this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2026
223 points (99.6% liked)

Privacy

49716 readers
600 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
k_o_t@lemmy.ml
tmpod@lemmy.pt
Yayannick@lemmy.ml
ranok@sopuli.xyz
223
EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0 (www.patrick-breyer.de)
submitted 1 day ago by hatingfedizen@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
48 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/71975475

Today, the European Parliament allowed the suspicionless mass scanning of private communications (“Chat Control 1.0”) to pass, a measure it had rejected twice in March. Although a majority of voting Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) actually opposed the regulation (314 against, 276 in favor, 17 abstentions), the motion to reject it failed to secure the required absolute majority of 361 votes. As a result, mass scanning is now permitted again until 2028.

top 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] oneser@lemmy.zip 22 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I see 2 different, but related topics being mixed up in the comments a little.

This is an extension of a measure which has been in place since 2021. This is not the new legislation that was proposed earlier this year and late last year.

I do not believe this is a good thing at all! But we should all be clear what the discussion is.

The first iteration of Chat Control, commonly dubbed "Chat Control 1.0", was introduced as a temporary measure in 2021. It was ultimately ended on 26 March 2026, when a vote to reject its extension passed by one vote. The next iteration of Chat Control, commonly dubbed "Chat Control 2.0", is still under discussion.

source

[–] Tryenjer@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

Ok, but democracy is still failing here if laws are passed in the EU in such a scummy way.

[–] jabberwock@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 day ago

It also looks like the Chat Control 1.0 has a carve out for E2E encrypted communications. So I'm not saying don't worry about it, but seems more like a procedural measure than the more ominous and technology-destroying second version.

Referencing this

[–] melroy@kbin.melroy.org 87 points 1 day ago (6 children)

This is exactly how democracy is not working. EU just pushed it through. Despite multi rejections!

[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 28 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

An entire generation is learning in real time, first hand, that Democracy isn't working.

[–] iguessimlemming@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

I insist on calling it democratism - an ambition, nice ideal, doesn't work in practice. Same way they talk about other isms.

[–] knomie@feddit.org 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is our implementation of democracy not working. One might even argue that our system is not actually democratic, because, as this example shows, neither the will nor the interests of the people are represented.

[–] melroy@kbin.melroy.org -1 points 20 hours ago

I never voted for creating the EU

[–] jackmaoist@hexbear.net 23 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not just multiple, more MEPs voted against It yet it got passed despite supporters being a minority.

[–] huf@hexbear.net 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

this is the EU working as intended though.

[–] melroy@kbin.melroy.org 5 points 1 day ago (3 children)

is it though? After the EU parliament has rejected it TWICE in the past, it has been pushed as an urgent procedure for a new plenary vote. The EU has simply continued to put the vote on the agenda to get the outcome they've wanted since the start.

[–] gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 day ago (2 children)

yes, that's exactly what they want, what did you think? you live in a free country or some shit? i really dont get westoids, they literally invented fascism and caused 90% of the wars in the last 4 centuries and somehow they're the democratic people or something? smh

[–] huf@hexbear.net 14 points 1 day ago

"i know it's smoking and smells foul like a 4 week old corpse but the bottle says YIM-YUM on it. how can it be bad?"

[–] melroy@kbin.melroy.org 4 points 1 day ago

I'm too optimistic indeed. Fk eu

[–] huf@hexbear.net 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

yes. the EU is a western institution, its purpose was never to act in accordance with the will of the ordinary people. it was to serve the capitalists.

[–] myrmidex@belgae.social 4 points 1 day ago

It was born out of the european community for coal and steel, how could it have turned out any different...

[–] fox@hexbear.net 10 points 1 day ago

The purpose of a system is what it does. If a measure repeatedly fails to pass and is then successfully made law regardless, then clearly the system must, in some way, be built to supercede voting authority.

[–] antrosapien@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago

~~System is not working~~ System is working exactly as intended

[–] airikr@lemmy.ml 39 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So you just have to nag and nag and nag until they say "sigh, alright then..."?! WTF?!

