this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2026
141 points (100.0% liked)

Europe

11661 readers
606 users here now

News and information from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

  1. This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
  2. No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
  3. Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
  4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
  5. Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
  8. Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
  9. No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
  10. Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.

(This list may get expanded as necessary.)

Posts that link to the following sources will be removed

Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com

(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)

Ban lengths, etc.

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
federalreverse@feddit.org
poVoq@slrpnk.net
anzo@programming.dev
EuroMod@feddit.org
141
EU temporarily extends controversial chat-scanning regime until 2028 (www.euronews.com)
submitted 3 days ago by ZkhqrD5o@lemmy.world to c/europe@feddit.org
25 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The only good thing is that end-to-end encrypted messaging services such as Signal are temporarily safe. However, this law fundamentally threatens encryption and citizen safety. There is something you can do about that:

https://fightchatcontrol.eu/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I don’t think we need to argue that.

I obviously meant it as "we can argue if it's sufficiently widespread and common problem to mandate this type of legislation from EU". And by "this type" I mean fairly measured. And I would argue it's not. If we agree that it its actually very harmful and EU should do whatever it can to stop it than I think we will eventually agree that we should do age verification and client side scanning as the best privacy preserving options.

That leaves the question, who does it benefit?

Ok, let's stop here. This link read like total bull shit. They claim that tech corporation spread some misinformation to support Chat Control 2.0 and then say that (if I understand this correctly) the right solution is:

Strict default settings and protective mechanisms (Security by Design) to make cybergrooming technically harder from the outset and prevent the creation of CSAM.
Targeted telecommunications surveillance based on judicially confirmed suspicion.
Proactive search by a new EU Center and immediate takedown obligations for providers and law enforcement on the open internet and darknet — removing illegal material at source.

This is fucking Chat Control 2.0! Half of the legislation talks about "Security by Design" and preventing grooming. They want strong default that will shield children, periodic evaluation and forced mitigation for companies that fail to adapt proper measures. The second half is about takedown obligations. What is going on here? The only difference is that Chat Control also want's to stop spreading of CSAM because there's a lot of it that already exists so clearly preventing it's creation will not be sufficient. So they say "no, let's not do Chat Control 2.0! Let's do Chat Control 2.0 but let's also ignore part of the problem we don't know how to solve".

Thanks to the EP. I agree that CC2.0 has lost a lot of its teeth due to the exclusion of explicit mandatory scanning

Yes, EP is working on it, negotiating and looking for the right solution. So far it didn't find one so nothing was passed. Why do people claim they are looking to introduce mass surveillance when they clearly don't? And don't get me wrong, I'm sure intelligence services and police would love for EP to break encryption. It would make their jobs so much easier. I'm sure there are forces inside EU that push for this but it's definitely not the agenda of EU as a whole, not even close.

I kinda doubt that. Meta already has those tools.

With Chat Control 1.0 it was legal to scan messages for 5 years already. Why no one is doing this? Because they already have the info they need and scanning memes that people send to each other is not valuable enough for them.

[–] ReluctantZen@feddit.nl 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So they say “no, let’s not do Chat Control 2.0! Let’s do Chat Control 2.0 but let’s also ignore part of the problem we don’t know how to solve”.

Well, the idea is that if the creation is prevented, the spreading will solve itself. Chat Control 2.0 also isn't judicially targeted. And to be clear, that summary is based on what the EP is advocating for (and is, I believe, part of the basis for amendments in the earlier document you linked).

Btw, there are 2 links in my post. The 1st one is more interesting in my opinion.

Why do people claim they are looking to introduce mass surveillance when they clearly don’t?

Because the initial proposals from the Council and Commission more or less were mass surveillance. Only after a couple of years has it done away with the mandatory scanning (for now anyway) after it became clear the EP wouldn't be in favour (again). People are understandably suspicious. Unfortunately, people tend to conflate the entire EU into one thing, in large part because reporting tends to just say "EU". The EP certainly isn't looking to introduce mass surveillance, that much should be clear by now.

Why no one is doing this?

Why do you say no one is doing this? Big Tech isn't advocating for the continuation of (the temporary) CC1.0 because they're not using it.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 1 points 2 days ago

Ok, the links are next to each other so they look like one. So the other one talks about connections to AI companies that would sell tech used by Chat Control 2.0. This is kind of obvious. EU is not immune to lobbying and different companies are involved in pretty much everything it does. How much influence they have is a separate issue.

Well, the idea is that if the creation is prevented, the spreading will solve itself

You will not prevent creation with "stronger defaults". Not all CSAM is created online. AI is/will be new source of it that will not be stopped by Chat Control. A lot of CSAM already exists. So the idea that just by preventing grooming we will stop all CSAM is silly, we will only stop some of it. So what can actually be done about using e2e encrypted apps to share CSAM? I see two options: do nothing or scan client side. What other options are there? Besides breaking e2ee obviously. So at this point I see it as EP saying "let's include it in the solution" and privacy activists saying "no, let's ignore it".

Because the initial proposals from the Council and Commission more or less were mass surveillance.

Agree. Sadly people don't understand what happened and the conversation got stuck. People are still opposing something that is no longer on the table instead of thinking about real solutions. This is bad because it's not bringing us closer to a compromise. It just helps to spread misinformation and weakens EU as a whole.