this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2024
809 points (99.5% liked)
Technology
59207 readers
2520 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wasn't this rejected once already? Perhaps if they wanted to do something useful, they should pass something that says that if something is majority disliked twice or something, then it should be withdrawn and not proposed again for at least 100 years.
They will keep trying again and again and again. The assault on privacy has been going on for decades and it will never stop.
You've gotta defend for an infinite amount of time, but they've only gotta succeed once.
Yep, and as I pointed out in another comment in this thread, Chat Control isn't the only piece of legislation like this that's in the works.
Considering that the extreme right just won big, I have no doubt that one of these fascist surveillance packages will go through. Yeah, at first it may be used for catching criminals, until it isn't
Nono, it will always only be used to catch criminals, that won't change...it's what makes someone a criminal that changes.
Ha, fuckin' touché
Actually it was the Left wing that mainly voted yes for this. Just saying.
Source? In Germany at least that's not the case, it's mainly the conservatives who push for it. In the original vote, only the greens clearly opposed it. Later on, SPD (center-left) and FDP (liberal) changed course to also oppose it. Couldn't find results for other countries though, so I'm genuinely curious.
The labels get confusing especially between countries, but left and right are normally viewed as being economic policy classifications, but you can have authoritarians on right and left and all need to be fought.
I don't think that's accurate, there's a social axis from left to right too.
I think of authoritarian as being up and down, and social and economic views as left and right. Check out the political compass if you haven't. It would be nice if it was 3D with economic and social policy being separated though.
I've seen the compass, but in real life conversation when people say left or right they don't exclusively mean economic views. For example, access to abortion or LGBT rights are generally seen as supported by the left and opposed by the right.
You're right it's reductive, and really there are many dimensions to political thought.
Exactly, and I try to point people to things like this to try to break that left vs right thought. I hope it helps someone.
I'm left on some issues, right on some, and disagree with both on others, and I think that's pretty common for most people. However, we only get two realistic options, and they split up issues and "force" you to pick which basket you prefer. I'm worried people will slowly adopt views from the basket they pick since the alternative is needing to pick the other basket.
Anyway, rant over. :)
I did found: https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/ All the red countries where in favor actually. Yellow were in research. Green is opposed.
here is the document itself: https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-11316-2024-INIT/fr/pdf#page=4
Doesn't change who's in charge now
I believe all parties in EU are not really understanding technology in general. So I think it's a very bad decision to give these people power over these kinds of rules. They just have no idea what they are doing frankly.
Yep, no disagreement there. This sort of mass surveillance is a fucking terrible idea no matter who's behind the wheel
exactly, they these people are constantly trying to come up mass surveillance, over and over and over again. Never ending story.
There are pirates. Well, after last elections it seems to be the pirate. Only one.
Someone won big yachts from Putin.
Yes. Technically, a similar vote could repeal the law just as easily but there is a history of governments not giving their power away easily; implementing it also sets a precedent and creates technical enforcement options for other governments willing to go through with something similar in the future, or for hackers to exploit because gov-rooted devices will remain in operation for years after the potential repeal.
And "Chat Control" isn't even the only thing like this in the pipeline. There's the so-called "security by design" bullshit (which does the opposite of what then name implies) that's actually even worse than Chat Control and has also been worked on in secret, and which'd include mass scale surveillance of not just photos but pretty much everything, and is much more likely to pass than Chat Control.
2001 especially.
Such a rule is basically un-enforceable. Because it is nearly never exactly the same text. So it is always the first time voted on.
What they could do is create a law that protects the integrity of E2EE. At least in this case.
But I guess that will never happen... Well, a girl can dream.
It was protected by the ECHR in a recent ruling. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/03/european-court-human-rights-confirms-undermining-encryption-violates-fundamental
However, Chat Control 2.0 argues that since the spying is done before the content is encrypted, it's somehow ok. 🙄
It seems ECHR is best court. They fuck Putin, they fuck mass surveilance.
Or law that forbids any mass surveilance. By any entity.
Either way they can just give it a new name and change some details to propose it again. Like how they made it "voluntary" this time (but you can only send text if you don't agree).
Better define some basic human rights as a core tenet and fire repeat offenders, because they are a danger to the population.