Chat Control 2.0 — 6th Trilogue this Tuesday, EU Parl. to be given workaround own legal service already deems illegitimate

General News
1

Yesterday Patrick Breyer, former MEP with the Pirate Party and digital freedom activist, posted about the upcoming sixth trilogue on Chat Control 2.0.

The trilogue negotiates extent of the later proposal (TBD), which according to a leaked document (I could not yet skim it, this is Breyer’s claim until I can clarify or quote) is said to now include a workaround to deploy a mass scanning by allowing scanning of “parts of a service” and “search plans”, which Breyer calls “mass surveillance by another name”.
The Council’s own legal service says such framing would not hold up in judicial review (para. 47). This is likely due to “targeted” being reframed as “parts of a service” instead of a person.

  1. In the light of the above, even though the detection order is addressed to a single service provider with regard to a specific interpersonal communication service or a part or component of it, it is highly probable that in case of judicial review, a data screening obligation such as that provided by the obligations in the detection orders would be considered as general and indiscriminate, and therefore not targeted processing of data.

On fightchatcontrol.eu/#delegates you can set the filter to “EP Trilogue Shadows” to see all 8 responsible MEPs / trilogue shadows.
I’d recommend contacting yours before Tuesday, Sep. 29th (it’s only 1 for the trilogue) and express your concerns and opposition of the recurring initiative to circumvent citizen’s rights in order to introduce general and indiscriminate mass scanning.
You could use the template on that site, but a short personal email could be even more effective.

Here’s an extensive overview of Breyer’s over the whole Chat Control affair, with a paragraph anchor on the continuously updated timeline.

I don’t have much more time to include more details in this post, but I’ll probably expand it a little later (and add more links).
In the meantime, feel free to comment or add to this, I will append a link to and/or quote from your post to this.

Also, don’t forget that despite the recent reinstation of CC1.0 by foul play, the majority has been against both CC1.0 and 2.0 since at least half a year, when a majority voted against extending CC1.0. The majority of the trilogue shadows also declared their opposition of both, as is recorded on fightchatcontrol.eu, with only 1 of 16 points in favor of 1.0, and 2 unknown regarding 2.0.

Let’s not accept our freedom to be eroded by any means or trickery.

2 Likes
2

Europe needs to stop lecturing the rest of the world about corruption and human rights, and clean up their own house instead.

2 Likes
3

It’s more virtue signalling than lecturing, but I agree.
Although there are bad apples everwhere.
These ones have been rather crafty in how they weasel their will into the regulation, sometimes even violating rules of the parliament.

4

Don’t forget that Canada has its own Chat Control in form of Bill C-22.

It’s been bleak for privacy.

5

I am not familiar with the extent or status of said Canadian bill…
However, current discussions about Canada becoming an EU “associate member” might open the door to initiatives to apply similar regulation to Canada as well, if the EU finally drops Chat Control.
Not in the binding sense, more like an obligation to play by similar rules by popular demand.
Depending on the agreed final status, it could even pave the way for Canadian businesses in the privacy sector to pivot and move there, or Canadian citizens could gain access to services only EU law applies to.

Of course this is purely speculative and farfetched; it all depends how the association turns out, if it does get established at all.

That being said, please do rally all the Canadians here to oppose any initiative to erode privacy. There surely are sources and activists like Breyer in Canada. If anything, repost their blog posts or tweets/toots here and bump the respective threads.
The more opposition there is around the globe, the more there is to show your local legislation.

It’s kind of like an arms race against mass surveillance lobbyism, and we can surely be louder than a handful scumbag lobbyists.