Spoiler: It won't.
Germany must stand firmly against client-side scanning in Chat Control [pdf]
131–140 of 148 posts
Re: Germany must stand firmly against client-side scanning in Chat Control [pdf]
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly - the state is the main user of violence, which is why it hides its violence in bland packaging. Call it ‘security’, ‘safety’, or ‘child protection’, but the effect is the same: coercion by fear. ‘One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’ misses the point here: the methods define terrorism, not the branding. When the state uses psychological violence to intimidate citizens into silence, it is enga…
> ‘One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’ misses the point It's meant to express that our "democratic" governments use the same tools as dictatorships. For example, every time somebody in a position of power (not even just politicians) gets shot, other people in power say "ViOlEnCe DoEsN't BeLoNg In PoLiTiCs". Completely forgetting how many of today's democracies were created by widespread acts of viol…
At leaat one country also celebrate the opposite - Guy Fawkes' Night in the UK is a celebration of the thwarting of an attempt to overthrow the government.
(I do agree with your position; I just wanted to throw that out there.)
Re: Germany must stand firmly against client-side scanning in Chat Control [pdf]
#133Signal is doing phenomenal work here. They could've sold out long ago. I highly encourage anyone to donate whatever they can.
Could they, though? Signal is marketing themselves as the privacy alternative. If chat control passes, you can’t make the same guarantees as they are.
Don’t get me wrong, I am happy they are doing what they are doing. But for signal, selling out is not really an alternative.
Re: Germany must stand firmly against client-side scanning in Chat Control [pdf]
#134No one should remove from us the right to privacy in chat rooms. Otherwise, PGP might become cool again, or I bet that there will be new ways to chat without mass surveillance.
PGP will never ever see mass adoption. It's too complicated and nothing will fix that. If chat control succeeds, a handful of nerds might be able to protect their comms, but mass encryption as we have it today will be dead. I like how nobody can read my chats with my mom or my landlord and would prefer it stays that way. The average user simply does not care enough to jump through a single additional hoop.
But isn't that what makes it so absurd? The people that this supposedly targets will then become "nerds" and use PGP for their messaging, while the majority of people not discussing illegal activities will just suffer from worse security.
Re: Germany must stand firmly against client-side scanning in Chat Control [pdf]
#135I wouldn't expect much from this government. The CDU is legendary known for its umpteenth attempt to introduce illegal data retention (condemned by Germany's highest court). The SPD - which is also part of the ruling coalition - is a flag in the wind as it has proven since coming to power. They will do anything to stay in power. Deep down, Client Side Scanning that's what both want.
Take a guess from which political party is Zensursula.
Also look where she is now: president of the EU commission. Even though she's a very unlikable person and for good reasons, too - she is from a political family and knows how to seek her advantage.
Re: Germany must stand firmly against client-side scanning in Chat Control [pdf]
#136I think a good way to shame politicians that push this type of erosion of civil liberties is to label it at gestapoware.
For some more recent crimes against society and humanity, I'd also compare it to Stasi. Plenty of people alive today who lived with that. Around 1 in 30 people was secretly telling on their neighbors. After unification, it was presented as a dark chapter in German history that had finally come to an end. People would get to look into their own "file" to see what and how much had been written about their daily activit…
Fern did a phenomenal video about Stasi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aj7HX7I8KHs
Re: Germany must stand firmly against client-side scanning in Chat Control [pdf]
#137No, not only Germany should stand firmly against this bullshit Brussels tries to push but ALL member states should be. Especially the former soviet republics and other countries of the Eastern Bloc which during communistic times ran censorship offices and security services against their citizens. Ideas like this shows that there's a power within EU structures that works against us, the citizens.
> No, not only Germany should stand firmly against this bullshit Brussels tries to push but ALL member states should be
For the umpteenth time, this isn't an EU initiated agenda. This is certain groups from certain member states pushing this *hard*.
Focus your anger at the correct targets.
Re: Germany must stand firmly against client-side scanning in Chat Control [pdf]
#138"We cannot let history repeat itself, this time with bigger databases and much much more sensitive data."
Great line Meredith!
Re: Germany must stand firmly against client-side scanning in Chat Control [pdf]
#139I've been wondering how Chat Control's proponents settled on such a comically villainous name for their project. They didn't even bother being Orwellian. Skeletor could have have come up with "Chat Control"
If terrorism is defined as using violence or threats to intimidate a population for political or ideological ends, then “Chat Control” qualifies in substance. Violence doesn’t have to leave blood. Psychological and coercive violence is recognised in domestic law (see coercive control offences) and by the WHO. It causes measurable harm to bodies and minds. The aim is intimidation. The whole purpose is to make people t…
People in power by definition cannot be terrorists. Terrorism is defined by its opposition to the established power structure. That's why they love anti-terrorism laws so much.
Re: Germany must stand firmly against client-side scanning in Chat Control [pdf]
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
one nitpick: CSAM isn't likely to be text that can be plaintext, is it? surely it would be image and/or video?
I have always used the word "plaintext" to mean content that has not been subject to encryption or hashing, whether it is text, arbitrary bytes (including multimedia formats), or even abstract ideas which can be somehow subject to a cipher. But these terms are certainly used different in different situations by different people. But yeah, images and/or video can still be "the plaintext" in the parlance to which I'm a…
reasonable