this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024
119 points (99.2% liked)

Privacy

40353 readers
255 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
119
Chat surveillance law by the EU Parliament? (results.elections.europa.eu)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
 

The results are showing up... Now we have to hope for the law to be declined... Already discussed about the chat control law of the EU, here : https://lemmy.ml/post/16469106

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I thought the chat control law idea kinda died already

[–] manucode@infosec.pub 27 points 1 year ago

They will try to bring it back to life every few years or so

[–] Korkki@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

political elites in Europe are afraid and fear upheavals are coming in the coming years and months because of the cost of living crisis and the war. They try to clamp down beforehand to preserve their own power. This always happens when things go bad. The leash is kept looser when people behave and it's tightened again when the opposite happens. There is no real freedoms that is given to the people by the elites, because what concessions they give willingly they can just as easily take away when they no longer feel like it. Provided that they think they can get away with it.

[–] archchan@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 year ago

It's not just European elites who are afraid of upheaval. It's all of them. It's one of the reasons why they all have bunkers, why Zuckerberg is building another one in Hawaii recently. They know that we can actually do something about them because we outnumber them by a lot, so they build these systems of control. Governments, corps, elites have all become noticeably more brazen in the past several years.

[–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is why we shouldn't let such people to the government in the first place. Anyone who believes in "patriotism" and "national interest" (that appears to be 99% of people in the democratic world) will disagree though. It's a matter of double standards, lack of understanding and care at this point

[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

That's right, first try to vote and be listen.

[–] noodlejetski@lemm.ee 19 points 1 year ago (3 children)

nope, they'll vote on it again in the few weeks. if it passes, e2ee messengers will be required to scan images on device before sending them. you will be able to not agree to that, but then you won't be able to send or receive media and links, only text.

https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/

[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] doodledup@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Great, so I'm seing this right that everyone is voting Yes?

[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's it, only the green party is "okay"

[–] doodledup@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Why is this not headline number 1 in every newspaper? It can't get any more dystopian than that. Why does nobody care, god damnit...

[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

You're right this world is crazy, they should talk about the right things...

[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Why it's not number 1? Because people are using SMS, Messenger and Instagram chats...

[–] chordsphere1@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Is it true it's already implemented by google, meta...?

[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago

No it's not implemented but they would implemented this backdoor if the law pass

[–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

But why can't you just use software from GitHub or F-Droid or something that doesn't have to obey these laws? Is it illegal?

[–] noodlejetski@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

good luck getting everyone you know to communicate with you with "software from GitHub or F-Droid or something". I'm having a hard time making people try out Signal, which is freely available on the major app stores (and which, by the way, has declared that they'll leave the EU market if one device scanning will be enforced on them).

[–] chordsphere1@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think this would give me a reason to tell my contacts why I refuse from now on to use whatsapp for instance. I could say something like whatsapp now scans every single photo you send, therefore I won't use it so contact me on some other place.

[–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Good luck with it, mister/miss

[–] chordsphere1@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago

Thank you, good luck to you too

[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That's sad but try to "afraid" a bit that's almost the only way to convinced non-privacy guy to switch...

[–] chordsphere1@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sorry, what does "unfraid" mean?

[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago
[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Signal is great but lack some points, like the requirement of the mobile number or the centralisation of the servers

[–] noodlejetski@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

okay, but that's not relevant to what I'm talking about here.

[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago
[–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

I wasn't even talking about such cases. I was talking about people who need really secure and private communication in that particular comment

[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

In fact it would be illegal but you wouldn't take risks by using them. But the authorities could make them shut down one by one

[–] EngineerGaming@feddit.nl 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Even if this is illegal - how would such usage be detected? Your device just makes a request to a random domain on a random VPS, and the traffic is TLS-encrypted - would usage of XMPP/Matrix/whatever be that distinct?

[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago

I totally understand and this approval is absolutely ridiculous just because it's almost impossible apply this... But even with almost 0 chance applying to every apps it's better to kill this law as soon as possible

[–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They can't if you use a VPN and the app is not in their jurisdiction

[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That would be difficult for sure but in fact it would be illegal

[–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't care if it's illegal if the law violates people's privacy tbh

[–] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This person gets it. If something like this is made illegal, the best way to fight it is just to ignore them. After all, they can't lock up everybody. Then they would have no subjects to enslave. I mean tax. I mean enslave.

[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago
[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I understand totally but it is better to stop this law as soon as possible

[–] eveninghere@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] noodlejetski@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] eveninghere@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I read that and hoped for further information.

[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In fact it would be "scanned" by AI for searching all the kinda sexual, abusive stuff... In fact to protect children

[–] eveninghere@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But the link described it as if it'll do database matching to find well-known images.

[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's why it's a scan, like done apple with their gallery. Scan signatures, AI recognition etc...

[–] eveninghere@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No, what I've interpret from the webpage is far more basic. Just matching images, almost like pixel-by-pixel. If you think about it, legally describing your interpretation (Apple's gallery) is very challenging and is thus possibly infeasible.

As a result, my feeling is that the EU is going with a far inferior method that doesn't have to send images to the server. Technically speaking (they might still require that).

[–] Daaric@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Never, they'll try again and again with different names, covered by different purposes and stuck to another law.

[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

They try every year...