The central bank, council, and commission have to get thoroughly investigated. The amount of questionable decisions coming from those three in the recent (15) years is extremely unsettling. The parliament and courts are practically the only institutions preventing things from hitting the fan at this point, and struggling to do so, it seems.
junto [3 hidden]5 mins ago
I’m convinced of widespread corruption here. We need to follow the money. Who is funding and pushing this agenda to blanket spy on all Europeans? I guess my question is rhetorical.
joe_mamba [3 hidden]5 mins ago
>Who is funding and pushing this agenda to blanket spy on all Europeans?
Why are we ignoring the other side of the transaction? The side responsible for taking the money.
Giving bribes for lobbying is bad, but that would not be an issue if those found taking the bribes would be guillotined or hanged.
joe_mamba [3 hidden]5 mins ago
>The central bank, council, and commission have to get thoroughly investigated.
By WHO?! They are THE (unelected) ruling elite. Who's gonna prosecute them?
surgical_fire [3 hidden]5 mins ago
They are not unelected. The EU Council is made up of the head of government of each member state. They are all elected.
The commissioners are picked by the heads of state (elected) and the EU parliament (also elected).
This does not absolve them from wrongdoing, but you should understand where your complaints should be directed at.
tokai [3 hidden]5 mins ago
OLAF I would assume.
kingleopold [3 hidden]5 mins ago
they dont investigate themselves, I hope you understand those details some day.
Ironically, those are two separate cases of one high-profile EU politician (in fact, the very head of the same parliament that pushes for mass scanning of private messages) BOTH involving secret text messages that the mentioned politician refuses to reveal.
kingleopold [3 hidden]5 mins ago
you are right, they reward them big after slow processs ends? lmao
The government will investigate the government and find that the government did nothing wrong. A subsequent government review of the government's investigation of the government will find no wrongdoing on the part of the government. Ain't democracy grand?
neobrain [3 hidden]5 mins ago
For context, this refers to "Chat Control 1.0", allowing facebook and other messaging providers to scan chats for harmful content (which they had been temporarily allowed to do by a recently expired law).
This is still problematic, but the far more dangerous Chat Control 2.0 that would weaken end-to-end-encrypted messengers like Signal is not being discussed here.
Not to diminish the gravity of the new development, but the defeatist "no way to prevent this" narratives that are already popping up here are getting old -- when in fact it looks like 2.0 is off the table for good because protest against it has proven effective.
surgical_fire [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Those narratives pop up from users that have a clear anti-EU bias (and I suspect they might not even be from the EU considering how ignorant they seem to be about how it works, its function ans structure, etc.
flumpcakes [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Isn't this something they already do?
I would be utterly shocked if facebook et al. were not scanning all of your messages (either in transit or at terminus to get around 'E2E' claims).
neobrain [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Yes, this had been temporarily permitted until recently, and AFAIK they continue doing so illegally at the moment.
mdp2021 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Do also see:
# Italy warns against Chat Control mass surveillance, but votes in favour of it (digitalcourage.social)
Do, because already there nuances (towards the better or worse) are revealed, which are not evident in journalism as we have it. The whole story needs more investigation than the stubs.
But the way they are managing it in the workflow does not seem too linear...
stavros [3 hidden]5 mins ago
"We are in favour of this law, so long as it is not used for its intended purpose."
mdp2021 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
You should elaborate. And explain what you understood as "its intended purpose".
My understanding of the vote last Friday was about protracting the 2021 temporary compromise (scan voluntarily until we have a full law), which was suspended at the beginning of April. It is not clear how they proceeded that way. It seems some vertices imposed that they would not accept a legal vacuum there. So, it's not a "law". What ran for the past five years was an "exception to privacy laws" (I am not informed of the mandated guardrails).
abroszka33 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
There is no way to stop these so just lets get going. The sooner we have age and ID verification on every single website and app the sooner we will have a working decentralised internet that avoids it.
m132 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
It's a strong signal to start building such an Internet and slowly withdraw from using anything centralized.
mdp2021 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
What frightens me is, as usual, the assumption of conformism that may just remove people from services.
