Top
Best
New

Posted by gasull 1 day ago

Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained(fightchatcontrol.eu)
863 points | 328 commentspage 2
zyxzevn 3 hours ago|
Because of the excessive growing corruption in the EU, their politicians have decided to restrict all opposition. This corruption is hidden behind double-speak, demonization and censorship. Even putting people in prison who talk about the crimes that they endured.

Instead of using the criticism to improve the system, the corrupt system starts to attack and forbid the criticism.

pocksuppet 3 hours ago|
This just says Facebook is allowed to scan for child porn though?
olejorgenb 1 day ago||
Chat control 1.0

"A temporary derogation from the ePrivacy Directive that allowed (but did not require) providers to scan private messages of unsuspected users for potential child sexual abuse material."

Does that imply it's currently not allowed?

EDIT: apparently not enforced at least:

"Chat Control 1.0 expires

The legal ground for voluntary, indiscriminate scanning ends. Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Snap state they will continue scanning private messages regardless. "

closuregarden 1 day ago||
Yes, the derogation expired on 4 April 2026.
latexr 21 hours ago||
They just voted to reinstate it, and it passed by a narrow majority.

https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/195338

They did id sneakily.

https://www.politico.eu/article/president-vs-parliament-robe...

As I understand it, there will still be another related vote on Thursday, so call your representatives!

inigyou 21 hours ago|||
This should not be put in the same category as Chat Control 2.0. Doing so severely dilutes the brand Chat Control.
rsynnott 9 hours ago||
> Does that imply it's currently not allowed?

Not for the last few months, no; Chat Control 1 expired.

emadb 12 hours ago||
What european parties or people are pushing for chat controls?
lou1306 9 hours ago||
People (well, the European Parliament, which is arguably the closest approximation) have clearly and repeatedly opposed Chat Control.

The Commission is an expression of _governments_ (and this one in particular is the result of painstaking compromise) and is only loyal to presidents and prime ministers. It has no accountability to the EP, and it shows.

expedited123 6 hours ago|||
[dead]
MrGilbert 12 hours ago||
Conservatives and right-wing. Gives them more control. It‘s a pattern that gets obvious once you see it. It’s so they can hide their own secrets better. In Germany, we have a law that grants you access to information, the "Informationsfreiheitsgesetz“. This was used in the past to uncover morally wrong or illegal behavior, mostly done by the conservative party. This party, as they are currently in charge, is now actively working to change the law, so it's in their benefit.
left-struck 11 hours ago|||
I’m not familiar with the political landscape in Europe so it may well be mostly people on the right pushing this, but man I wish we could stop framing everything as left vs right.

That framing is distracting us from the authoritarian vs civil liberties issues, which is a dangerous and immediate threat to our ability to have any significant political influence of any kind.

k_g_b_ 11 hours ago|||
Conservative politicians and leaders as they label themselves and practically act in today's political landscape are fundamentally on the authoritarian and anti-civil liberties side - there is no distraction. The right is only worse in the extent of authoritarianism and destruction of human rights they're willing to go to and the speed at which they want to achieve it.

If a conservative wants to preserve some status quo, basically all policy they use (and have available as a tool) in a permanently changing and developing world (socially, technologically) is that of restrictions, especially on civil rights, and of authoritarian mechanisms like police power. For weird reasons, conservatives never* want to preserve status quo civil rights like workers rights, freedom of information rights and similar that are anti-authoritatian.

simonask 7 hours ago|||
There is no “authoritarian left” anywhere in the West, outside of a few vestigial Communist parties with close to zero influence.

This can change in the future, as it has before, but in 2026, even libertarians only care about personal freedom for a certain class of people.

dormanhe 11 hours ago||||
Sadly does not really seems tied to left or right directly.

In Spain (you can see this in the website) our traditional left and right parties are largely in favor, while the parties in both ends of the spectrum (at the lack of better term: far left and far right) seem to be largely against.

The sad thing is that it seems that the parties that are already established or likely to alternative in power are the ones that are pushing for it, and this makes it very difficult to fight against

MrGilbert 9 hours ago||
Interesting - maybe my view is biased. So it's about the people that are in power or more likely to be in power. Hm. Makes sense, thinking about it. Maybe power does, in fact, change your principles.
u8080 8 hours ago|||
This again, according to https://fightchatcontrol.eu/ for Germany, Chat Contol is generally supported by de-facto left-wing(support immigration, social security, LGBT movement, positive discrimination, progressive tax, worker rights) CDU and CSU (29 of 34 "Yes" votes with 97 votes in total)
tancop 7 hours ago||
pirate parties are usually considered left wing and they all vote against. privacy is a big part of their platform.

there is more than one left wing faction in the eu - we got greens (more radical and oppose chat control), s&d (mainstream parties like german spd, mostly support), the left (hardcore socialist/communists) and renew europe (centrist liberals). none of them are completely united on this.

far right parties are also against chat control most of the time. christian parties (moderate right wing) support it for moral reasons. its really more of a establishment/alternative issue than left/right.

marcyb5st 11 hours ago||
How do they scan e2e encrypted messages? Will they force apps/OSes to have master keys/institutional backdoors to have access to the private keys?
ranguna 11 hours ago||
They could make all e2ee chats, group chats. Where instead of a 1-1 chat between two people or many-many chat between a lot of people, they do 1-1+1 or many-many+1, where the +1 is the government. Technically the underlaying company or anyone else still won't have access to messages and e2ee won't be "broken", except for the fact that there's one more party in the key exchange.

