118
Chat surveillance law by the EU Parliament? (results.elections.europa.eu)
submitted 2 years ago* by to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
80 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The results are showing up... Now we have to hope for the law to be declined... Already discussed about the chat control law of the EU, here : https://lemmy.ml/post/16469106

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 2 years ago (5 children)

I thought the chat control law idea kinda died already

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 21 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    political elites in Europe are afraid and fear upheavals are coming in the coming years and months because of the cost of living crisis and the war. They try to clamp down beforehand to preserve their own power. This always happens when things go bad. The leash is kept looser when people behave and it's tightened again when the opposite happens. There is no real freedoms that is given to the people by the elites, because what concessions they give willingly they can just as easily take away when they no longer feel like it. Provided that they think they can get away with it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago

    It's not just European elites who are afraid of upheaval. It's all of them. It's one of the reasons why they all have bunkers, why Zuckerberg is building another one in Hawaii recently. They know that we can actually do something about them because we outnumber them by a lot, so they build these systems of control. Governments, corps, elites have all become noticeably more brazen in the past several years.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    This is why we shouldn't let such people to the government in the first place. Anyone who believes in "patriotism" and "national interest" (that appears to be 99% of people in the democratic world) will disagree though. It's a matter of double standards, lack of understanding and care at this point

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    nope, they'll vote on it again in the few weeks. if it passes, e2ee messengers will be required to scan images on device before sending them. you will be able to not agree to that, but then you won't be able to send or receive media and links, only text.

    https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Here are the first vote results https://mepwatch.eu/9/vote.html?v=167712

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Great, so I'm seing this right that everyone is voting Yes?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    That's it, only the green party is "okay"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Why is this not headline number 1 in every newspaper? It can't get any more dystopian than that. Why does nobody care, god damnit...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    But why can't you just use software from GitHub or F-Droid or something that doesn't have to obey these laws? Is it illegal?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    good luck getting everyone you know to communicate with you with "software from GitHub or F-Droid or something". I'm having a hard time making people try out Signal, which is freely available on the major app stores (and which, by the way, has declared that they'll leave the EU market if one device scanning will be enforced on them).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I think this would give me a reason to tell my contacts why I refuse from now on to use whatsapp for instance. I could say something like whatsapp now scans every single photo you send, therefore I won't use it so contact me on some other place.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    That's sad but try to "afraid" a bit that's almost the only way to convinced non-privacy guy to switch...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Signal is great but lack some points, like the requirement of the mobile number or the centralisation of the servers

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    In fact it would be illegal but you wouldn't take risks by using them. But the authorities could make them shut down one by one

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Even if this is illegal - how would such usage be detected? Your device just makes a request to a random domain on a random VPS, and the traffic is TLS-encrypted - would usage of XMPP/Matrix/whatever be that distinct?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 6 points 2 years ago

    I totally understand and this approval is absolutely ridiculous just because it's almost impossible apply this... But even with almost 0 chance applying to every apps it's better to kill this law as soon as possible

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    They can't if you use a VPN and the app is not in their jurisdiction

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    That would be difficult for sure but in fact it would be illegal

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I don't care if it's illegal if the law violates people's privacy tbh

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    What does "scan" mean here?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    I read that and hoped for further information.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    In fact it would be "scanned" by AI for searching all the kinda sexual, abusive stuff... In fact to protect children

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    But the link described it as if it'll do database matching to find well-known images.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    That's why it's a scan, like done apple with their gallery. Scan signatures, AI recognition etc...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago*

    No, what I've interpret from the webpage is far more basic. Just matching images, almost like pixel-by-pixel. If you think about it, legally describing your interpretation (Apple's gallery) is very challenging and is thus possibly infeasible.

    As a result, my feeling is that the EU is going with a far inferior method that doesn't have to send images to the server. Technically speaking (they might still require that).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent