Close Menu
    [OC] EU-Parlament stimmt über „Chat Control 1.0“ ab
    Daten

    [OC] EU-Parlament stimmt über „Chat Control 1.0“ ab


    Dies ist die Abstimmung im Europäischen Parlament "Chat-Steuerung 1.0"

    Nach den üblichen EU-Datenschutzgesetzen ist es Technologieunternehmen nicht gestattet, Ihre privaten E-Mails und Direktnachrichten ohne richterlichen Beschluss zu lesen oder zu scannen. Mit diesem Gesetzentwurf wird ein vorläufiges Gesetz geschaffen Befreiung So können Unternehmen freiwillig Führen Sie automatisierte Tools über unverschlüsselte Chats aus.

    • Grün / FÜR (276): Hat dafür gestimmt, Technologieunternehmen die Erlaubnis zu erteilen, unverschlüsselte Chats zu scannen.
    • Rot / GEGEN (286): Hat dagegen gestimmt, Technologieunternehmen die Genehmigung zum Scannen zu erteilen, da der Standardschutz der Privatsphäre intakt bleiben soll.
    • Gelb/ ABSTAIN (30): Eine Enthaltung wurde offiziell protokolliert.
    • Grau / ABwesend (128): Abgeordnete, die abwesend waren oder nicht abgestimmt haben.

    Warum heißt es "Fehlgeschlagen" (Rotes X), ob Chat Control noch vorhanden ist?

    1. Diese spezifische Abstimmung ist fehlgeschlagen: Einfach ausgedrückt stimmten mehr Abgeordnete dagegen (286) als dafür (276), sodass dieser unveränderte Vorschlag im Plenum abgelehnt wurde.
    2. Warum der Gesetzentwurf nicht gestorben ist: Unter EU "zweite Lesung" Regeln: Um einen Gesetzesvorschlag vollständig zunichte zu machen, brauchen die Gegner eine Supermehrheit 361 Stimmen (eine absolute Mehrheit aller 720 sitzenden Abgeordneten).
    3. Was stattdessen passiert ist: Denn der 286 "GEGEN" Da die Anzahl der Stimmen die 361-Stimmen-Grenze nicht erreichte, wurde der Gesetzentwurf nicht abgelehnt.

    OC, weil das Bild von mir stammt Webseite

    Von b-machine

    Share.
    View 29 Comments

    29 Kommentare

    2. oW_Darkbase on

      I like that we have the audacity to shit on the US for everything they do in their politics and we allow this to happen and these attacks on freedom and privacy by the EU commission.

    5. klaxxxon on

      The app makes it hard to tell which parties voted for and which against, I have to flash between the two views. Seems like an essential piece of information when it comes to a controversial vote like this one.

    6. dracona94 on

      Such cases would be prevented if the European Parliament finally had the same right as any other normal parliament. Sadly, the initiation right lies with the EC.

    7. Mirar on

      Sweden, where we have an upcoming election:

      Voted FOR Chat Control 1.0:

      Socialdemokraterna (S)
      Moderaterna (M)
      Centerpartiet (C)
      Kristdemokraterna (KD)

      Voted AGAINST Chat Control 1.0:

      Sverigedemokraterna (SD)
      Vänsterpartiet (V)
      Liberalerna (L)

      Abstained:
      Miljöpartiet (MP)

    8. monsterfurby on

      I’m a bit surprised that the conservative/centrist/christian democrat bloc voted largely against it. Almost as much that the greens largely voted in favor. I feel like I am missing some political context here.

      Edit: The way I understand it, this was a motion to reject the law, or am I misunderstanding [https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/195807](https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/195807) ? If that is the case, then „yes“ means „no“ to the legislation, wouldn’t it?