Or they scan at the edge on the user's device.

Either way, both are very prone to false positives and and very much privacy invading.

alkonaut 7 hours ago|||
I'd be willing to accept this:

Scan on end user's devices, but never transmit the result of that. Only report it ON the device itself to the user. A false positive when you send a pic of your naked kid to your spouse might show a warning icon asking you if you are sure you want to send it.

Also: for minors (Who is a minor not determined by some central age verification, but by me specifying in the Apple/Android family settings who my kids are) you could make sending certain things it blocking or subject to parent approval. E.g. if my daughter is tricked into sending nudes, it's something that's handled the same as if she wants to install an app or visit a specific web page.

No encryption is ever backdoored. Anything beyond this, e.g. reporting any user actions, would be allowed only through a court, just like any wiretapping always was.

marcyb5st 11 hours ago||||
Good thinking. Didn't think of that approach. Gonna start sending huge walls of text to DOS them then if this thing lands
worldsayshi 10 hours ago|||
> Or they scan at the edge on the user's device.

So then the user can "just" install their own client.

mattstir 4 hours ago||
They either just ban E2EE messaging or add a client-side scan of the content before "encrypting" it.
phtrivier 8 hours ago||
So, ChatControl 1.0 (the volontary, limited one that expired and is being revived) has been active for about 2 years now.

Concretely, are there documented examples of abuses ? Are the checks & balance sufficient ? I understand ChatControl 2.0 goes way beyond, be it goes "beyond" enough that it does not get a majority in parlement, and can't move forward.

But for CC1.0 we don't need to imagine anymore - we have 2 years of application. Is that enough to evaluate ?

coffeebeanHH 1 hour ago||
Oh its this time of the year again.... Fucking right and conservative folks. I really hope Uschi von der Ehrm Leyen doesn't have to make her chats public..
rwq-askh 1 day ago||
EU politicians spend more time on chat control than on the reopening of Hormuz or EU energy security. It is a complete joke.
embedding-shape 1 day ago||
> EU politicians spend more time on chat control than on the reopening of Hormuz

I thought I'd heard it all here on HN, but expecting EU to clean up after the US shooting itself in the foot with a completely unnecessary war probably comes somewhere in top 5 easily.

drnick1 22 hours ago|||
> US shooting itself in the foot with a completely unnecessary war probably comes somewhere in top 5 easily.

We aren't done yet. Game on after the midterms.

holoduke 20 hours ago||||
The US is now getting money from every ship passing the street. How people not see that for the US the world is a game of command and conquer. They rule everything and if it's not ruled it gets bombed.
joe_mamba 23 hours ago|||
>but expecting EU to clean up after the US shooting itself in the foot

Please don't pretend to misunderstand a point just to manufacture the opportunity to reply in bad faith.

Nobody in EU is saying the EU should clean up others' mess around the world, people are just saying the EU should be busy building domestic capacity and capabilities to insulate itself from the issues caused by others around the world, such as securing domestic energy supplies so that the next time USrael blows up the middle east, the EU can just eat it no issue indead of being at the mercy of foreign oligarchs for overpriced energy.

US is so monetary rich and energy rich that they can afford to blow up the middle east every 10 years with little domestic consequences for them, and still have enough gas to drive their Ford F-450s Super Duty to Walmart, heat their pools and AC their homes, without leading to national unrest, but EU is so energy starved that securing energy independence should have been a national security issue for the past 20 years already, not since 2022.

And not just energy, EU is exposed in other areas as well (SW, AI, semiconductors, lithium batteries, agriculture, manufacturing, defense, etc), and again, it will only wake up in panic mode at the 11th hour when US or China twists their arm in some spontaneous international dispute. But politicians instead of focusing on preemptively securing these vulnerabilities BEFORE shit hits the fan, are too busy focusing on controlling people's privacy, which is what EU citizens and commenters here are criticizing.

embedding-shape 23 hours ago|||
> people are just saying the EU should be busy building domestic capacity and capabilities to insulate itself from the issues caused by others around the world

If this is what you wanted to have said, say that from the beginning instead of leaving some vague and ambiguous "general complaint about the Strait of Hormuz" and maybe others like me will understand you better.

Somehow you seem to imply none of those things are happening right now in Europe, is this really your perspective? You think no one is thinking about domestic energy supplies? Do you not understand how EU works? Lots of things are happening in parallel, not the least a lot of work around energy dependency and other core infrastructure issues.

logicchains 23 hours ago||
>Somehow you seem to imply none of those things are happening right now in Europe, is this really your perspective? You think no one is thinking about domestic energy supplies? Do you not understand how EU works? Lots of things are happening in parallel, not the least a lot of work around energy dependency and other core infrastructure issues.

