Patrick BreyerMar 16
🇩🇪🛑Nein zur #Chatkontrolle: Letzte Woche gab es von diesen EU-Abgeordneten ein Mandat gegen Massenscans.
📅 Gerade läuft die finale Trilog-Verhandlungsrunde. Jetzt dürfen die Verhandlungsführer NICHT umfallen!✊
Quelle: https://mepwatch.eu/10/vote.html?v=188578
IanMar 18
Show threadPatrick Breyer
🇪🇺🛑 No to #ChatControl: last week these MEPs backed a mandate against warrantless mass scanning.
📅 The final trilogue round is happening right now—negotiators must NOT cave in. ✊
Check out how your MEPs voted: https://mepwatch.eu/10/vote.html?v=188578
Mar 16 at 4:10pmWeb
Show threadPatrick BreyerMar 16
🇫🇷🛑 Non au #ChatControl : La semaine dernière, ces eurodéputés ont donné un mandat contre les scans indiscriminés.
📅 Les négociations finales du trilogue sont en cours en ce moment même. Les négociateurs ne doivent PAS céder maintenant ! ✊
Source : https://mepwatch.eu/10/vote.html?v=188578
Show threadPatrick BreyerMar 16
🇮🇹🛑 No al #ChatControl: La scorsa settimana, questi eurodeputati hanno dato un mandato contro le scansioni di massa.
📅 È in corso proprio ora il round finale di negoziati del trilogo. Ora i negoziatori NON devono cedere! ✊
Fonte: https://mepwatch.eu/10/vote.html?v=188578
Show thread🌸 lumi-nhac    ðŸŒ±Mar 16
@echo_pbreyer is there any news on the age verification part of chatcontrol? to me it seems almost as bad as mass scanning
Show threadPatrick BreyerMar 16
@lumi It will be negotiated shortly, I hear. Yes, anonymity is on the line.
Show thread🌸 lumi-nhac    ðŸŒ±Mar 16
@echo_pbreyer even if they somehow push through "privacy-preserving" age verification (which seems like total bs), that's still a tool with which lots of people could be excluded for dumb reasons

... plus the eudi wallet mandating hardware attestation means anyone not running platforms approved of by some authority (right now big tech, but having any authority there is bad) will be excluded

thanks for the update! ​​
Show threadDimMar 16
@echo_pbreyer @lumi Is there any "mandate" or precedent for this?
Show threadPatrick BreyerMar 17
@dim @lumi Council mandate has is, Parliament's mandate not
Show threadMindaugasMar 16

@echo_pbreyer @HowTheyVoteEU

I wanted to just post who voted for and against in my country, but I looked to exact text, and I am suspecting this is misleading info.

Can I reliably use this information to determine who voted against chat control 1.0?

Because all parties voted to preserve end-to-end-encryption with "Amendment 1",
and "Amendment 2" (another one) is worded quite similarly to "Amendment 5" (this one), where all parties also voted for it (except I see double voting for the 2nd amendment text which makes things extra unclear).

So, is this presented vote for "Amendment 5" a reliable way to tell who voted against chat control 1.0?

P.S. full text of regulation (context) is not visible on the websites, making things unclear as well.

https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/186972/amendments

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1232 as regards the extension of its period of application · Amendments · HowTheyVote.eu

Show threadHowTheyVote.euMar 16

@mindaugas @echo_pbreyer The key in Patricks post seems to be

> MEPs backed a mandate against warrantless mass scanning.

Am 5 was the one adding this (limitation to targeted users) into the text. Here's the link to the PDF containing Am 5: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-10-2026-0040-AM-004-006_EN.pdf

I hope this makes things clearer?

Show threadHowTheyVote.euMar 16

@mindaugas
On this note - we are aware that looking at amendments right now at HowTheyVote.eu is not perfect and are working on improving this. Your feedback that the text needs to be easier accessible is duly noted!

For the time being: On each vote page, we have a link "Report or resolution" under the "More information" section. There, you will find a dropdown containing all amendment texts with their number.

Show threadMindaugasMar 16

@HowTheyVoteEU @echo_pbreyer thank you, yes, both links make things a bit clearer, as both show there are a lot more going on behind the scenes with all those other amendment proposals, and that proposals overlap etc.

But on the high level, it still appears they voted by political affiliation, not because of the content (because 5th and 2nd texts say almost the same thing, just proposed by different groups; and all groups voted against chat control).

It appears they (EPP, S&D, Renew) could have voted for 5th amendment, because it extra clarified "targeted", but did not for whatever reason

(I am speculating, maybe they also could also be reasoning that 5th is the same like their own proposal, and did not want to give Greens points, or whatever.
If that's the case, then they all playing some kind of political game, as now Pirates frame this as they voted FOR chat control in the picture above, or at least how I initially understood, but after digging deeper, they aren't).