[–] hneerqe@lemmy.world 34 points 1 day ago

They only have to win once, we have to win everytime

[–] voxel@feddit.org 42 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I guess our only hope is for the EU court to deem it unlawful?

[–] Korkki@lemmy.ml 28 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

fat chance, but we can pray. Despite this move being illegal as fuck.

[–] eleitl@lemmy.zip 16 points 1 day ago

Welcome to the Fourth Reich of Europe, citizen. You'd better like it here. Orelse.

[–] wanderer@sopuli.xyz 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So.. what happens next? They start requiring backdoor in all chat apps (for those that do not already have one)? Is PGP now the only way? That would be extremely difficult since "normal" people just don't seem to care at all.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

PGP is not the only way. And applications that use PFS are preferred.

The article mentions that WhatsApp is exempt. See also Signal, Wire, SimpleX, etc

[–] trilobite@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

And why would these apps be exempt if 90% of all communication goes through them?

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 4 points 1 day ago

Don't underestimate the number of communications through email, phone calls, sms, slack, etc.

[–] StumblingWasabi@lemmy.today 2 points 1 day ago

I would guess to get it passed then they can work on revoking those exemtions

[–] Ontimp@feddit.org 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Also: Host your own Matrix or XMPP server for your family and friends. Basically nothing anyone could do to prevent you from doing that.

[–] unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Although a majority of voting Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) actually opposed the regulation (314 against, 276 in favor, 17 abstentions), the motion to reject it failed to secure the required absolute majority of 361 votes

I'm a bit OOTL. How the hell does that even work?

[–] funkycarrot@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

From this article:

The procedure now chosen gives the proponents of Chat Control a significant tactical advantage. Since the law is in its second reading, an absolute majority of 361 votes of all parliament members is required for amendments or a renewed rejection on Thursday. In contrast, a simple majority of the MEPs present is sufficient for the other side. As many parliamentarians have historically already departed by the last day before the summer break, the re-enactment of the regulation is considered almost unavoidable.

Had the MEPs rejected the urgency, the draft would have gone to the responsible Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, where a legally sound compromise could have been worked out after the summer break.

[–] Ankkuli@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I wish one day there’s news about EU that isn’t just shitty because I’m tired boss.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 6 points 1 day ago

Germans can smoke weed now

[–] AvocadoVapelung@hexbear.net 9 points 1 day ago

shocked-pikachu

[–] warm@kbin.earth 9 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Surely it needs more in favor to pass? Ugh I need to reducate myself on this system

[–] illi@sh.itjust.works 36 points 1 day ago (4 children)

This truly is bonkers.

Although a majority of voting Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) actually opposed the regulation (314 against, 276 in favor, 17 abstentions), the motion to reject it failed to secure the required absolute majority of 361 votes.

More people is against it than in favor, but the number of people against it is not sufficient so it gets passed? How can that ever be possible?

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 27 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They used a procedural trick which only had to pass by a majority of those present to create a situation where it would need an absolute majority to fail in the next vote.

This happened as many MEPs have already left for their summer break and were therefore absent and unable to vote. It appears that Parliament President Roberta Metsola engineered this, but I haven't looked in to it in detail.

[–] limonfiesta@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Every MEP who participated in the subversion of democracy in favor of totalitarianism and mass surveillance, is an enemy of the people and should be treated as such.

[–] fubbernuckin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago

And anyone involved in orchestrating this situation is an enemy of the state, as they have clearly exploited a flaw of the system to undermine the authority of lawmakers.

[–] Korkki@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

They arranged a vote that required absolute majority just before summer break. devious and calculated.

[–] theherk@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

It would be bonkers, but it is flipped.

[–] melroy@kbin.melroy.org 1 points 1 day ago

exactly my point..

[–] hneerqe@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

it's gamed and rigged. there you go.

[–] theherk@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

It does. Click the link where it says that backward. The article just has it wrong.

[–] illi@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

A symbolic exemption was adopted for encrypted communications—though in practice, service providers do not scan these anyway.

Well I guess that's something at least.