The problem is that they can repeat this game indefinitely, Chat Control 2.0, 2.1, 3.0, 231.24, ... Just slightly modify the initial Chat Control proposal, make it sound less harsh, and then resubmit it until they achieve a sufficient majority in the EU Parliament, while the general public gets too tired of the topic to create sufficient resistance.
fightchatcontrol.eu published the complete list of all countries stance on Chat Control and all representatives. They can be contacted via mail directly from the site.
Thanks for the link. While it will help to pressure undecided representatives and see who not to vote for in the future, the root cause of the problem remains unaddressed. Why do these proposals exist? Who/what is motivating them? It seems like nefarious actors are coordinating in secret, and they need to be exposed.
We should also try to minimize the number of useful idiots who are genuinely concerned about children's safety. There are two excuses being used to push these surveillance laws: CSAM scanning and content moderation for children. These are bad excuses and we need to call them out as such in every conversation.
CSAM scanning ignores the actual problem, which is the process by which CSAM is created. The root problem is the trafficking of children in physical space, not the tools used to transmit and store child porn, which are general purpose tools used to transmit and store anything. Our efforts and resources, as a matter of priority, should be spent on preventing children from being trafficked in the first place.
The under-16 social media ban ignores the actual problem of parental responsibility. We could implement configurable IP filters on the device itself at the OS level, with the setting being protected by a password parents can set, and this could be done completely offline. It would be way easier to implement and will work better than any of these remote solutions. And as a matter of principle: it is the responsibility of parents to decide how to raise their own children.
The purpose has never been to protect children; it's just a convenient motivation against which nobody would dare to object, just like mandating age restriction for porn sites is nothing more than an excuse to pushing further for elimination of anonymity, which started with porn sites exactly because nobody would dare exposing themselves for objecting to it. As I already wrote elsewhere, this happens while thousands of children are murdered in various wars, to their complete silence because going anywhere beyond the usual empty public condemnation followed by nothing would put them against very powerful foreign governments.
Apparently it didn't work last time, so why not try again with a more vague language, an expanded scope and even slapping the age verification on top of it? And all of this while still preserving our privacy.
This time, we should feel 100% completely reassured (from the proposal):
Regulation whilst still allowing for end-to-end encryption, nothing in this
Regulation should be interpreted as prohibiting, weakening or circumventing,
requiring to disable, or making end-to-end encryption impossible.
“Digital House Arrest”: Teens under 16 face a blanket ban from WhatsApp, Instagram, online games, and countless other apps with chat functions, allegedly to protect them from grooming.
For which I agree.
“Digital isolation instead of education, protection by exclusion instead of empowerment – this is paternalistic, out of touch with reality, and pedagogical nonsense.”
I would not know English or anything about computers, and my childhood would have been quite sad were there such a retarded ban[1]. I do not care about WhatsApp and Instagram, but online games and apps with chat functions? Come on now. "Allegedly" is the keyword.
At any rate, see Roblox and Discord. Do something with those platforms first. :)
[1] I was around 12 years old when I met an older guy IRL who I have met in an online game initially. Can you imagine the safety? :D He showed me his laptop on which he had a Linux distro installed, and the rest is history.
So many attempts over the years to infringe upon citizens privacy and civil liberties, I don't know about the rest of EU population but I'm done with it.
Might as well let it go pure evil so when the time comes, the people will be less hesitant to get rid of the whole EU bureaucracy and the armies of corporate lobbyists altogether
I'm curious about this mindset. Wouldn't it be easier to reform your system before it has gone "pure evil"? Or do you expect nobody cares enough to do that without the threat of impending doom to motivate them?
I believe people will typically not stand for their rights (even less so for other's rights) unless they are significantly bothered or led to think the situation is dire. This is not great, but it is also natural for the human condition: unless one is well-informed and especially conscious about the issues that come with reduction of rights, they will not even realize what is happening until it is happening.
The eu skeptic partiers, unfortunately, seem to be on quite solid footing on claims of EU bypassing democracy in their decision making. How can the same bill effectively be struck down so many times and then get passed through the back door?!
These things are rather pointless, as one could always use a standalone encryption app, and copy&paste text to and from a non encrypted chat app. i.e. how one originally made use of PGP.
The difficulty which PGP had of key exchange could be handled somewhat like Signal does now, via a personal physical sync of the phones.
At which point, the authorities will still be able to make use of "traffic analysis" as they always have. So they'll be able to tell which parties are communicating, but not what is being said.
I find it sadly amusing that the proposed "compromise text" document is marked as "(Text with EEA relevance)" - i.e. they want to push it on the EEA states.
The site is in his name but it has a lot of content - I don't think he writes it all. The stuff I've seen from him directly is mainly in German so I think often people on his team write e.g. English summaries and quote what he said as a translation
The problem is that they can repeat this game indefinitely, Chat Control 2.0, 2.1, 3.0, 231.24, ... Just slightly modify the initial Chat Control proposal, make it sound less harsh, and then resubmit it until they achieve a sufficient majority in the EU Parliament, while the general public gets too tired of the topic to create sufficient resistance.
This might keep happening if nobody knows who "they" are. Those individuals need to be found and publically shamed.
fightchatcontrol.eu published the complete list of all countries stance on Chat Control and all representatives. They can be contacted via mail directly from the site.
Thanks for the link. While it will help to pressure undecided representatives and see who not to vote for in the future, the root cause of the problem remains unaddressed. Why do these proposals exist? Who/what is motivating them? It seems like nefarious actors are coordinating in secret, and they need to be exposed.
