
this is litterally what they do. point at opposition and try to imply they are pro child abuse. actually really sick to use such a method. I suppose that is what u get for decades long degradation of education and other things. A bunch of childish freaks in power who can only try to chuck eachother under the bus instead of doing something actually good.
they care less and less about it being obvious too.
our new prime minister (NL) was asked about some campaign promises recently (ones important to a lot of his voters actually) and he justs plainly said somethin like: yeah well sometimes u just gotta say shit to get votes.
i mean, its not news ofc... but now they dont even care to mask it. They know the public will just bend over and take it anyway.
I’m confused by
> This means on April 6, 2026, Gmail, LinkedIn, Microsoft and other Big Techs must stop scanning your private messages in the EU
It had already passed and started?
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1232/oj/eng
Of course, remember Apple championed the idea with iMessage scanning which at the time produced A LOT of discussion e.g. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/12/2021-we-told-apple-don...
Yes, voluntary Chat Control 1.0 has been running since 2021.
Well, chat control 1.0 is about making an existing practice legal, it didn't create the practice of scanning messages for know child sexual abuse material, though I don't know how long that has been going on before the legislation in 2021 passed (but probably for several years at that point, since getting a new law trough takes a while).
There was an interim legislation that will expire in april.
What happens to the already scanned metadata?
The data that wasn’t flagged from scanning is prohibited from being stored in the first place. Data that was flagged is stored as long as needed to confirm and report it. Data that isn’t confirmed must be deleted without delay.
It was possible on a voluntary basis.
Something something constitutional (ish*) rights say you can't do this.
Chat Control 1 says, eh do it anyway if you want on a voluntary and temporary basis until the Courts get around to saying no.
Chat Control 2 says you have to. Until the courts finally get around to striking it down in 15 years.
Here is the EPP's plea to get this passed earlier.
They even used a teddy bear image.
https://www.eppgroup.eu/newsroom/epp-urges-support-for-last-...
"Protecting children is not optional," said Lena Düpont MEP, EPP Group spokeswoman on Legal and Home Affairs. "We call on the S&D Group to stop hiding behind excuses and finally take responsibility. We cannot afford a safe haven for child abusers online. Every delay leaves children exposed and offenders unchallenged."
Personally, I feel there must be other privacy-preserving ways to address child abusers than mass surveillance.
Also, for the record, here is the list of parties that lobbied for this for Mrs Düpont, alongside very few privacy-focused organisations. Not sure why Canada or Australia are lobbying for EU laws.
ANNEX: LIST OF ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT
- Access Now
- Australian eSafety Commissioner
- Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer (BRAK)
- Canadian Centre for Child Protection
- cdt - Center for Democracy & Technology
- eco - Association of the Internet Industry
- EDPS
- EDRI
- Facebook
- Fundamental Rights Agency
- Improving the digital environment for children (regrouping several child protection NGOs across the EU and beyond, including Missing Children Europe, Child Focus)
- INHOPE – the International Association of Internet Hotlines
- International Justice Mission Deutschland e.V./ We Protect
- Internet Watch Foundation
- Internet Society
- Match Group
- Microsoft
- Thorn (Ashton Kutcher)
- UNICEF
- UN Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2020-0258_...
Also: 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.
This other link/thread is much better and informative (than a single bluesky tweet). I would suggest comments etc be moved there?
Just rename it to something something save the children something something. Instant approval no matter what is in the bill.
That pretty much _is_ what it is called. It's generally known as Chat Control, but "Chat Control 1" (the thing just rejected) is called "Extension of the temporary derogation from the ePrivacy Directive to combat online child sexual abuse", and "Chat Control 2" (which you'll probably have heard more about; it's the one that keeps reappearing and disappearing) is called "Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse".
It's already called "Extension of the temporary derogation from the ePrivacy Directive to combat online child sexual abuse".
Did that vote pass with a difference of one single vote? Tight squeeze there.
The screenshot is actually a vote on an amendment. Here's the final vote: https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270
Less tight.
I don't quite get it, so the conservatives wanted/want to repeat the vote but also the EPP voted against it and the Socialists supported it?
