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”.

  • shortwavesurfer@monero.town
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    94
    ·
    6 months ago

    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they should pass something that says that if something is majority disliked twice or something, then it should be withdrawn and not proposed again for at least 100 years.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
      97
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      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
        73
        ·
        6 months ago

        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
          38
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          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

          • Grippler@feddit.dk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            29
            ·
            6 months ago

            Nono, it will always only be used to catch criminals, that won’t change…it’s what makes someone a criminal that changes.

            • PonyOfWar
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              16
              ·
              6 months ago

              Source? In Germany at least that’s not the case, it’s mainly the conservatives who push for it. In the original vote, only the greens clearly opposed it. Later on, SPD (center-left) and FDP (liberal) changed course to also oppose it. Couldn’t find results for other countries though, so I’m genuinely curious.

              • melroy@kbin.melroy.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                I believe all parties in EU are not really understanding technology in general. So I think it’s a very bad decision to give these people power over these kinds of rules. They just have no idea what they are doing frankly.

                • dactylotheca@suppo.fi
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Yep, no disagreement there. This sort of mass surveillance is a fucking terrible idea no matter who’s behind the wheel

                  • melroy@kbin.melroy.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    exactly, they these people are constantly trying to come up mass surveillance, over and over and over again. Never ending story.

                • uis@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  I believe all parties in EU are not really understanding technology in general.

                  There are pirates. Well, after last elections it seems to be the pirate. Only one.

          • uis@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Considering that the extreme right just won big

            Someone won big yachts from Putin.

        • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          6 months ago

          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
        17
        ·
        6 months ago

        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
      ·
      6 months ago

      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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      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
      6 months ago

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