New EU Chat Control proposal moves forward

140 pointsposted 3 months ago
by ericzawo
(techreport.com)

26 Comments

dataking

3 months ago

https://fightchatcontrol.eu/

As far as I understand, people using this site to contact their elected officials were instrumental in making lawmakers back down from ChatControl v2.0. Hoping the same will be true this time around.

ryandrake

3 months ago

On the contrary, it doesn't seem to have had any effect at all. Nobody actually defeated anything if it just gets re-proposed a few weeks later.

danaris

3 months ago

Every time we stop it from becoming law, that is a victory.

Viewing it as anything else is actively counterproductive.

The fact that they will keep bringing it back until we have better people in the EU Parliament just means that we have to win more victories.

izacus

3 months ago

They haven't yet dared to bring it to the parliament because then they'd have to let it be defeated.

hn_throw2025

3 months ago

> The fact that they will keep bringing it back until we have better people in the EU Parliament just means that we have to win more victories.

But these proposals came not from the EU Parliament (who you directly vote for), but from the EU Commission (who you do not). They have since been revived by several presidencies of the Council, who are also highly likely to be immune to your electoral displeasure. The EU Parliament has no ability to initiate legislation.

The EU-critical minority on HN keeps pointing this out only to receive downvotes, while the same old misunderstandings continue. Any democratic link between the EU Citizens and the Commission is effectively homeopathic.

I am glad that the Parliament had rejected these proposals, but remember the saying… you have to be lucky every time.

danaris

3 months ago

Ah, my apologies—so how does the Commission get selected? Presumably there's still some way to influence it, even if it's indirect.

hn_throw2025

3 months ago

No problem... it's not straightforward at all.

Each member state nominates a Commissioner candidate, in consultation with the incoming Commission President. Each Commission candidate is interviewed by a Parliamentary committee, and (rarely) they might be rejected. I suppose you could pressure your MEP if they happen to be on the committee...

The MEPs as a group have to approve the whole Commission as a final stage and could reject them... but this has never happened. The closest thing to this would be the Commission of '99 that collectively resigned over corruption.

pixl97

3 months ago

Ah, the US way, just keep trying to pass the bill again and again until people get tired and it eventually passes quietly.

jononor

3 months ago

Winning a battle and living to fight another day is useful. Does not mean the fight is over, of course.

getcrunk

3 months ago

How would these types of proposals deal with foss non centralized/fully p2p messaging system? Just make them illegal?

What if the foss app has the “scanning” but can be disabled with a compile time flag

Is my email client going to have to implement this scanning if I use pgp?

layer8

3 months ago

The proposals apply to “providers” of “hosting services“, of “interpersonal communications service”, and of “software application stores” (you can look up the definitions for yourself in the published texts). It’s hard to see how that would apply to purely P2P systems, except that distributing an app for it via app stores would likely require user age verification.

thewebguyd

3 months ago

Flathub, the snap store, gnome software, etc. all technically meet the definitino of software application store.

Makes me wonder (and worry) if they can stretch the definition to apply to standard package repos as well. Are we going to be entering an era where you have to verify your identity & age to apt-get software?

layer8

3 months ago

Or switch to P2P distribution.

The real danger is if hardware becomes dongled by firmware that doesn’t allow you to install anything you want anymore.

Anonbrit

3 months ago

Google's "all software must be signed by an author who has provided us with a copy of their government ID" suddenly seems a lot more sinister

thewebguyd

3 months ago

I think that real danger is a very real possibility with legislation like this. Not in the way that you won't be able to buy "unlocked" devices, but that web services and government services just flat out won't be accessible to you if you aren't on a sanctioned device (with the sanctioned spyware).

Think things like requiring play integrity attestation to access banking, or an equivalent service baked into macOS, Windows, iOS. If you aren't on one of those proprietary and spied on OSes, you can't access most of the web.

So technically the hardware will remain relatively open, but they'll make it so you can't interact with the rest of society with it.

layer8

3 months ago

That would still be the relatively benign outcome. You can have one device for all the official stuff, and another device for your own software, “free“ OSs and the “free” internet. However, I could see a future where anything that accesses the internet is required to be an iPhone-like clamped down device.

dmitrygr

3 months ago

the worst (and the only) way possible: hold authors or distributors of the said software responsible: Order apple and google to remove apps, Order ISPs to block domains that host PWAs, Issue arrest warrants for authors of software that does not or cannot comply.

varispeed

3 months ago

The EU has been taken over by terrorists and law enforcement does nothing. People behind Chat Controls should be arrested.

These proposals are against German laws and other EU countries. It can be treated as terrorist attack attempt.

It creates psychological and physical harm, indiscriminately for ideological gain. Textbook terrorism, except done by nice people in suits and there is no blood (yet).

Am4TIfIsER0ppos

3 months ago

The germans would love it most. Gotta find those people guilty of Wrong Think like nuclear power being safe.

user

2 months ago

[deleted]

Anonbrit

3 months ago

The Germans have been the strongest opposition to this law.

ashanoko

3 months ago

The mass import of potential terrorists are the pretext to introduce this panopticon. Quite the play. You push your agenda, by pushing stochastic events that forward it.

captain_coffee

3 months ago

Legit question: if this disaster of a legislation passes, what are the alternatives to provide secure messaging / comms when you are inside the EU? The only 2 options that I can think about are:

- The Dark Web: TOR, I2P (<--- not sure why I2P didn't gain more popularity) or potemntially other alternatives in the same space

- VPN outside the EU and access a secure messaging system via the VPN exit point. This would assume that the system would have E2EE / some kind of at least superficial privacy guarantees.

Am I missing any major category / tech combination?

kotaKat

3 months ago

It’s almost as if the EU keeps getting it wrong, time and time again with technology.

FridayoLeary

3 months ago

I'm starting to think that maybe they are not great at doing their job.