You must log in or # to comment.
crazy how you can have a majority vote against something and it still pass
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.
Fuck this world
Fuck Demagogues*CX
Time to revolt.The scum pushing chat control are in no way “populists.” No actual people want it!
That’s how DemagogyCX works🙃
Populism is when unpopular and serving only the elite? Nah, I’m pretty sure you’ve got that exactly backwards.
DemagogyCX arises from you giving your power for others to orchestrate. Whether by majority or minority, the longer you admit their power, the longer they will encroach on your rights.
Tis why elitism exists, because the majority have decided to grant the minority rule over the majority.
It’s time to take your power back.
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.
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?
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
Finally, somebody is thinking about the children!
🙄
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.
Until this trash starts being scared of dropping dead they have no reason to stop
By the way here are the results of the votes:
July 7th: https://mepwatch.eu/10/vote.html?v=195338&country=&eugroup=
deleted by creator
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.Favor to block order, no?
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.
deleted by creator
Nice
That’s the democratic EUrocrats for you
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.
Seems vaguely similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography
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.
finally something genuinely worth getting upset over, not fuggin playstation cd games
You can also be upset about looming threats to the very concept of ownership.
Today I’m angry about chat control. I’ll have to see if I can fit in some time to be angry about looming threats to the concept of ownership on Saturday, because tomorrow (Friday) is my angry at sprawling economic inequality day and I’m usually not finished until around 11pm.
