[flagged]
[deleted]
Chat Control Must Be Stopped
41–50 of 272 posts
Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped
#42Just read something on Reddit "Is WhatsApp lying about it's end-to-end encryption?" so no need to write down again here.
As long as you know when you're being used by their fake services.
Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped
#43The Usual. Govt trying to harness private systems for the purpose of public surveillance.
They do this using warrants. And subpoena.
We need a personal declaration of rights that says private systems are not in anyway obligated to extend the reach of govt surveillance networks, without the consent of the private party.
It is a small protective measure. The next step will be for govt to bully everyone to give consent to their surveillance systems … or else.
But as of right now, the law is arbitrarily taking for granted that private surveillance systems belong to govt regulations.
Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped
#44Even without Chat Control, I still self-censor even in private communications. The majority of people you chat with show complete disregard for your privacy. They piss on it. There are very basic requirements that a minuscule amount of people follow, like: full-disk encryption, using a password manager, being aware of your rights to protect yourself against searches, having good computer hygiene and competency. The l…
"People showing disregard for your privacy" is a matter of scale when going from analog to digital, it's at least not inconsistent. e.g. If you engage in private spoken conversation, most people are not going to treat your conversation as if it's privileged, avoiding any mention of it in casual conversation, and refusing to divulge any details to law enforcement.
You need better friends. Most people I chat with regularly absolutely would not volunteer anything to law enforcement.
Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped
#45This is a terrible article about what sounds like a legitimate problem. Even in the section, "What is Chat Control?", the answer to the question is buried in the middle of the seventh paragraph. If the writer of this post wants people to oppose it, they really should do a better job of explaining at the very top what "it" is.
I think you're being hyperbolic. It wasn't terrible, but I do agree, I had to dig for "What is Chat Control". It read to me like a panicked person, repeatedly saying, "You've gotta hear this..." over and over, before getting to the point.
Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped
#46Some thoughts if you have them, are illegal to express, even in private, for your own consumption. This is the law that means none of our devices or possessions are protected from snooping. You have a tough challenge to convince me it’s anything other than a mundane device to give some groups an information advantage over others in their own society, for the unfair pursuit of political and economic advantage.
> Some thoughts if you have them, are illegal to express, even in private, for your own consumption.
fuck this attitude with a rake
Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped
#47> Chat Control would make it mandatory for all service providers (text messaging, email, social media, cloud storage, hosting services, etc.) to scan all communications and all files (including end-to-end encrypted ones), in order to supposedly detect whatever the government deems "abusive material." I wonder why there has been such silence on this, with the exception of a handful of well written blog posts. The scop…
> I wonder why there has been such silence on this
Yes, I would think that if there were any real journalism left, they would be all over this. For the sake of their profession, and the protection of their sources.
Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
We've been mostly deplatformed for any kind of organized action against it, there's just writing an email to your MEP or... a change.org petition. Yes really. Nothing official one could sign their name under. But even so, the commission does whatever it wants anyway, they are complete autocrats when it comes to law proposal, it's up to the parliament and the courts to something about it afterwards. And they should gi…
Would it be correct to compare the EU's autocratic pronouncements to Presidential executive orders in the US? In the sense that they can pass whatever they want with little feedback but then the courts can tear them apart?
Not really.
Unlike the president the EU commission are unelected and the commission is the only branch of government which can propose laws, however they can't force anything through in the same way the US president can with an executive order (it must go through parliament).
I guess it's good/bad, but in different ways to the US. It's bad in the sense EU citizens can't elect the people proposing their laws, but it's good in the sense that the commission can't just force things through without approval from the parliament which consists of MEPs which europeans elect.
As far as I'm aware the courts function in more or less the same way. Here in the UK parliament is sovereign and therefore can overrule any court decision with new law. This isn't true for the EU and I believe it also isn't true in the US.
Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped
#49I emailed all MEPs for my country one month ago. Apart from out-of-office notices I didn't get anything back yet.
Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped
#50This is one of many laws the EU and member states are pushing in order to implement more online surveillance. I always wonder why individuals (representatives) would push for these kind of surveillance laws? I think politicians usually pass laws which help themselves or their lobbies gain power and influence on economical levels, but I wonder why anyone would push for these kind of legislation even before an authorit…
individuals mostly have a few things they care about, but most people don't understand shit
especially technology
especially information technology
politicians are selected for being people-oriented therefore most are hopelessly underinformed
and it's very very very easy to get caught up in ideologies
and then means to an end seems like business as usual