crazy how you can have a majority vote against something and it still pass
this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2026
256 points (98.5% liked)
Privacy
4788 readers
448 users here now
Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
One thing that I don't understand is:
On July 7 there was a vote for this urgent vote to take place. 303 were against, 331 were for, (- 28 people) (so it passed)
Today (July 9th) the actual vote for this law took part. 314 were against, 276 were for (+38) (yet still passed).
Please tell me why MEP's voted for this urgent vote to take place and then later (on July 9th) voted against it ?? Were they misled or something?
They both want it to pass and then be able to say they voted against it when asked about it.
aka deceiving the electorate.
The reason for that is that the Parliament was trying to reject a law the Council had already agreed on.
The EU legislative process (ordinary legislative procedure) works like this: Parliament and Council take turns on a bill. Once the Council has adopted its position and it comes back to Parliament for a second reading, the default flips. The bill passes automatically unless Parliament actively rejects or amends it. And rejecting at second reading requires an absolute majority of all 720 MEPs (361 votes), not a majority of those voting.
That look like bullshit to me tbh, i don't see how does that make sense, someone cam explain to me? Like, why does it have to be an absolute majority?
Like, why does it have to be an absolute majority?
Because it's a pre-existing law.
I think the actual question is: why didn't all the MEPs bother to attend the vote when it was this contentious.
edit Oh, the answer might simply be that they didn't have to be there if they would've voted against not passing.
Fuck this world
Fuck Demagogues*
Time to revolt.
The scum pushing chat control are in no way "populists." No actual people want it!
Fuck this corruption and Hawaiian pizza
In case you don't know what 1.0 does:
What is it?
A temporary derogation from the ePrivacy Directive that allowed (but did not require) providers to scan private messages of unsuspected users for potential child sexual abuse material.
Is scanning mandatory?
No — voluntary. In practice used mainly by unencrypted US services such as Gmail, Facebook/Instagram Messenger, Skype, Snapchat, iCloud Mail, and Xbox.
Does it touch encrypted messages?
No. End-to-end encrypted communications were never scanned but providers could deploy client-side scanning under this law.
Status today
Back in force. After expiring on 4 April 2026, it was reinstated on 9 July 2026 when Parliament failed to reach the absolute majority of 361 MEPs needed to reject the Council's fast-tracked "new" law. Only 314 MEPs voted to reject it, so suspicionless mass scanning is permitted to continue until 2028.
Also important to note I think is that Chat Control 1.0 was enacted in July 2021. It was meant to be a temporary stop-gap solution until CSAR aka Chat Control 2.0 would be negotiated as a more permanent solution. 1.0 already got extended in 2024 to April 2026 when CSAR wasn't progressing.
So they just reinstated the temporary solution.
This is important. Basically, nothing changes. The parties that wanted to (Meta, Google, Microsoft) have already been doing it for the last 5 years.
I'm not defending it, I've been screaming about it every time 2.0 was discussed, especially with people who I know refuse to move away from M$ and Meta, but apparently they don't care that much.
I just hope they will settle on 1.0 passing and fuck off with it being mandatory, so I have at least some place to chat and keep my data.
AKA: it does in fact impact E2EE because it allow a thirdy party to read the messages in plain text which E2EE does not like
What third party? It says "providers". So WhatsApp can scan messages you send in WhatsApp. Who's the third party here?
BTW no provider is doing this.
The thirdy part IS whatsapp, thirdy party here is meant from the POV of a conversation, i never invited whatsapp in my convo duh
You didn't install WhatsApp, add contacts to it and type you messages in it and it's still scanning them? Crazy shit.
No provider is doing this. WINK WINK
Which ones are?
Finally, somebody is thinking about the children!
🙄
It's so outdated that it's talking specifically about Skype even though it hasn't been a thing for a couple of years now
Until this trash starts being scared of dropping dead they have no reason to stop
We don't actually have power over whether or not Chat Control gets passed. The briefcases have decided that they want it, and will push it through regardless of how many delays there are.
That's the democratic EU for you
By the way here are the results of the votes:
July 7th: https://mepwatch.eu/10/vote.html?v=195338&country=&eugroup=
....mostly France and Germany in favor.
Favor to block order, no?
First vote, in favor = PRO Chatcontrol
Germany voted mostly against.
France in favor.
Second vote, in favor = AGAINST Chatcontrol
Germany voted mostly in favor. France did really good in this.
Looks like its on its last legs. Hopefully they get more collaborators.
Briar is in maintenance mode
This is a quick update about the status of Briar. Short version: the project is still active but we’re only making essential security updates and bugfixes for now.
Long version:
For several years we’ve been trying to find solutions to some of the longstanding issues with Briar, such as high battery usage and unreliable background operation on Android, missing features like account backup and file attachments, and a difficult user experience for adding contacts and communicating offline.
We considered completely rebuilding the application from the ground up, or even splitting it into separate applications for online and offline use. Meanwhile, the project didn’t have funding, we were reluctant to look for funding without having a long-term plan, and so we could only work on Briar in our spare time.
Last year, we decided that we wouldn’t realistically be able to solve these issues and so we reluctantly decided to shut down the project. We worked on releasing a final update for Android and desktop to allow the app to remain functional for as long as possible. In the meantime we were hearing a lot of supportive words from people we had told about our decision, and the app continued to attract new users. So finally we decided to continue the project in maintenance mode. We’re only making essential security updates and bugfixes for now, but eventually we hope to make some incremental progress on those longstanding issues.
We’re sending out this update because some rumours have been circulating that the project is shutting down, based on conversations we had with people in the internet freedom and privacy community last year. Those rumours are out of date: the project is continuing.
Not a fully functional chat app but an interesting project/framework being developed. They've described it as "TOR mixed with IPFS without the crypto." Uses a DHT similar to torrents with built in secure routing reminiscent of TOR. Importantly, it's not a VPN, but designed to be built into the applications themselves. All apps powered by Veilid also contribute to the network and can be assigned any role in "the onion." The most important pitch is that by being built into apps it can bring very strong privacy and security to the layperson, though app developers still need to address things like ensuring users retain access to data without email recovery etc.
Anyway, If you like these kinds of projects I'd look into it. I think it has some really good bones and it feels like we need it to mature sooner rather than later.
I sure hope there would be crypto in any private chat app??
Ha. For those that don't get the joke obviously there's cryptograpy, but not cryprocurrenty like IPFS uses.
IPFS does not have a cryptocurrency.
Nice
Asking to cyptography experts. Would it be possible to flood a discussion with AI generated slope ? The discussion itslef would not be encrypted, but would be lost in millions of other generated discussion. A "private key" mechanism would be use to identify which message are part of your real discussion.
I suppose this would be compliant with Chat Control, as message are not encrypted. But without private key, you won't be able to identify which message are the good ones.
After watching Pantheon, I don't want any tech CEOs discussing any kind of digital intelligence in Palo Alto.
I hope we see some push back.