European parliament parties are really not particularly cohesive, and the EPP in particular is a bit of a random mess; it is _broadly_ liberal-conservative and pro-European, but its membership is a bit all over the place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_People%27s_Party#Full...
Note that in some countries it has _both ruling coalition and opposition_ member parties.
So what happened previously is that the parliament accepted a modified text for an extension of "chat control 1.0", the conservatives didn't like that draft so they managed to get a redo of the vote on the amendments.
It seems this second time around amendment votes produced a final draft that the parliament as a whole found unacceptable, which apparently includes the majority of the EPP.
You can see the outcome of the individual amendment votes here, starting on page 15: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PV-10-2026-03-...
and what the actual amendments were here: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/LIBE-AM-784377...
It is however quite tedious to go trough this to figure out what the final draft text was that then lead to the outright rejection.
From the tweet, it seems tuta is implying it was the vote in favour of amendment 34 that killed the extension; I guess that's possible but certainly not obvious from the amendment text:
> Reports on the 1325% increase in generative AI produced child sexual material requires voluntary detection to be calibrated to distinguish artificial material and avoid diverting resources from victims in immediate danger. Such measures should prevent the revictimization of children through AI models, while ensuring that this technological development does not justify general monitoring, a relaxation of privacy standards, or the weakening of end-to-end encryption.
There’s often large differences between what politicians tell you they are and how they vote once in power
I don't quite get what you mean? EPP is technically in power (whatever that means in the European Parliament). But also why would that matter? Or they wanted to force a vote just so they could vote against it (which is not necessarily a stupid strategy in cases like this)?
> in power (whatever that means in the European Parliament).
It means the people who get to vote on if you have a right to privacy or not.
No, that was an ammendment
This will come back because too many EU countries want it.
Judging by https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270, the outliers who seem to want this, would be France, Hungary, Poland and Ireland, all other countries seems to had the majority MEPs voting against it.
It's way more complicated. For instance according to this vote Denmark is overwhelmingly against it. However Denmark most recently was the country that pushed heavily towards this, in fact, under Denmark's leadership the whole thing was revived last time around.
If you look at local politics and news they are all lobbying massively for it (or some people do). The reason is usually "for sake of the children". Parents in particular are heavily in favor of chat control.
It’s more complicated than that. MEPs do not represent countries, so you can say that most MEP from $country were for or against, but that would not necessarily be the position of the country’s government. For that you have to look at what happens in the council of the EU, which is composed of government ministers.
It is not exceptional for most MEP from a member state to be in the opposition at the national level, particularly in contexts where it is seen as a protest vote. Turnout is usually low for European elections, so they tend to swing a bit more than national elections.
The countries are free to repropose similar things through the council (basically the representatives of the ruling party in each country), but the MEPs are free to strike it down. The MEPs are elected through PR in each country so often have broader representation than the council.
Hungary can be explained by Victor Organ's desire to spy on the opposition by any means necessary.
France has had really strange tendencies lately, e.g. when they arrested Telegram founder.
Bastion of democracy Germany will be pushing hard given they let slip they want mandatory IDs on social media. They want full control.
German MEPs voted overwhelmingly against the extension: https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270 ("Countries" tab).
RE Chat Control 2 (ie _not_ this, the proposed permanent version):
> In early October 2025, in the face of concerted public opposition, the German government stated that it would vote against the proposal
German MEPs also voted against this one.
(Note that the German government and German MEPs aren't the same thing here.)
Nice to see that democracy can work
> Nice to see that democracy can work
Did it work? One political party (EPP) didn't like the result of the previous vote and so they forced a re-vote.
> After the European Parliament had already rejected the indiscriminate and blanket Chat Control by US tech companies on 13 March, conservative forces attempted a democratically highly questionable maneuver yesterday to force a repeat vote to extend the law anyway.
https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/end-of-chat-control-eu-parl...
But the vote failed only because the EPP voted against it? Or did they mix up the buttons or something? https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270
EPP wanted indiscriminate scanning instead, not targeted one.
Note that European parliament parties aren't particularly cohesive; some EPP members voted against it.
