After a long dispute, the EU Parliament has voted in an expedited procedure to extend the controversial exception rule for the indiscriminate scanning of chats.

On the last day of session before the parliamentary summer break, the EU Parliament narrowly voted to extend the long-controversial legal basis for Chat Control 1.0 for another approximately two years. Amendments that would have completely rejected an initiative by the Council of Ministers did not find the required absolute majority at the very beginning of the vote. Later, only two correction proposals managed to overcome this hurdle, stipulating that the scanning of private chat messages should not occur with end-to-end encryption.

The plan is exclusively for “special technology for the sole purpose of detecting and removing known online material of child sexual abuse.” Photos or videos not previously captured would therefore not be searched for. Ultimately, 276 representatives voted against the member states’ motion to reactivate Chat Control, 286 voted in favor, and 30 abstained.

The result paves the way to quickly reinstate a transitional regulation that expired in April. This exception regulation allows tech giants like Meta, Google, or Microsoft to voluntarily search private chats, emails, and messenger services for material related to child sexual abuse without specific suspicion.

The development had already become apparent on Tuesday. With a narrow majority of 331 to 304 votes with eleven abstentions, MEPs voted for an urgency motion that enabled Thursday’s vote. Tug-of-war in the background

Behind the scenes of the decision was an unprecedented political tug-of-war that has caused consternation among civil rights advocates and opposition politicians alike. As recently as March, MEPs had, after tough negotiations in the Council of the EU, let an extension of the interim regulation fail, thus sealing the temporary end of Chat Control 1.0. That the same text was quickly brought back onto the agenda just before the summer break is thanks to a strategic maneuver by the Christian Democratic EPP group around President Roberta Metsola, supported by the Council and the EU Commission.

Critics speak of a democratic foul play. Although the majority of MEPs actually present in the chamber voted against the proposal, it passed. Fierce resistance against the procedure also emerged within the liberal Renew group until the very end. MEP Irena Joveva emphasized that the House cannot simply wave through mass surveillance of the population. It is about protecting both children and citizens’ privacy. Rapporteur Birgit Sippel (SPD) also condemned the short-notice expedited procedure without the involvement of the responsible committee, calling it unfair maneuvering.

The vote has direct consequences for the approximately 450 million EU citizens. According to critics, large US tech corporations, which lobbied heavily for the exception rule in the run-up, are now once again receiving a legal free pass to automatically scan private digital mailboxes billions of times. While the amendment successfully introduced by the Greens ensures that fully encrypted communication should formally remain protected, it does little to change the fundamental problem of the dossier. No acute protection gap

An evaluation report by the EU Commission gives the previous practice of Chat Control a very poor assessment. The Brussels government institution itself admits that after years of application, no proof of the proportionality of the measures can be provided. Only a tiny fraction of the messages scanned worldwide – just 0.00000077 percent in the EU – actually contained illegal material.

On the other hand, there is immense susceptibility to errors: the false positive rates of the filter technologies used are up to 20 percent, leading to mass suspicion of serious crimes for innocent citizens. The Commission could not demonstrate a clear link between automated reports and real convictions or the rescue of abused children. For civil rights advocate Patrick Breyer, it is clear: “Suspicionless chat control is as unacceptable as randomly opening all letters.”

The role of the German government also raises questions. While it was always stated in Berlin that suspicionless chat controls are an absolute taboo in a state governed by the rule of law, the coalition buckled in the Brussels bodies and paved the way for the current expedited procedure. The argument often made by proponents that the expiry of the regulation in April would have led to an acute legal gap is refuted by new figures: the Federal Criminal Police Office did not record any drop in suspicious activity reports after its expiry in spring. “Black day for civil rights”

The reactivation of Chat Control 1.0 also casts a shadow over the parallel negotiations on Chat Control 2.0. This is intended to create a permanent and mandatory legal basis for all providers. EU MEP Erik Marquardt (Greens) speaks of a black day for civil rights: the political horse-trading is blocking targeted, effective measures such as an EU child protection center and the strengthening of law enforcement agencies. Green Party MP Jeanne Dillschneider also demands: “We finally need effective child protection in the digital space. This important concern must not be played off against the fundamental rights of all.”

