Chat Control Must Be Stopped – Now

Post by account42 » Wed, Jun 19, 2024, 9:33 AM UTC

dsign wrote: post #215

IMTDb wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case it's not really about mass surveillance. I genuinely do not believe it's the intended purpose (even if it is the actual outcome). The issue is that Europe is behind in tech; particularly big communication networks (aka: social networks). One key element here is that the amount of taxes paid by the Facebooks and co. is ridiculously low and their importance in the economy is getting bigger and bigger. This…

Domestic incumbents (social networks or messenger apps) would need to jump through the same hoops. So, I would say that, as a whole, the goal is to get people to self-sensor and to fear the establishment. If the EU wished more competition by domestic companies, they could simply pass a law restricting the income tax by member states to not go over 50% of earned income. In my current jurisdiction, a lowly IT worker ca…

Post by jcul » Wed, Jun 19, 2024, 9:55 AM UTC

drdebug wrote: post #46

The wording in the current draft seems to indicate that it applies to "providers of hosting services and providers of publicly available interpersonal communications services". So unless this includes ISPs, I wonder if that means a decentralized P2P service is not covered.

Post by cryptonym » Wed, Jun 19, 2024, 10:11 AM UTC

efreak wrote: post #284

cryptonym wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should scan on the device before it goes on the network. P2P networking or not, the app should include a scanner. Even if you use an open-source clone without scanner, your contacts most likely will use an app with builtin scanner. Your communications will be scanned on their end. At that point I'm wondering why we don't also open and scan regular mail at the post office before delivery.

> At that point I'm wondering why we don't also open and scan regular mail at the post office before delivery. We do open and scan some percentage of regular mail at the post office. It's difficult to find exact sources because the USPS only seems to easily admit to doing it for postage reasons, but it's fairly well known that they search for drugs, bombs, etc. Mail is subject to X-ray scanning and being opened under…

Post by account42 » Wed, Jun 19, 2024, 10:24 AM UTC

latexr wrote: post #162

romankolpak wrote: post #105

I’m sorry if this is a stupid question, but I want to ask it because I see the same sentiment across HN and other forums and I’m legitimately confused. If we don’t hijack privacy in messaging, how do we fight crime happening on a message platform? If government doesn’t have access to message contents, what’s stopping criminals from using the platform and never get tracked down? Or proven guilty, since all the proof i…

> Aren’t we hurting ourselves by being so obsessed with privacy? You’re hurting yourself more by being too lax with it. Remember that a crime is whatever the law says it is. So if an authoritarian government makes it so criticising them becomes a crime and has access to all your communication, good luck ever breaking that cycle. You can use other examples, like making homosexuality illegal. These are real examples th…

Post by account42 » Wed, Jun 19, 2024, 10:30 AM UTC

tzs wrote: post #161

jdthedisciple wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize criminals can stack infinitely many layers of encryption onto any compromised (govt-controlled) channel right? So how is "Chat Control" supposed to be the solution??

> So how is "Chat Control" supposed to be the solution?? Who said it is supposed to be the solution? Almost no crime problems have a the solution. Instead reducing crime is almost always a matter of a variety of measures that each make the crime a little less likely.