Things like this is why I no longer support the EU at all.
[dead]
Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
381–385 of 385 posts
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#382So, ChatControl 1.0 (the volontary, limited one that expired and is being revived) has been active for about 2 years now. Concretely, are there documented examples of abuses ? Are the checks & balance sufficient ? I understand ChatControl 2.0 goes way beyond, be it goes "beyond" enough that it does not get a majority in parlement, and can't move forward. But for CC1.0 we don't need to imagine anymore - we have 2 year…
Probably not enugh found to reason for its existance thus 2 more years are needed lol. I mean lets be honest here, if they actually would have real success with baseless things like this it would be public, unless it is not for what it is sold to the public obviously
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#383Earlier quoted context omitted.
At some point we just have to accept the kids as collateral.
What, like with guns? Never!
If you want the guns, then yes. I come from somewhere without guns, and as a result without school shootings. Nobody here wants guns as a part of everyday life. America seems to want them.
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#384When it comes to online actions people ask for way more than reasonable. You dont get to be an invisible, impossible to track, unaccountable hacker man free to roam the internet on equal footing to the rest of the users.
This is a strawman argument. Almost no one who wants to preserve their right to free and open communication without government knowledge or interference, wants that so that they can hack. It’s not about catching hackers or child predators, it’s about government control.
Whats wrong with government control? We let the government control most aspects of our lives.
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#385When it comes to online actions people ask for way more than reasonable. You dont get to be an invisible, impossible to track, unaccountable hacker man free to roam the internet on equal footing to the rest of the users.
Who's arguing for that? And why is it not "reasonable" to ask for basic privacy?
Basic privacy from the government?