you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 62 points 7 months ago (9 children)

BY ONE FUCKING VOTE!

https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/189574

Vote out every single fucker who is trying to limit our freedoms!

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 7 months ago

    Thats actually insane in itself that it got that close. Next time they will succeed. :/

    People are so stupid to support this. They dont seem to understand that its never about protecting anyone and its always about building dystopia.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 2 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    i don't understand, was EPP for or against the extension ? Cause my understanding was that they asked to have a second vote even if the first one already rejected the extension.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    I don't understand the votes on that website, most people from EPP voted 👎 (against the extension) but that means they are against chat control? Or in favor? What european parties are opposing to the chat control, I want to know which parties we can trust on this matter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 7 months ago

    as another comment said, EPP was against this proposal due to it being not strict enough. They want full control of your chat (e2ee ones too). they were afraid that this would set a precedent for limits for chat control and voted againts

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    also, I was surprised that in my conservative country no MEP voted with acceptance. but maybe it's because the proposal included adding clauses like this?

    (v) not applied to interpersonal communications to which end-to-end encryption is, has been or will be applied;

    https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-10-2026-0070_EN.html

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    That sounds kinda reasonable then. If the company has access to the chat logs in plain text, they should probably be scanning it for CSAM. Though the use of AI to identify it is concerning, given the low accuracy. And I guess there's also the risk of communications with someone's doctor being flagged.

    On reflection it's still a dumb law.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    as regards the extension of its period of application

    does it mean that this vote was only about the extension of the regulation that allowed voluntary participation in scanning for chat providers?

    honestly, that's the lesser of the worries, we know facebook and fo are scanning all messages going through them no matter what

  • source
  • parent