> some EPP members voted against it
20 out of 184
Do I understand the voting / results wrong? Looking at this: https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189270
The measure voted on is "Extension [of Chat Control 1.0]", it was voted 36% "for" and 49% "against" (so result is "against"), and looking at "Political groups", majority of EPP MEPs voted "against" (137 out of 164 votes).
I think the point of confusion is that there was an amendment before the final vote, which was way closer.
EPP is appalling and I'm revolted that many large so-called "moderate, centre-right, liberal-conservative" parties are happily part of it and indeed actively pushing extremely anti-citizen, anti-human agendas with the help of the far right.
(Edit: word choice)
Site guidelines: "Please don't fulminate."
See you next month!
That was a close one. This is getting harder and harder. It is important not to be naive to the point of thinking this is over.
One would think that the same thing getting denied over and over would make future votes about it easier to decide.
It doesn’t matter they can just keep trying and paying people off until it gets through.
Someone somewhere really really wants this and has the time and resources so it’s an inevitability.
It does matter. Even if it eventually passes, the later and more gutted it is, the better.
Saying that it doesn’t matter is just defeatist (and unfortunately always parroted on HN) and plainly wrong. Defeatists have been proven wrong time and again.
Also making sure this is as painful and costly as possible to pass will discourage future attempts. If we just rolled over and let it happen that would signal that it's easy to pass legislation like this and we would get a lot more like it
Perhaps a system where that can happen is broken
See you again next week!
Chat Control 3.0 will go through
How long until they stage an incident to occur so they can pass CC 1.1? 6 months? 2 years?
They’ll keep trying.
Until we stop them.
In 2016 the UK demonstrated that there is a way for the public to vote down the corpus of bad EU legislation.
Of course our national govts have been pretty woeful ever since, but in 2029 we will have the opportunity to vote for genuine, dramatic change, with strong options on both the left and right side of politics.
Regarding the creeping surveillance state, Reform UK have explicitly stated they will repeal the awful Online Safety Act.
This is how we wrestle control back from the establishment.
The UK has shown that they can vote down bad EU legislation, and pass a lot of pretty awful legislation that's worse than anything the EU ever produced
But I'm sure voting for Nigel Farage one more time will fix everything
People who think reform are anti establishment genuinely fascinate me.
That margin is really small
Maybe it is time to make start a prediction market?
Any time a scumbag politician tries this again:
"Mr. Jones, secretary of communications for the state, TTL (Time-to-live) left. 2 Hours? 1 Day? 1 Week?"
It would stop fast.
Anyone want to build this? There is a lot of money being left on the table.
This is a clear case of a terrorist attack attempt (Chat Control fulfils definition of terrorism fully). Chat Controls would be illegal in Germany.
This is sad that this has gotten this far. If they wanted to pass a law to blow up citizens, do you think European Parliament would seriously consider it? It is exactly the same calibre of idiocy.
I would expect German authorities to issue arrest warrants and properly investigate this.
For context:
If terrorism is defined as using violence or threats to intimidate a population for political or ideological ends, then “Chat Control” qualifies in substance. Violence doesn’t have to leave blood. Psychological and coercive violence is recognised in domestic law (see coercive control offences) and by the WHO. It causes measurable harm to bodies and minds.
The aim is intimidation. The whole purpose is to make people too scared to speak freely. That is intimidation of a population, by design.
It is ideological. The ideology is mass control - keeping people compliant by stripping them of private spaces to think, talk, and dissent.
The only reason it’s not “terrorism” on paper is because states write definitions that exempt themselves. But in plain terms, the act is indistinguishable in effect from terrorism: deliberate fear, coercion, and the destruction of free will.
... again?
“Congrats all we maybe fixed the problem we created in the first place! Let’s celebrate!”
Also - wasn’t this program voluntary? This seems like the height of backslapping. Would have been better if they just sat on their hands and did nothing in the first place.
> Would have been better if they just sat on their hands and did nothing in the first place
You described 95% of EU's work.
> Also - wasn’t this program voluntary?
This gave companies permission to do things which would ordinarily be illegal under the ePrivacy directive, but did not make it mandatory for them to do so. That permission is now revoked (or will be when the derogation they were trying to extend expires in two weeks).