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.
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 :(
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.
What about the proposal for amendments of VÜPF? user identification, mandatory metadata retention, removal of e2ee, etc for any service with over 5k users.
"EU government ambassadors set to adopt #ChatControl negotiating mandate tomorrow without discussion, including "voluntary" mass scanning and anonymity-destroying age verification."
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.
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.
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.
I do know how it works, I also know about U-turns, backbench revolts, opinion poll panic, doorstep canvassing hostility, and voter backlashes. All ways in which the electorate can have an impact.
Good luck getting your EU Commission to change their mind about something they really want. The "right" voting buttons will be pushed eventually.
But I suspect you already know that.
The widely discussed "Chat control" proposal has already been withdrawn. What remains is much narrower in scope. For instance, it no longer includes mandatory client-side scanning.
Over time, these kinds of proposals usually get watered down further until they either respect individual rights fully or fade away entirely, as has consistently happened with privacy-invasive initiatives in the past.
The only exception I can think of was the "Data Retention Directive" that was (eventually!) rejected by the ECJ - only for the UK to reimplement it after Brexit...
> For instance, it no longer includes mandatory client-side scanning.
It's still unclear whether it really is removed. They turned scanning into something voluntary, and then said big chat providers must do _something_ to monitor abuse. It seems _very_ likely that the regulatory bodies/courts will decide that the bar they must clear to meet this "something" is client-side scanning.
And I agree that the regulation still has a lot of hoops to jump through to be implemented, and will likely be further tweaked. But it's _very_ important to keep raising our concerns, otherwise there will be no pressure to change the currently problematic legislation.
EVERYTHING is unclear, because they have literally only just received a negotiating mandate to discuss the idea. This isn't even a proposal that will reach parliament in its current form - its undergone near zero scrutiny because it simply hasn't progressed far enough to be scrutinised.
> It seems _very_ likely... client-side scanning
Actually, it seems almost completely UNLIKELY due to the protections afforded EU citizens. The last time legislation was passed that eroded privacy it was repealed by the ECJ (albeit many years later).
> it's _very_ important to keep raising our concerns
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.
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.
Yes. It stopped being a big umbrella that brings together European peoples, and turned into a centralized control machine subverted by corporate lobbyists.
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.
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 :(
https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/eu-chat-control-proposal-st...
What does "adopt #ChatControl negotiating mandate" mean?
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.
https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/eu-chat-control-proposal-st...
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.
Freedom is long gone in the EU :(
Is anywhere truly free?
Economic freedom, speech/religious/lifestyle freedom. Pick one.
Used to be that you could get pretty decent amounts of both in pretty rich nations but not anymore.
Switzerland?
What about the proposal for amendments of VÜPF? user identification, mandatory metadata retention, removal of e2ee, etc for any service with over 5k users.
"EU government ambassadors set to adopt #ChatControl negotiating mandate tomorrow without discussion, including "voluntary" mass scanning and anonymity-destroying age verification."
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.
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.
>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.
They will never stop restricting speech until all criticism of Israel and affiliates is punishable by death
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.
It feels like yesterday that it was turned down again. Clearly this is going to pass soon, unfortunately. Idiotic.
The EU is turning into a totalitarian bureaucratic nightmare.
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.
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.
> I’m not in the US...
You seem to be a different person than I was replying to
> My point is...
No, that is your opinion. There is no evidence that this will ever be "forced" through in any form that would erode current rights.
> I would rather take my chances...
By all means do, although you may want to brush up on how legislation in your own country works...
I do know how it works, I also know about U-turns, backbench revolts, opinion poll panic, doorstep canvassing hostility, and voter backlashes. All ways in which the electorate can have an impact.
Good luck getting your EU Commission to change their mind about something they really want. The "right" voting buttons will be pushed eventually. But I suspect you already know that.
> something they really want.
And what exactly is that?
The widely discussed "Chat control" proposal has already been withdrawn. What remains is much narrower in scope. For instance, it no longer includes mandatory client-side scanning.
Over time, these kinds of proposals usually get watered down further until they either respect individual rights fully or fade away entirely, as has consistently happened with privacy-invasive initiatives in the past.
The only exception I can think of was the "Data Retention Directive" that was (eventually!) rejected by the ECJ - only for the UK to reimplement it after Brexit...
> For instance, it no longer includes mandatory client-side scanning.
It's still unclear whether it really is removed. They turned scanning into something voluntary, and then said big chat providers must do _something_ to monitor abuse. It seems _very_ likely that the regulatory bodies/courts will decide that the bar they must clear to meet this "something" is client-side scanning.
And I agree that the regulation still has a lot of hoops to jump through to be implemented, and will likely be further tweaked. But it's _very_ important to keep raising our concerns, otherwise there will be no pressure to change the currently problematic legislation.
> It's still unclear
EVERYTHING is unclear, because they have literally only just received a negotiating mandate to discuss the idea. This isn't even a proposal that will reach parliament in its current form - its undergone near zero scrutiny because it simply hasn't progressed far enough to be scrutinised.
> It seems _very_ likely... client-side scanning
Actually, it seems almost completely UNLIKELY due to the protections afforded EU citizens. The last time legislation was passed that eroded privacy it was repealed by the ECJ (albeit many years later).
> it's _very_ important to keep raising our concerns
I totally agree
[dead]
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.
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.
Yes. It stopped being a big umbrella that brings together European peoples, and turned into a centralized control machine subverted by corporate lobbyists.
Fuck control-freak, big mother, panopticon bullshit.
Privacy or bust.