    11. AidenI0I on

      You have the parties wrong, The Left bloc, PfE, ESN and Greens generally oppose the motion, while the center parties support Chat Control. This motion was to reject the council’s position (i.e. to impose chat control). Maybe do some research instead of using AI generated non sense.
      You can check the actual opinions of representatives here: [https://fightchatcontrol.eu/](https://fightchatcontrol.eu/), and the voting policy of the blocs here: [https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/195775#result](https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/195775#result)

    15. Isotheis on

      To my Belgian friends:

      Voted AGAINST:
      Vlaams Belang, PVDA-PTB, Ecolo, Groen, Vooruit, VLD/Anders

      Voted FOR:
      CSP, CD&V, Les Engagés, MR, NVA

      Mixed bag:
      PS (Ceulemans AGAINST, Di Rupo FOR)

    18. WingflameFire on

      I’m not accusing you of deliberate misinformation, but I find this post itself to be absent the key information that the temporary derogation proposed is limited to automated scanning for Child Sexual Abuse Material being sent across the networks.

      The reason for the very even split in voting is because of concern that enabling such functionality then potentially opens the door to misuse or mass surveillance.

      It’s a more nuanced issue than ‚Government spy on you yes or no?‘

    21. Moi9-9 on

      Oh my fucking god. This is like the 5th time I’ve seen your stupid graph shown, and you still haven’t taken the time to research what the fuck you are saying.

      This is a vote to *reject* the extension of so called „Chat Control 1.0“, meaning the „for“ are the ones who *don’t* want this stupid law. In particular, this vote is for a specific amendment which would exempt services with full end-to-end encryption, and the results make sense, more people are against the rejection than for.

      The vote that did matter, which is about the rejection of the entire extension, was 314 for to 276 against, but because they needed an absolute majority (360) to block it, the rejection was rejected (yes it’s confusing, but as someone who spreads info, you should be able to do a little bit of research), and so the extension of chat control 1.0 is in effect.

    22. sXyphos on

      Is this the normal type of voting or the reverse shennanigans they tried to pull last time to mess with us?

      Just freakin stop, burn the thing to the ground and launch an investigation on all those who furiously mandated it…i’m sure they haven’t received any bribes from anyone!!

    23. nico17611 on

      they will vote on it until it passes. Just a matter of corru… ehh lobbying

    24. conventionistG on

      I’ll just point out that the fact that I’ve seen more than one comments here saying that the vote might have been for exactly the opposite of what a plain reading would lead one to think (voting for is a vote for opposing the proposal instead of a vote for being a vote for the proposal) makes me think that perhaps EU level politics may be intentially opaque to the public.

      Not only an EU problem as I’ve seen it in the US too. But, jeez. For a group of countries that like to lecture the US about democracy, they sure do seem to love their cabals of elite bureaucrats making decisions with minimal public input.

    25. jacobvso on

      I love what you’re doing here but I can’t figure out how to see the vote distribution by parties.

    26. DJAnym on

      Another exhibit on why the EPP and its ilk should be held to account. The fact Metsola can just go „mmmmm no, the decision of Parliament doesn’t cut it. AGAIN!“ is ridiculous

    27. NecroVecro on

      It’s theother way around, Green means that they are against Chat control, Red means that they support it.

    28. foundafreeusername on

      Did anyone find a proper source explaining what is happening here? I only find AI explanations that are skirting the actual confusion. There were two votes relating to Chat Control on that day. One for enacting it and another for removing it entirely? But how did a majority voting against it lead to chat control being allowed temporarily now?

      The most useful source I found so far is:

      [https://www.euronews.com/next/2026/07/10/chat-control-10-passed-the-european-parliament-through-the-back-door](https://www.euronews.com/next/2026/07/10/chat-control-10-passed-the-european-parliament-through-the-back-door)

      Note it says

      > As there was no absolute majority (currently equal to 360 MEPs) to reject the amended EP position (276 MEPs voted in favor, 286 against, 30 abstentions)

      So this was an attempt to reject the law? So 286 were against rejecting it? This is so confusing. Every source is just repeating the same confusion information with no actual explanation of what is happening.

    Leave A Reply