Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fight Chat Control

fightchatcontrol.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 528 posts

Re: Fight Chat Control

#231

Post by komali2 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #182
Vinnl wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like contacting your MEPs could at least be worth it. Usually when it comes to things like this, the parties that I'd consider voting for already vote the way I'd like them to do. (In this case it's even better - my country opposes, even though the governing parties are not mine.)

The original sin are ad-based social media. Everyone (except China) failed to regulate that. So now we see overcorrection. The solution is to regulate Meta and TikTok and YouTube. Until that is on the table we’ll get performative stupidity from both sides.

What impression of PRC social media do you have that makes you think the situation is different there?

In my experience it's a dumpster fire of consumerism and influencerism, and has just as much fake news as western media. It leaks into Taiwan constantly, especially when there's elections here.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#232

Post by H8crilA »

rkomorn wrote: post #178
ryankrage77 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> maximum of one year or more If the max is one year, it can't be more?

It sounds like it's "the maximum penalty must be at least 1 year", as in "your member state can't enact a law where the maximum penalty is less than 1 year". At least that's how I read it, but it's confusing.

This is correct. But the larger point is that even 1 minute of jail time for such "crimes" is unacceptable.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#233

Post by komali2 »

SilverElfin wrote: post #190
Disposal8433 wrote: post #9

I'm French and every idiot supports it, even the so-called left. There is nothing I can do except donate money every month to GrapheneOS ( https://grapheneos.org/donate ). Democracy is dead for me.

The left and the right stopped being about liberal values (like traditionally liberal or whatever) at some point, which are the backbone of democratic societies. I don’t see how you can have democracy without the ability to freely communicate. And that means freedom of speech but also the right to anonymity and privacy.

I think we're just seeing the end game of neoliberalism, which is the fundamental agreement of all modern political parties.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#234

Post by throwaway4496 »

throwaway89201 wrote: post #126

Please also fight mandatory age verification with prison sentences. The European Parliament has already voted in favor of a law that mandates age verification for pornography with a one year prison sentence. It was included as a last minute amendment into this bill [1]. See "Amendment 186". It has been completely missed by news organizations and even interest groups. The full accepted article reads: "Disseminating po…

[flagged]

Re: Fight Chat Control

#235

Post by mathiaspoint »

throwaway4496 wrote: post #234
throwaway89201 wrote: post #126

Please also fight mandatory age verification with prison sentences. The European Parliament has already voted in favor of a law that mandates age verification for pornography with a one year prison sentence. It was included as a last minute amendment into this bill [1]. See "Amendment 186". It has been completely missed by news organizations and even interest groups. The full accepted article reads: "Disseminating po…

[flagged]

Go after the people producing it. Stop bothering service and infrastructure providers. Doing that is either lazy or malicious.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#236

Post by philwelch »

rkomorn wrote: post #178
ryankrage77 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> maximum of one year or more If the max is one year, it can't be more?

It sounds like it's "the maximum penalty must be at least 1 year", as in "your member state can't enact a law where the maximum penalty is less than 1 year". At least that's how I read it, but it's confusing.

So it’s a minimum maximum.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#237

Post by komali2 »

Centigonal wrote: post #25

In the US, we have government programs like PRISM and unchecked oligopolies that surveil us and use that information to identify dissent, sell us ads, and alter our behavior. In the EU, there are these initiatives to surveil us in the name of safety. Is there any regime out there who's not trying to mass-surveil their citizens for one reason or another?

Not really, which is a good argument against regimes in general.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#239

Post by snozolli »

throwaway4496 wrote: post #234
throwaway89201 wrote: post #126

Please also fight mandatory age verification with prison sentences. The European Parliament has already voted in favor of a law that mandates age verification for pornography with a one year prison sentence. It was included as a last minute amendment into this bill [1]. See "Amendment 186". It has been completely missed by news organizations and even interest groups. The full accepted article reads: "Disseminating po…

[flagged]

Nothing of value is at risk with this law.

Privacy is of no value because you decided that porn is bad for me?

Re: Fight Chat Control

#240

Post by stephen_g »

rkomorn wrote: post #169
andrewinardeer wrote: post #162

Can someone explain how they could read my e2e Signal chat messages to my wife about what I'm cooking for dinner? Can someone explain how they could read my e2e Sessions chat message sent via TOR to my wife about what I'm cooking for dinner? Genuinely curious. Can those that are in power break this encryption?

The idea isn't to break encryption, it's to have apps implement client-side scanning "pre-encryption".

Yes, what is proposed is breaking the end-to-end security model, not breaking the encryption itself.

Effectively it causes the same loss of security and trust as if they broke the encryption, but it allows them the fig-leaf of pretending that you're still secure because they "haven't broken the encryption".

Post reply on HN