EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0 – Breyer: "Our children lose out"
www.patrick-breyer.de
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,

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.

  • airikr@lemmy.mlEnglish
    29·
    9 days ago

    So you just have to nag and nag and nag until they say “sigh, alright then…”?! WTF?!

  • illi@sh.itjust.works
    12·
    9 days ago

    A symbolic exemption was adopted for encrypted communications—though in practice, service providers do not scan these anyway.

    Well I guess that’s something at least.

  • unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml
    7·
    9 days ago

    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?

    • funkycarrot@discuss.tchncs.de
      6·
      9 days ago

      From this article:

      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.