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.
This is exactly how democracy is not working. EU just pushed it through. Despite multi rejections!
An entire generation is learning in real time, first hand, that Democracy isn’t working.
I insist on calling it democratism - an ambition, nice ideal, doesn’t work in practice. Same way they talk about other isms.
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.
I never voted for creating the EU
System is not workingSystem is working exactly as intendedHow?
System is working how they want it to work. Democracy is a far cry
I guess our only hope is for the EU court to deem it unlawful?
fat chance, but we can pray. Despite this move being illegal as fuck.
So you just have to nag and nag and nag until they say “sigh, alright then…”?! WTF?!
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.
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
Also: Host your own Matrix or XMPP server for your family and friends. Basically nothing anyone could do to prevent you from doing that.
And why would these apps be exempt if 90% of all communication goes through them?
Don’t underestimate the number of communications through email, phone calls, sms, slack, etc.
I would guess to get it passed then they can work on revoking those exemtions
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.
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.
Welcome to the Fourth Reich of Europe, citizen. You’d better like it here. Orelse.
Surely it needs more in favor to pass? Ugh I need to reducate myself on this system
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?
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.
