Age verification for 'appstores' (debian repos?) is inside ChatControl v2.
> Supreme Court allows Texas to require age verification for mobile apps
Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
241–250 of 385 posts
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#242To everyone who wants to dismantle the EU: this is not the solution. Dismantling the EU is like burning down your own house just to get rid of flies. The UK left the EU and implemented its own version of chat control - Online Safety Act - without any transparency or real opposition. The right solution is the political fight. Europe is our home. We must keep it in good shape by getting rid of anything that makes it wo…
Look at this other piece in the frontpage: > Every new car sold in the European Union must include a driver monitoring camera (allaboutcookies.org) the eu should never have been born. The above are its results - and just an example. How do we fix that disaster?
And the US wanted to install a breathalyzer in every car a few years back. How is this supposed to prove anything?
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
Especially by voting in a party that says it will do it. That's democracy, right?
Why would you care about democracy? Plenty of countries don't have it. Why should America and Europe hold themselves up to such naive, idealistic standards with Middle Eastern countries around who aren't doing the same? That's essentially the point you made, while conflating pulling the rug out from under people's feet because they've committed the crime of being brown with never having made the offer in the first pl…
> Why would you care about democracy? Plenty of countries don't have it
Because living in these countries usually comes with significant downsides for minorities. E.g. most middle east countries are limiting freedom for women compared to men.
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#244Most everyone would love to see more work on stopping child sexual abuse. But this is the ultimate "grant me dictatorial powers so I can do good" play. Rather than narrow and specific - it's a broad based law that suddenly touches everyone even though offenders are a small percentage and should be able to be targeted more efficiently.
I’ve shared this before, I really like this quote: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." H.L. Mencken
Mencken just has the best quotes. Here's a few of my favorites:
> The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
> For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
> Freedom of press is limited to those who own one.
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple's proposal was only for photos being uploaded to iCloud and not local ones. IIRC weren't there some thoughts that they'd switch iCloud to E2E but add local scanning on upload (compare to what it currently when Apple, Google, etc. freely scan all your cloud photos anyway). That didn't seem like a terrible deal on paper.
What does "scanning" mean though? Does this mean every parent has to now make sure not to take pictures of their children playing in bath for instance, in order not to trip these scans for false positives?
>in order not to trip these scans for false positives
They CLAIM they scan for CSAM, so watch out your documents and pictures with something that govt also wants to track.
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#246What european parties or people are pushing for chat controls?
People (well, the European Parliament, which is arguably the closest approximation) have clearly and repeatedly opposed Chat Control.
The Commission is an expression of _governments_ (and this one in particular is the result of painstaking compromise) and is only loyal to presidents and prime ministers. It has no accountability to the EP, and it shows.
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#247[flagged]
Saying that AfD "is an opponent of chat control" is like saying its more-or-less direct predecessor advocated for vegetarianism.
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alternative for Germany (Alternativ für Deutschland, AfD) is a party that wants to revoke citizenship of brown people and expel them from the country. There are very good reasons they should be banned. Their opposition to chat control is completely incidental.
[flagged]
the party program doesn't state it, but some high figures were caught talking about it. E.g. Björn Höcke and Maximilian Krah. They did not mention "brown people" as gp states, but called out people foreign to the local culture.
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's been working for tens of thousands of years. What changed in the last few decades wasn't parenting or technology. It was the rise of the nanny state where the parents gave up the parenting of their kids and entrusted that to educational institutions instead.
It both works and fails, like many other things. But if you hold the goal that it must never fail in sufficiently high esteem, you invariably end up with a system like the one we have now.
>the goal that it must never fail
That's a good way to put it
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look at this other piece in the frontpage: > Every new car sold in the European Union must include a driver monitoring camera (allaboutcookies.org) the eu should never have been born. The above are its results - and just an example. How do we fix that disaster?
And the US wanted to install a breathalyzer in every car a few years back. How is this supposed to prove anything?
> [they] wanted
Did they? That makes a good amount of difference, you know. Especially when "they" may be a vocal exception.
> How is this supposed to prove anything
Prove what. Nothing seems to be disproven.
Edit: look, if you were trying to negate a "bad A" through an "(also) bad B", review and revise your logic. Which is important because that non-argument has been exploited to bend the political opinion of street-rubes to CEO-rubes for the past few years ("Bad Springfield hence [...] not bad Vernapool").