112
Chat Control: EU lawmakers finally agree on the voluntary scanning of your private chats (www.techradar.com)
submitted 8 months ago by [M] to c/buyeuropean@feddit.uk
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

As this version of the law is completely voluntary, I donโ€˜t think it will change anything. Secure chats wonโ€˜t implement it, because itโ€˜s practically impossible, and insecure chats wonโ€˜t implement it, because thereโ€˜s absolutely no profit in it.

Itโ€˜s still completely unnecessary to have a law like this, as it wonโ€˜t help with anything. But at least it doesnโ€˜t force any messaging applications to either break their encryption or leave the EU.

Also, as this is proposal is finally put into law, thereโ€˜s one less battle to be fought by privacy activists (for now).

So all in all: The worst has been successfully averted, I think we can celebrate that. But the next privacy invading proposal will come soon enough.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 13 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    This is just the start, probably easier to change an already existing law than creating a new one?

    Actually, i was reading the link another user posted , and it seems like it is straight up bad.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 3 points 8 months ago (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 0 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Yes

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 5 points 8 months ago (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    I have to disagree with the statement that there is no voluntary law. For example, GDPR certifications (Art. 42) have been a thing for years, are encouraged by the EU, but have remained completely voluntary for organizations.

    I totally agree with you that it's important to stay vigilant and keep an eye on the further development of this specific regulation, especially as it still has a long way to go before actually becoming law. But I think seeing the compromise as some sort of trickery is purely speculative right now and doesn't really do justice to the activists inside and outside EU organizations who have spent the last few years successfully preventing a mandatory chat control. A lot of the comments here seem very doom-and-gloomy, sometimes almost resigned, as if nothing has been accomplished by protesting these initial proposals. And I think, while there are definitely further battles ahead, it's also a good idea to celebrate and remind ourselves of the accomplishments we've made here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 2 points 8 months ago

    I have already read that article, and while I think that Patrick does a great job in general, this particular post contains overly dramatic and, in parts, misleading arguments. For example:

    The text aims to make the temporary โ€œChat Control 1.0โ€ regulation permanent. This allows providers like Meta or Google to scan all private chats, indiscriminately and without a court order.".

    This is a bit strange. Chats without E2E encryption, especially the ones on Google or Meta platforms, were never private. I think it would be better to raise awareness of that fact and encourage E2E messaging instead of complaining about law enforcement having access to those chats.

    His argument regarding age verification is also very weak:

    [...] This means every citizen will effectively have to upload an ID or undergo a face scan to open an email or messenger account. [...] This creates a de facto ban on anonymous communication [...]

    This is misleading at best. The implementation details of the age verification are not specified in this proposal. There are absolutely ways of verifying someone's age anonymously (Privacy Pass comes to mind). It's totally possible that it'll be a far worse system, but that's just not as set in stone as Patrick suggests.

    It's definitely necessary to keep an eye on the further development of this legislature. But Patrick's Reality Check unfortunately stretches the meaning of the word Reality a bit too much.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 1 point 8 months ago

    This guy is exaggerating.

    "The text aims to make the temporary โ€œChat Control 1.0โ€ regulation permanent. "

    This already passed in 2021. This guy is sensationalizing it like it's opening new possibilities to tech companies while it's been a law for 4 years already. If companies wanted to scan messages they would be doing this already.

    Age verification and bans for teenagers are a separate issue completely. Many countries are working on this already independently. While I don't agree with this personally I have to admin there are many good reasons to do it. A lot depends on the details of the regulation and this guy is not a good source of opinion on it. I will try to read it and post a more reasonable take.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent