51–60 of 194 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given the choice of trust between, lets say Amazon/Meta/Google and the EU (or some European government), 9 times out of 10, the EU is the lesser evil.
We are not required to pick amongst evils. We could, in fact, say private chats are private and end to end encryption is sacrosanct .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was online already. It is existing law that is being extended rather then expired.
Somewhat unsurprisingly too, since the negotiations about a more comprehensive CSAM legislation (the one that now doesn't contain chat control 2.0) isn't done yet.
(not even joking https://www.csam.be/en/index.html )
Fantastic quotes for services the Belgian government offers:
"Make your life easier with CSAM"
"CSAM ensures that everyone follows the same rules"
"If you are interested in a service CSAM has to offer, please go straight to our Contact page"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given the choice of trust between, lets say Amazon/Meta/Google and the EU (or some European government), 9 times out of 10, the EU is the lesser evil.
We are not required to pick amongst evils. We could, in fact, say private chats are private and end to end encryption is sacrosanct .
i suppose the times have changed from when most people on the internet were cypherphunk. now it's common to see people say "i have nothing to hide, please scan all of my communications", unironically invoking "please think of the children".
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48819008
I feel like this one should not be removed because people want to continue discussing and that's easier on a newer thread.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are not required to pick amongst evils. We could, in fact, say private chats are private and end to end encryption is sacrosanct .
If you are purist and you don't live in the real world with real evils. I don't want pedophiles to have privacy.
that is why police already have access to mechanisms to remove privacy from people suspected of being a pedophile.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given the choice of trust between, lets say Amazon/Meta/Google and the EU (or some European government), 9 times out of 10, the EU is the lesser evil.
You don't have to use Amazon/Meta/Google. You have to use the government. Let's not forget that these are the people and laws that are supposed to represent and help you , not the other way around. While private companies have no such obligation.
Tough week for euros. Cars that record your face while driving and now apps snooping on communications.
Tough week for euros. Cars that record your face while driving and now apps snooping on communications.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the position can best be approximated as "companies should not be able to do this, but you should trust your government to do this to you". (That's a bad position that needs to be defeated every time it arises, but it's a consistent position.)
Given the choice of trust between, lets say Amazon/Meta/Google and the EU (or some European government), 9 times out of 10, the EU is the lesser evil.
The Chat Control 1.0 rule is simply that organisations like Meta are allowed to scan messages if they want to. In other words your Facebook messages are not private from Facebook. Surely we already knew and expected that. Chat Control 2.0 is the worrying one because it mandates scanning and bans E2EE. These two things should not have both been given the same branding.
> These two things should not have both been given the same branding. the confusion is purposeful, because it is easier to convince people that 1.0 is okay, which makes 2.0 appear like a version bump of the same thing.