"Present a document" // "No, certainly not to you" // "Do without then"
The straight will say "no", but their lives will be extremely complicated, possibly in the unawareness of those that just take compliance to the absurd for granted - as the weak call survival paramount and cannot see that their modus is subjective. That we won't have it is something that they cannot even conceive. Adults are noise to them.
mattrighetti [3 hidden]5 mins ago
They're not going to stop, are they?
flumpcakes [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Who is they?
These pithy remarks don't really extend the debate or have any nuance - they just sound conspiratorial.
There are plenty of reasons to "scan" communications.
There are plenty of reasons to have limits on communication "scanning".
What part of the spectrum do you fall on?
stavros [3 hidden]5 mins ago
It certainly seems like they'll stop after they pass it.
petcat [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Am I crazy or is this website not allowing me to opt out of cookie tracking unless I sign up for a subscription?
I know the EU cookie banners have basically ruined the internet, but this seems like a whole 'nother level of obnoxious.
Lio [3 hidden]5 mins ago
It's not EU cookie banners that have ruined the internet, it's malicious compliance and dark pattens on behalf of those that want to track you.
As a reminder "EU cookie banners" are not required if you use cookies for site functionality. They are only required if your site uses these to track users.
This needs repeating, it's a common misconception (deliberately spread by many, too) that the EU requires cookie banners for all cookies.
GuB-42 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Very common on EU news websites.
Workarounds include:
- reader mode
- "behind the overlay" extension (and others like it)
- archive.is
- probably many others
netsharc [3 hidden]5 mins ago
When they force that, it's an invitation for me to open it in an incognito window. Track all you want, assholes!
Both in incognito and normal modes. I bet you'll get the same fingerprinting ID in both.
So yes, they can track you in incognito mode, too.
m132 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
This is what made me disable JavaScript by default in 2018. I didn't even get this banner.
pmontra [3 hidden]5 mins ago
You are correct. Reader mode on Firefox shows the full article though.
stavros [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Wow, yeah, that seems... illegal, no?
wronex [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Im pretty sure it is illegal. In my understanding, it must be equally easy to reject and accept. And the website MUST continue working under either choice. Which is not the case here.
I think the lawmakers should have made all forms of tracking illegal instead. That would make law writing and following easier. And closer to the spirit of what they are trying to accomplish and what everyone wants (except you Silicon Valley O.o)
esafak [3 hidden]5 mins ago
You Reject the undesirable ones (all!) and click Agree to Selected.
SahAssar [3 hidden]5 mins ago
On these you usually can't reject them. It says
> Data processing by advertising providers including personalised advertising with profiling (Consent required for free use)
em-bee [3 hidden]5 mins ago
doesn't work, they don't let you unselect anything. you have to accept everything or pay.
very frustrating because especially a tech magazine like heise should really know better
kingleopold [3 hidden]5 mins ago
it will %100 pass at some point. no way around it.
mdp2021 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
The problem is /what/ will pass. What is this clothing limit? Pink, shocking, lime? Long sleeves, above the wrist or below? In the city center, in the suburbs, where?
The issue is all in the details.
And in the decision process, before that, of course.
wronex [3 hidden]5 mins ago
So what platforms will this apply too? What platforms Dow sit already apply too? All SMS, large email providers (Gmail?), WhatsApp, Apple services?
donmcronald [3 hidden]5 mins ago
There have been a few incidents that make me think Snapchat private chats are monitored. The one with the guy joking to his friends about blowing up a plane or something is the first that comes to mind.
Tell me how private messaging gets you taken off a plane otherwise. It’s not private. Big tech has put a camera and microphone in everyone’s pocket and they’re monitoring everything.
The government and big (American) tech are very likely lying to us IMO. How will anyone protest when mass surveillance becomes the law if it’s already in place and you can be labeled a bad actor that gets your life ruined if you dissent?
mdp2021 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
> How will anyone protest when mass surveillance becomes the law if it’s already in place and you can be labeled a bad actor that gets your life ruined if you dissent
With the pure awareness that Men do not act out of convenience, and that this whole situation of declining societies was born out of already-fascist-material that acted out of convenience, with complacency.
