61–70 of 194 posts
I don't understand the EU's position on privacy. On the one hand, they enacted GDPR to give you control over access to your personal data. On the other, they need access to all of your data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
“Chat Control”, along with the version numbers, is a naming invented by the opponents, not by the proponents.
I don't understand the EU's position on privacy. On the one hand, they enacted GDPR to give you control over access to your personal data. On the other, they need access to all of your data.
It is simple. GDPR is aimed at private entities misusing your data. Keyword private.
For example, Palantir gets access to "large and diverse (government) databases with Dutch citizens’ data for analysis" (including mental health treatment data) under the GPDR to help police in the Netherlands do terror investigations (from 2012 to 2019). I'm sure you can appreciate the wisdom and privacy-enhancement in that just as much as me!
There are large lists of private organizations that get access to government data about citizens ... every country has multiple (public and secret ones).
Oh, they also "failed to mention" this to parliament, and this was only discovered after a journalist got a tipoff and requested financial data about the deal ... for about 5 years. Of course, there was never even the slightest investigation into this.
https://nltimes.nl/2025/08/22/dutch-police-also-use-controve...
(paywalled) https://www.volkskrant.nl/tech/ook-nederlandse-politie-gebru...
Tough week for euros. Cars that record your face while driving and now apps snooping on communications.
Honestly, it is mostly a reaction to how society has evolved, for the worse. Rock and hard place. The worst thing I have to hide is knowledge about my intentions, none of which are bad/illegal/immoral. Scan away, I'd rather try to protect my children, other children from unscrupulous characters.
Correction: None of which are bad/illegal/immoral _right now_. The "I have nothing to hide" crowd will surely change their tune the moment any of their data starts to be used against them.
I don't understand the EU's position on privacy. On the one hand, they enacted GDPR to give you control over access to your personal data. On the other, they need access to all of your data.
It's entirely possible that politicians just want to do something about CSAM and young people having their mind twisted by social media. The electorate do seem to be keen on some sort of action.
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.
For now none of Amazon, Meta, or Google can jail you or legally do violence on you, separate you from your family, etc. Your sense of threat is extremely miscalibrated.
The probability of a (my or your) child enduring harmful content, perpetuated and enabled by Meta/Google (in particular) is almost a certainty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
“Chat Control”, along with the version numbers, is a naming invented by the opponents, not by the proponents.