The temporary exception provision now restricts the confidentiality of digital communication for another 24 months. It overrides core areas of the European e-Privacy Directive.

    • napoleonsdumbcousin@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      The origin of the tech is irrelevant to this specific regulation. Every company, European or not, is allowed to scan the chats of their European customers. Meta & the other US companies have been doing it since the first chat control legislation. (Probably even before then, to be honest)

      Edit for clarification, which is needed apparently: Chat Control is terrible, but you are not gaining anything by buying non-EU tech, because those are officially allowed to spy on you the same way EU companies are.

      • CubitOom@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 day ago

        Oh, so because American companies invade your privacy, then the EU should too.

        Nothing to see here folks. The EU never had privacy to begin with according to this argument.

        • napoleonsdumbcousin@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 day ago

          That is not at all what I said. Stop inventing arguments.

          Chat Control is terrible, but you are not gaining anything by buying non-EU tech, because those are officially allowed to spy on you the same way EU companies are.

    • vepr_jako_pepr@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 day ago

      The soveriegnty rhetoric was always very suspect, please do trust the free software community and standards committees like with XMPP, this is where the freedom and justice lies

    • AlteE@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I guess that any tech has no real privacy unless you don’t use Internet at all. The only difference is that EU publically stated this fact, while others pretend to keep your info private.

      But, aternatively, this can also mean that we have some moles in the EU, who are desperate to spread cyber control onto Europe also.

        • AlteE@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Maybe you have examples that would disprove or correct my statement? Because of I cannot think of any reason that stops any social media(private or public) to freely analyze our data however they want.

          • bootstrap@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            Are you saying that you think theres no chance of privacy on the internet at all or just using euro tech?

            Because verifiable open source e2ee chat apps exist, some that can be used without any identifying information at all.

            Examples:

            • Signal
            • Simplex
            • Briar
            • Delta chat

            edit: or are you referring to just social media?

            • AlteE@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              Thanks. Yeah, I was mostly referring to the social media, publically available software(like OS or apps) makers and some tech manufacturers. Should have clarified that.

          • CubitOom@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            I don’t have to waste my time educating you. I’m busy documenting the crimes against humanity my country is doing. I am doing so using technology and I have a decent hope of remaining private while I do it.

              • CubitOom@infosec.pub
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                Check my post history, check the time stamps.

                And make sure it gets logged for the EU and 14 eyes.

            • AlteE@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              Kinda toxic, but okay. Fair enough. Good luck in your work and staying anonymous.

                • AlteE@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  It is not a propaganda. It is my personal opinion and I can be wrong. The same way as you. The only difference is that you act as you are better than me and don’t even bother to provide disproves.

    • Babalugats@feddit.ukOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      It’s deliberately vague, even the politicians found it confusing. It’s bleeding corruption.

      From HERE

      “It is a temporary exception that lets U.S. tech firms scan direct messages on services such as Instagram, Discord, Snapchat, Gmail and iCloud without a warrant or prior suspicion.”

      It basically allows any company to scan and read any of your messages that they are able to.

      Because of the unusual procedure, voting in Strasbourg was confused and chaotic. One member told Parliament Vice President Sophie Wilmès: “We don’t know what we are voting on.”

      The vote means member countries must now decide whether to accept the Parliament’s changes. If they do not, and propose a different version, the law will go to a dreaded “conciliation” procedure. That procedure was used earlier this year to pass a long-stalled law on air passengers’ rights but, other than that, has not been used since 2013.

      Wondering how and who voted what? (It’s mainly the EPP Party pushing it, but others are too)

      HERE IS THE IMPORTANT BIT: (Because it is a “proposition de rejet”)

      • 🟢 🟩 Green means AGAINST Chat Control 🟢 🟩

      • 🔴 🟥 Red means FOR Chat Control 🔴 🟥

      HOW THEY VOTED