It is a bit strange why EU countries allow their own credibility and legitimacy get steadily dragged down, bit by bit, by all these thousands of dubious statements, tricks, manoeuvres, and so on.
Do they just not care about weakening their own societies?
graemep [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Much the same reasons why the UK, US etc. do much the same. It is slowed down a bit in some countries with strong constitutions or resistance to it, but the governments all want it.
mdp2021 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
> "You have to understand that times have changed, it's not like before... Now we have children, the children, the children, children, children and the t-word."
~~ keir starmer
(I'll see if I can still find the source. If anybody beats me to it, appreciated.)
rckt [3 hidden]5 mins ago
The govs consist of people who have their own agendas. Mass surveillance is something they all are aligned on.
SpicyLemonZest [3 hidden]5 mins ago
I guess I'm not sure what's dubious here. The article says they're circumventing "democratic control bodies", but I don't know what that means (perhaps it's a more common phrase in German?), and it sounds like the European Parliament can still vote to reject Chat Control if they don't want it. The article strongly implies there's something dubious going on here, but to me what would be dubious is a procedure that prevents the parliament from voting on Chat Control.
theodric [3 hidden]5 mins ago
They hold all the cards, and have means - above-board or questionable, but effective nonetheless - to enact their will. Do you remember the Treaty of Lisbon referendumS, plural? Just keep asking the question until the plebs answer correctly.
stavros [3 hidden]5 mins ago
We have been enjoying a succulent Chinese meal.
Lio [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Yeah and Peter Hummelgaard is about to touch you on the penis.
> "We must break with the totally erroneous perception that it is everyone's civil liberty to communicate on encrypted messaging services,"
At that point it has become clear to most Europe is not a democracy anymore. It has lost any legitimacy.
rixed [3 hidden]5 mins ago
At the end of the day, regimes do not depend on legitimacy but on force.
SilverElfin [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Governments don’t work for people. Yet they use terms like democracy all the time. The repeated attempts at chat control are so blatantly anti civil rights but also disrespectful of democratic principles. Why do EU citizens tolerate this? Are they okay being made a fool of or is this just not an issue for them after all?
theodric [3 hidden]5 mins ago
How do you suggest people be intolerant? Essentially all the parties work toward these goals, so voting is ineffective. Speech is (more-or-less) allowed until it turns into strident protest, at which point the water cannons are brought out and a few token agitators are prosecuted for their instigation. I wouldn't want to call this tyranny, because I might get a knock on the door.
SilverElfin [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Why not emphasize the issue of civil rights and make it disqualifying as a single issue for any politician? At least online it feels like people care about chat control a lot but when it comes to voting, the type of dystopian control EU bureaucrats are building isn’t in anyone’s mind. So politicians can get away with supporting those policies since there isn’t a consequence for them.
stavros [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Well, we don't tolerate it, that's why it hasn't passed yet. They keep trying, though.
mr_toad [3 hidden]5 mins ago
The power of the European Commission to propose legislation needs to be curbed or removed entirely. Executive agencies shouldn’t be writing legislation. It’s far to easy for them to propose laws that benefit the the European Commission, rather than benefiting Europeans.
superkuh [3 hidden]5 mins ago
The same as every other fascist control measure. Voted down. Voted down. Voted down. Then forced through through some obscure mechanism bypassing the will of the people and becoming law forever.
vb-8448 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
> Although the Council emphasizes that the *scans will be limited to the absolutely necessary extent* and that no general, indiscriminate surveillance will take place
I'm 100% sure that this is the case and about the good intentions of the proposers.
HN.zip
Why are we ignoring the other side of the transaction? The side responsible for taking the money.
Giving bribes for lobbying is bad, but that would not be an issue if those found taking the bribes would be guillotined or hanged.
By WHO?! They are THE (unelected) ruling elite. Who's gonna prosecute them?