"The purpose of a system is what it does". So far there's no sign of any progress, it's just getting worse. The Draghi report was two years ago and nothing has been done to address the issues it raised.

rpadovani 23 hours ago||||
> Nobody in EU is saying the EU should clean up others' mess around the world

That's literally what the top poster said.

Your points make sense, "EU should reopen Hormuz" is laughable

pqtyw 21 hours ago|||
> is laughable

Exactly, that's why it was obvious he was speaking implicitly.

And well... EU will have to clean up others mess that they sprayed all over Europe anyway.

73738384 22 hours ago|||
Either the EU opens Hormuz or the EU pays twice the pre war rate for gas / oil indefinitely. Of course at least they can put the subjects that bitch about it in jail now.
zmmmmm 4 hours ago|||
Like a lot of the rest of the world they would probably rather take the alternative option and accelerate the transition to clean energy. Has the upside of not handing more power to an authoritarian state on the other side of the Atlantic that clearly hates them and routinely threatens them.
pqtyw 21 hours ago||||
Well everyone pays the same for oil (unless there are export/import control and adjusted by transportation costs) worldwide.

So americans will be paying 2x as well its just that some of that money will stay in the country instead of going to the middle easter or US (which happens to be the largest supplier of oil to the EU)

Back in 2025 EU imported ~15% from the gulf. China was over 40% and Japan at 95%...

ikrenji 20 hours ago|||
how is EU supposed to open hormuz? do you expect them to raise armies and go to war over a shipping lane? I think US demonstrated plenty enough this is not a viable strategy (this was known for the past 50 years)
mcv 18 hours ago|||
One thing the EU might do is put some pressure on Israel to stop breaking the cease fire and just generally to stop bombing everybody.

It's unlikely to happen, but that's the one thing I can see that the EU could contribute to the opening of Hormuz.

73738384 19 hours ago|||
yes that's what's known for the past million years, if you hurt people they stop bothering you and do what you want
cindyllm 19 hours ago||
[dead]
petre 23 hours ago|||
[flagged]
gls2ro 13 hours ago|||
I would assume the actual reality of what can be done that is also respecting individual country needs and the EU ad a whole is at least an extra level of complexity than the reduction of those agreements.

Add to that the risk that every diminishing level of comfort for a population in EU seems to bring new percentages for extremist parties.

The second order and third order effects of any decision are too big and almost everyone posting EU should do <insert here a single simple thing> is most probably wrong in ways they dont even know about. That does not mean we should not debate but we should slow down a bit the extreme choices and try to be a bit more understanding of various details.

petre 12 hours ago||
> bring new percentages for extremist parties

Yup, go set up an EU Stasi ready for them when they get to run the show.

What is there to debate? The US and Israel have attacked Iran without a very clear plan to prevent it from acquiring nuclear capability and this has backfired with Hormuz straight traffic being blocked. Whatever the EU says at this point won't solve anything. What they've done up to this point, stay out of it, was the correct corse of action. Right now the US is basically bullying Iran to make a deal or get bombed.

Grikbdl 23 hours ago||||
> go away USA you're not using our bases to refuel

Tbf this is only the position of a few extreme governments. Other European countries have been perfectly happy to let the US use their bases for this.

petre 23 hours ago||
Yes. Basically Eastern Europe, which is what the US actually needed. Bulgaria speculated a bit for the opportunity to spend 1bn on weapons for their second hand F16s (better than plowing MiG 21s that they had).

Probably also why we now have a flood of lame Trump jokes about Meloni.

hsuduebc2 23 hours ago|||
You are mistaking Hacker News for Xitter or Truth Social. This is not an argument, it is just a pile of buzzwords and grievance posting.

“Next Stasi”, “eurocrats”, “cripple domestic agriculture”, “dumping German diesel cars”, “useless talk”. None of this actually responds to the point about European energy dependence.

judge2020 21 hours ago|||
Would've been so much better to reduce the scope of your comment to just energy security.

I don't see how the EU lived live with already higher energy prices compared to the US for so long and still don't make better renewable policy top priority.

athrowaway3z 12 hours ago|||
What shows up in your news feed and what the politicians are spending time on are wildly different things.
inglor_cz 23 hours ago||
They do have us in their power. They don't have Iran under the same power.
kailpa1 10 hours ago||
I don't understand how Bulgaria supports the idea while most of its representatives are allegedly against it. How does that work?
schnapsidee 10 hours ago|
That's down to how the EU works. These kind of decisions are made in multiple governing bodies. There's the council, which is made up of representatives from member states governments and the parliament, which is made up of directly elected MEPs.

The national government of Bulgaria's position isn't necessarily in line with Bulgarian MEPs.

zoobab 23 hours ago||
Age verification for 'appstores' (debian repos?) is inside ChatControl v2.
pbkompasz 9 hours ago|
> Supreme Court allows Texas to require age verification for mobile apps
testhest 4 hours ago|
Things like this is why I no longer support the EU at all.
More comments...