We should also try to minimize the number of useful idiots who are genuinely concerned about children's safety. There are two excuses being used to push these surveillance laws: CSAM scanning and content moderation for children. These are bad excuses and we need to call them out as such in every conversation.
CSAM scanning ignores the actual problem, which is the process by which CSAM is created. The root problem is the trafficking of children in physical space, not the tools used to transmit and store child porn, which are general purpose tools used to transmit and store anything. Our efforts and resources, as a matter of priority, should be spent on preventing children from being trafficked in the first place.
The under-16 social media ban ignores the actual problem of parental responsibility. We could implement configurable IP filters on the device itself at the OS level, with the setting being protected by a password parents can set, and this could be done completely offline. It would be way easier to implement and will work better than any of these remote solutions. And as a matter of principle: it is the responsibility of parents to decide how to raise their own children.
The purpose has never been to protect children; it's just a convenient motivation against which nobody would dare to object, just like mandating age restriction for porn sites is nothing more than an excuse to pushing further for elimination of anonymity, which started with porn sites exactly because nobody would dare exposing themselves for objecting to it. As I already wrote elsewhere, this happens while thousands of children are murdered in various wars, to their complete silence because going anywhere beyond the usual empty public condemnation followed by nothing would put them against very powerful foreign governments.
That the EU has these “closed door” processes doesn’t sound very democratic.
The frequency, aggression and coordination around chat control, both in the Uk and Eu tells me there is a single entity.
It’s not just by chance
The “you voted wrong and will make you keep voting until you get it right” type of “democracy”.
"Not right now", "Remind me later"
Apparently it didn't work last time, so why not try again with a more vague language, an expanded scope and even slapping the age verification on top of it? And all of this while still preserving our privacy.
This time, we should feel 100% completely reassured (from the proposal):
This.. seriously
“Digital House Arrest”: Teens under 16 face a blanket ban from WhatsApp, Instagram, online games, and countless other apps with chat functions, allegedly to protect them from grooming.
For which I agree.
“Digital isolation instead of education, protection by exclusion instead of empowerment – this is paternalistic, out of touch with reality, and pedagogical nonsense.”
I completely disagree.
I would not know English or anything about computers, and my childhood would have been quite sad were there such a retarded ban[1]. I do not care about WhatsApp and Instagram, but online games and apps with chat functions? Come on now. "Allegedly" is the keyword.
At any rate, see Roblox and Discord. Do something with those platforms first. :)
[1] I was around 12 years old when I met an older guy IRL who I have met in an online game initially. Can you imagine the safety? :D He showed me his laptop on which he had a Linux distro installed, and the rest is history.
So many attempts over the years to infringe upon citizens privacy and civil liberties, I don't know about the rest of EU population but I'm done with it.
Might as well let it go pure evil so when the time comes, the people will be less hesitant to get rid of the whole EU bureaucracy and the armies of corporate lobbyists altogether
I'm curious about this mindset. Wouldn't it be easier to reform your system before it has gone "pure evil"? Or do you expect nobody cares enough to do that without the threat of impending doom to motivate them?
I believe people will typically not stand for their rights (even less so for other's rights) unless they are significantly bothered or led to think the situation is dire. This is not great, but it is also natural for the human condition: unless one is well-informed and especially conscious about the issues that come with reduction of rights, they will not even realize what is happening until it is happening.
The eu skeptic partiers, unfortunately, seem to be on quite solid footing on claims of EU bypassing democracy in their decision making. How can the same bill effectively be struck down so many times and then get passed through the back door?!
These things are rather pointless, as one could always use a standalone encryption app, and copy&paste text to and from a non encrypted chat app. i.e. how one originally made use of PGP.
The difficulty which PGP had of key exchange could be handled somewhat like Signal does now, via a personal physical sync of the phones.
At which point, the authorities will still be able to make use of "traffic analysis" as they always have. So they'll be able to tell which parties are communicating, but not what is being said.
I poked my Europarliamentarians. But it's -like- already almost 15:00 on the european mainland, so I'm not sure how much it still helps.
Same here. I got no answer. Ahhhh, no: I got one! An automated answer from a deputy on vacation.
I find it sadly amusing that the proposed "compromise text" document is marked as "(Text with EEA relevance)" - i.e. they want to push it on the EEA states.
It's a foregone conclusion that it will pass. There is no such thing as saying "no" to EU power encroachment.
This makes me feel pissed off. I used to be Pro EU, now I'm not so sure. (Suddenly I understand Trump voters.)
Same here. If this pass, I may start voting for Anti-EU parties, regardless for my disgust for them. This is too much of an important issue.
Writing about yourself in third person like this is really odd.
The site is in his name but it has a lot of content - I don't think he writes it all. The stuff I've seen from him directly is mainly in German so I think often people on his team write e.g. English summaries and quote what he said as a translation
Do you know where there is no chat control possible? XMPP / Jabber [1]. Private, convenient, reliable, distributed, free.
[1] https://xmpp.org/
Isn't the same true for matrix as well?
I appreciate xmpp as well but I have actually seen uses of matrix in open source community etc. a lot more so what are your thoughts on it?
Note for anyone interested in matrix, to not use the main matrix.org but other instances as well to actually have more decentralization/distribution
Unless you are going to self-host, you would be required to provide government ID for registration on a server.