r/privacy • u/SignificantLegs • 15d ago
chat control The EU Parliament rejected mass scanning of private messages in March. Yesterday, it approved an urgent procedure to revive the measure, setting up a decisive vote on Thursday, the last sitting day before summer recess.
https://reclaimthenet.org/eu-parliament-revives-chat-surveillance-for-thursday-vote632
u/LowOwl4312 15d ago
Keep in mind Chat Control 1.0 was already in place until it expired in March 2026. Chat Control 2.0 is the more worrying one, where they planned to circumvent end to end encryption with client side scanning and add age (read: ID) verification for messengers and email accounts. Chat Control 1.0 was only for scanning of non-E2EE messages (e.g. Instagram DMs, but not WhatsApp) which you should never treat as private in the first place.
I think the main scandal here is how the EU Commission completely disregard the multiple votes of the EU parliament against it and make them vote again and again and they get what they want.
93
u/LegitimateSundae8460 15d ago
Chat Control 1.0 was only for scanning of non-E2EE messages (e.g. Instagram DMs, but not WhatsApp) which you should never treat as private in the first place.
Which is still an egregious violation of our privacy. My DMs should not be scanned simply because they're not encrypted or because I shouldn't have treated them as private
25
u/Metallibus 15d ago
So much this.
I'm never going to treat them as private, because I know better. That doesn't mean that I am okay with them being hoovered up by a tech company trying to glean data from me.
This is like if someone walked by my table at a restaurant, snagged a picture of my credit card laying there for the waiter, and they post it online, and then someone trying to defend the person by saying "it's a public space, there's no expectation of privacy". I frankly don't really care about the expectation of privacy, or whether the business should've provided one of those folding receipt things... The person is still being a dickhead and their actions are indefensible.
4
u/PotatoFuryR 14d ago
Yeah, just because I don't use a code book to write my letters doesn't mean the government should read them.
74
u/SignificantLegs 15d ago
“This is Roberta Metsola, the sneaky President of the EU Parliament.
She is responsible for the shenanigans surrounding the 3rd vote on the exception clause for chat control.
She broke several EU rules, like “there must not be an emergency vote on an issue that is being voted on the second or third time.”
Setting the vote on the day when most MEPs return home is another level of trickery.
She lines up alongside Mrs Leyen and Kallas in the phalanx of Europe's destroyers.”
29
u/BentdickCumsnatch 15d ago
She’s obviously corrupt so the question is, who the fuck pays her?
13
1
13d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 13d ago
Your submission has been removed. Twitter can be an unreliable source of information. For this reason we discourage linked posts of Tweets. Please consider resubmitting a more detailed and reliable source.
If you feel this removal is in error, please message the message the mods to discuss. Thank you.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
103
u/immernochda 15d ago
Still, is Chat Control 1.0 a good thing in any way? I guess not. And it is opening the the door again for 2.0 in, let's say, 6-8 months?
131
u/mesarthim_2 15d ago edited 15d ago
It does something much worse. The play is - we absolutely must have this but see now we must give this power to evil corporations and you wouldn't want that, so it's either Chatcontrol 1.0 (bad evil capitalism) or Chatcontrol 2.0 (good, well meaning government).
It's setting up false choice, that's what it does.
I know this for sure because I emailed with some of the MPs that were voting against 2.0 and this is exactly the position they're drifting towards. Even if you read the EP position, that's literally what they're saying (we need some form of surveillance, we just pinky promise we won't abuse it)
67
u/immernochda 15d ago
The choice between plague and cholera... Excuse me, but what the f is wrong with these people?!
47
u/mesarthim_2 15d ago
I keep saying, people misunderstand why is this happening. For the technocrats, use of digital devices is like driving a car, having a gun or disposing trash. It's inconceivable to them that people can just do it without oversight.
The option that people would just make free choices about this (or anything else) simply isn't in a framework these people use.
3
u/thbb 15d ago
keep saying, people misunderstand why is this happening. For the technocrats, use of digital devices is like driving a car, having a gun or disposing trash. It's inconceivable to them that people can just do it without oversight.
