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
    93
    ·
    5 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they should pass something that says that if something is majority disliked twice or something, then it should be withdrawn and not proposed again for at least 100 years.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
      ·
      5 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
        ·
        5 months ago

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

        • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 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
          38
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 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
            ·
            5 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.

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

            Considering that the extreme right just won big

            Someone won big yachts from Putin.

      • dactylotheca@suppo.fi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        5 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
      ·
      5 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@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 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
      5 months ago

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