Moritz Körner, Member of the European Parliament, disclosed the decision on Twitter. Swedish publisher SVG said, “The question was removed at the last moment from Thursday’s ambassadorial meeting in Brussels”.

  • Dojan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    140
    ·
    1 年前

    I’m still fucking mad the Left voted yes for this. Campaigning on a no and then turning their coats immediately after the elections. Disgraceful, and I hope whichever party members are responsible get booted.

  • LordCrom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    116
    ·
    1 年前

    They are just delaying the vote for another time… Hoping that next time it will fly under the radar and there won’t be a huge backlash of discontent.

    If the vote fail, they just wait a year, rename it, and try again.

    Same thing happens in the US. Law proposed that people hate, people organize, start a campaign that fights for news airtime, bringing awareness of the dickery about to happen, and then succeed after a hard battle and many many volunteer hours spent.

    In 6 months Congress just renames it the “I love kittens” act and sticks it on a must pass bill.

    Fighting bullshit laws is exhausting…

    • Treczoks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      1 年前

      Don’t be surprise if it reappears as an attachment to a fishing quota law or a law defining sizes for underwear…

      • uis@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 年前

        it reappears as an attachment to a fishing quota law or a law defining sizes for underwear

        Sounds very Putin.

        • Treczoks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 年前

          Actually, this is a common occurance in the US and EU. One of the previous, court-captured laws actually was riding with fishing quota regulations.

          • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 年前

            Yeah, Putin doesn’t have to hide anything because nobody is allowed to object to any crazy laws he invents.

      • cows_are_underrated@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 年前

        Idk about the EU(there have been cases that were exactly this, an example would be Article 13), but I can say to you, that this devinetively happens in Germany. Our conservatives party wants to pass a law, that would track and save all your online activity(Vorratsdatenspeicherung/ data preservation) to fight “paedophiles and terrorists” they bring it up once in a while, even tho, our federal court already said, that its illegal.

    • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 年前

      Hungary will take the EU presidency, they just name it “child protection” and will smear everyone as a pedophile who objects it.

  • shortwavesurfer@monero.town
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    93
    ·
    1 年前

    Wasn’t this rejected once already? Perhaps if they wanted to do something useful, they should pass something that says that if something is majority disliked twice or something, then it should be withdrawn and not proposed again for at least 100 years.

    • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      96
      ·
      1 年前

      They will keep trying again and again and again. The assault on privacy has been going on for decades and it will never stop.

      • Dasnap@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        71
        ·
        1 年前

        You’ve gotta defend for an infinite amount of time, but they’ve only gotta succeed once.

        • dactylotheca@suppo.fi
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          37
          ·
          1 年前

          Yep, and as I pointed out in another comment in this thread, Chat Control isn’t the only piece of legislation like this that’s in the works.

          Considering that the extreme right just won big, I have no doubt that one of these fascist surveillance packages will go through. Yeah, at first it may be used for catching criminals, until it isn’t

        • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 年前

          Yes. Technically, a similar vote could repeal the law just as easily but there is a history of governments not giving their power away easily; implementing it also sets a precedent and creates technical enforcement options for other governments willing to go through with something similar in the future, or for hackers to exploit because gov-rooted devices will remain in operation for years after the potential repeal.

      • dactylotheca@suppo.fi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 年前

        And “Chat Control” isn’t even the only thing like this in the pipeline. There’s the so-called “security by design” bullshit (which does the opposite of what then name implies) that’s actually even worse than Chat Control and has also been worked on in secret, and which’d include mass scale surveillance of not just photos but pretty much everything, and is much more likely to pass than Chat Control.

    • cmeio@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 年前

      Such a rule is basically un-enforceable. Because it is nearly never exactly the same text. So it is always the first time voted on.

    • PonyOfWar@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 年前

      Either way they can just give it a new name and change some details to propose it again. Like how they made it “voluntary” this time (but you can only send text if you don’t agree).

    • MonkderDritte@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 年前

      Better define some basic human rights as a core tenet and fire repeat offenders, because they are a danger to the population.

  • MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    ·
    1 年前

    Find the politicians by name who voted yes for this, and display them in public.

    Let the capable open source community then take over going through their phones, since they must be OK with their phones being scanned, right?

    • ripcord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 年前

      At least some of them were discussion giving themselves an exception from it. So no.

    • zaphod@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 年前

      First of all it was in the council, so not really individual politicians but the governments/ministers of member countries, and second they didn’t vote, it was withdrawn.

      • MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 年前

        We got lucky this time. Won’t be the case next time.

        Also, even if it’s entire governments voting, there must be a way to find politicians who are pro and against this, yes? Pretty sure governments had an internal vote and they came up with their decision based on said vote

        • zaphod@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 年前

          I’d assume people already know who their government is and who of them favours policies like this.

  • ಠ_ಠ@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    ·
    1 年前

    Note the vote was withdrawn, not actually voted against. They’re pushing this for a later date because there was no majority.

    “The EU Council did not make a decision on chat control today, as the agenda item was removed due to the lack of a majority, (…)

    Belgium’s draft law, (…) was instead postponed indefinitely. (…) Belgium cannot currently present a proposal that would gain a majority. In July, the Council Presidency will transfer from Belgium to Hungary, which has stated its intention to advance negotiations on chat control as part of its work program.

  • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    1 年前

    So I assume that since it was withdrawn, this doesn’t set a precedent and it’s only a matter of time untill they try to sneak it thru with a different name.

  • PonyOfWar@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 年前

    Nice. I guess they didn’t expect to get a majority to support it anymore. Definitely a win for now, but I’m sure they’ll try again.

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 年前

    I am suspicious they realized that they weren’t going to be able to make a loophole for themselves - I’ve seen several articles in the last week on how they were trying to do that.