The commissioners are picked by the heads of state (elected) and the EU parliament (also elected).
This does not absolve them from wrongdoing, but you should understand where your complaints should be directed at.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizergate
- https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-secret-gr...
Ironically, those are two separate cases of one high-profile EU politician (in fact, the very head of the same parliament that pushes for mass scanning of private messages) BOTH involving secret text messages that the mentioned politician refuses to reveal.
here is one. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38369822
This is still problematic, but the far more dangerous Chat Control 2.0 that would weaken end-to-end-encrypted messengers like Signal is not being discussed here.
Not to diminish the gravity of the new development, but the defeatist "no way to prevent this" narratives that are already popping up here are getting old -- when in fact it looks like 2.0 is off the table for good because protest against it has proven effective.
I would be utterly shocked if facebook et al. were not scanning all of your messages (either in transit or at terminus to get around 'E2E' claims).
# Italy warns against Chat Control mass surveillance, but votes in favour of it (digitalcourage.social)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48783340
Do, because already there nuances (towards the better or worse) are revealed, which are not evident in journalism as we have it. The whole story needs more investigation than the stubs.
But the way they are managing it in the workflow does not seem too linear...
My understanding of the vote last Friday was about protracting the 2021 temporary compromise (scan voluntarily until we have a full law), which was suspended at the beginning of April. It is not clear how they proceeded that way. It seems some vertices imposed that they would not accept a legal vacuum there. So, it's not a "law". What ran for the past five years was an "exception to privacy laws" (I am not informed of the mandated guardrails).
"Present a document" // "No, certainly not to you" // "Do without then"
The straight will say "no", but their lives will be extremely complicated, possibly in the unawareness of those that just take compliance to the absurd for granted - as the weak call survival paramount and cannot see that their modus is subjective. That we won't have it is something that they cannot even conceive. Adults are noise to them.
These pithy remarks don't really extend the debate or have any nuance - they just sound conspiratorial.
There are plenty of reasons to "scan" communications.
There are plenty of reasons to have limits on communication "scanning".
What part of the spectrum do you fall on?
I know the EU cookie banners have basically ruined the internet, but this seems like a whole 'nother level of obnoxious.
There is one case where DPA ruled in favor of the company, but it's currently being appealed: https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-ok-der-spiegel-noyb-sues-hamburg-d...
Another one ruled against company and court agreed: https://noyb.eu/en/court-decides-pay-or-okay-derstandardat-i...
This needs repeating, it's a common misconception (deliberately spread by many, too) that the EU requires cookie banners for all cookies.
Workarounds include:
- reader mode
- "behind the overlay" extension (and others like it)
- archive.is
- probably many others
Both in incognito and normal modes. I bet you'll get the same fingerprinting ID in both.
So yes, they can track you in incognito mode, too.
I think the lawmakers should have made all forms of tracking illegal instead. That would make law writing and following easier. And closer to the spirit of what they are trying to accomplish and what everyone wants (except you Silicon Valley O.o)
> Data processing by advertising providers including personalised advertising with profiling (Consent required for free use)
very frustrating because especially a tech magazine like heise should really know better
The issue is all in the details.
And in the decision process, before that, of course.
Tell me how private messaging gets you taken off a plane otherwise. It’s not private. Big tech has put a camera and microphone in everyone’s pocket and they’re monitoring everything.
The government and big (American) tech are very likely lying to us IMO. How will anyone protest when mass surveillance becomes the law if it’s already in place and you can be labeled a bad actor that gets your life ruined if you dissent?
With the pure awareness that Men do not act out of convenience, and that this whole situation of declining societies was born out of already-fascist-material that acted out of convenience, with complacency.
Do they just not care about weakening their own societies?
~~ keir starmer
(I'll see if I can still find the source. If anybody beats me to it, appreciated.)
> "We must break with the totally erroneous perception that it is everyone's civil liberty to communicate on encrypted messaging services,"
What an arsehole.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/danish-justice...
I'm 100% sure that this is the case and about the good intentions of the proposers.
/s