Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ChatControl: EU wants to scan all private messages, even in encrypted apps

metalhearf.fr

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

651–656 of 656 posts

Re: ChatControl: EU wants to scan all private messages, even in encrypted apps

#651

Post by tpm »

danielscrubs wrote: post #650
tpm wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It won't, you haven't cut any hierarchy, that's not how the EU works (but the UK let themselves get disinformed about that for decades by certain Mr. Johnson and others). A citizen can meet the politician in the supermarket in the same way as before and it does not matter, because the politician lied to him, the citizen believed him and voted for the Brexit and nothing got better. Now the citizen does not believe in…

They currently have the most unpopular prime minister in history with 64% disapproval rating. Give it time. As long as democracy/liberties are not taken away they will heal.

Yes, they have the most unpopular prime minister in history, and the most popular party is an openly fascist one, there are fascist mass protests in the streets of London etc.. This looks more like the end days of Weimar Republic and not some healing session.

Re: ChatControl: EU wants to scan all private messages, even in encrypted apps

#652

Post by DeepSeaTortoise »

alkonaut wrote: post #305
blindriver wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has nothing to do with csam and arguing that point is on purpose, to distract people and the politicians can say “xp84 supports child pornography!” It has everything to do with censorship and complete control over people’s ability to communicate. Politicians hate free speech and they want to control their citizens completely including their thoughts. This is true evil.

But politicians are - in general - neither evil, nor do they have any real incentive to ”control citizens’ thoughts”. It doesn’t make sense. They can be gullible. Non-Technical. Owned by lobbyists. Under pressure to deliver on the apparent problem of the day (csam, terror, whatever). But I don’t think there is a general crusade against privacy. That’s why I think it’s so infuriating: I’m sure it’s not even deliberate…

With very few exceptions, politicians do know perfectly fine what they are doing.

Each of them has a large budget to hire several staffers presenting every issue to them in ways they understand best, each government has a huge apparatus of various departments with domain experts analyzing every situation from every reasonable perspective and if all of that fails, barely and university or institute would fail to respond to a request for input from an elected official.

Any and all ignorance of any significant politician is by choice. You can't push the oppression a decision causes to the maximum you'll get away with at that point in time without understanding the issue first.

Re: ChatControl: EU wants to scan all private messages, even in encrypted apps

#653

Post by Woodi »

kypro wrote: post #265
palata wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is nonsense. Anyone who has the smallest clue would use Signal for anything sensitive. Of course people would use Signal to talk about illegal stuff. I am against ChatControl. But I am amazed by all the bullshit arguments that people find to criticise ChatControl. If you have more control, obviously it's easier to track criminals. That's not the question at all. The question is: what is the cost to society? A fe…

You're all assuming that predators who are already deliberating using apps which are encrypted to share CSAM won't just move to something else where there is encryption – which will always be possible unless the EU fines a way to ban maths or reverts back to the pre-digital age. This might catch the odd moron sharing stuff on Facebook or on their phone, but I doubt it will stop the average offender was is already goi…

Good point. When crime is to hard for average moron then mafia start to provide new services, as they usually do. Probably with path for effortless escalation to not online experience. Epstein was just a test run, maybe...

But privacy-less society will be implemented by then... Just a question: why they want no privacy at all costs ??

Re: ChatControl: EU wants to scan all private messages, even in encrypted apps

#654

Post by trinsic2 »

jnxx wrote: post #611
alkonaut wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But politicians are - in general - neither evil, nor do they have any real incentive to ”control citizens’ thoughts”. It doesn’t make sense. They can be gullible. Non-Technical. Owned by lobbyists. Under pressure to deliver on the apparent problem of the day (csam, terror, whatever). But I don’t think there is a general crusade against privacy. That’s why I think it’s so infuriating: I’m sure it’s not even deliberate…

> I’m sure it’s not even deliberately dismantling privacy. They’re doing it blindly. That is often a variant of Hanlor's razor brought up on questions like this. How do certain actors turn reliably to a course of action that is so damaging - but to any expert or even rational mind seems stupid! That can't be what they want?! I do not think that this reasoning holds. Hannah Arendt, when writing about totalitarism, cam…

I know this is 4 days past, but wanted to let you know I recently stumbled upon Hanna Arendt's work while working on a video Essay for the TV series andor and man what a eye opener it is about these subjects. I havent read the book yet, but I listed to the youtube writing group talk on it from https://hac.bard.edu/

Re: ChatControl: EU wants to scan all private messages, even in encrypted apps

#655

Post by palata »

1dontnkow_ wrote: post #644
palata wrote: post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a few a small number of units or individuals

A few is at least 3 because then you'd use "a couple". So its 3 decades or more, which is 30 years at least.

This is not how natural languages work.

Re: ChatControl: EU wants to scan all private messages, even in encrypted apps

#656

Post by zenlot »

palata wrote: post #655
1dontnkow_ wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few is at least 3 because then you'd use "a couple". So its 3 decades or more, which is 30 years at least.

This is not how natural languages work.

This is exactly how it works, and thread is proof of that. You're just being wrong and trying to find your way out of it.
Post reply on HN