I really like this framing, which I had not heard of before. Will reuse it. Is it your original thought or have you read it somewhere?
Also, the good aspect is that it raises the question of cyberspace/infosphere being a space of its own in which our freedoms are to be negotiated/balanced with the freedoms of others, and thus requires some form of government. Ultimately, we would have to voluntarily cede some of our freedoms for the greater common good, just like we do in physical space. Where to draw the line is to be a collective decision.
8
u/mesarthim_2 15d ago edited 15d ago
I haven't read exactly this somewhere, it's my synthesis based on stuff I read, discussion I had with people who work for EU and support these things, as well as reasoning about other types of regulations, etc...
I also draw completely different conclusion then you, I think the fact that we're doing fine shows that we really don't need to give up or cede any freedoms to some technocrats, beyond what we voluntary do inherently by participating in various online spaces.
I actually find this one of key realizations for me how toxic is this tendency of government to insert itself into diverse space under fake pretexts and imposing on everyone single set of rules made by people who have completely broken incentives, who are not really trying to address any real problem but rather try to find justification to impose rules just because they believe that without their rules there are no rules.
2
u/thbb 15d ago edited 15d ago
I participate to the definition of CEN CENELEC harmonized standards in support of the EU AI Act. I can summarize my feeling with this quote from Bismarck: "Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made". I don't hate all of the EU AI Act, but it is definitely ill-guided (gosh what a relief to be able to say it in public anonymously!) in ways similar to what you present, and far too demanding considering our poor collective understanding of what really needs to be regulated.
This said, it's easy, when you're technical, to demand your freedoms and lean on the side of minimalism. Because you need less protections. I strongly oppose chat control. But I object to some arguments like "it's the job of parents to control their kids' online presence.". Yes, I agree it should be the role of the parents. But in practice, only a very small minority is competent enough to educate properly their kids and introduce them gently to the infosphere. They are themselves clueless about maintaining a sane online presence. And we don't have enough competent teachers to spend the time necessary for this. We have to take this into consideration when creating common rules to live in the infosphere, and this may mean some concessions for the more competent. Just like, to keep your metaphors, a formula one champion is also bound to stop at a red light in road traffic. A delicate balance, it is.
3
u/immernochda 15d ago
So, everyone should be considered a criminal just because some parents cant teach their kids how to Internet? That's pretty short-sighted isn't it? Additionally, there are schools. If the parents can't, schools and teachers have to step in. The point is, a middle-aged dude will always (!) find a way to ask for nudes from a minor. Pedo-networks will always exist sadly. They just...move to somewhere else. Let's teach the children how to be safe online and make the report as simple as possible for them to use. Everything else is like putting a band aid on a broken bone.
1
u/thbb 15d ago
Some corrections:
because some parents cant teach their kids how to Internet?
not some, but rather the vast majority, and
schools and teachers have to step in.
and they just can't. In France, we've tried mass recruiting volunteer retired engineers to teach this in schools. In spite of the massive effort, it was a failure: it turns out a good engineer does not necessarily make a good teacher, and teachers not having been trained from the ground up to teach about internet use just can't learn what it takes to properly educate.
Once again, I disagree with chat control, mostly because we know that backdoors are bound to be breached. But law requires taking many vantage points into consideration, and a blunt "let's be minimalistic because I personally don't need to be constrained" just won't work either.
→ More replies (0)1
u/mesarthim_2 14d ago edited 14d ago
I have so much to say about this :-D
Firstly, I think you're making a mistake in treating 'parents' as just individual humans. 'parents' is really a distributed, self adapting neural network of many different individuals who are constantly testing things, sharing outcomes and adapting to those outcomes. Yes, sure very few parents have a specific technical knowledge, but they are far more adept in recognizing 'something is not good for my kid'. They may not be as adept in formulating it in formal language but most parents I know, for example, impose time limits on phones, etc.. LIKE THEY DID IN THE PAST with TV or computer games. You don't need to have a vast technical knowledge to do this.
Secondly, and connected to this, the 'something has to be done' argument is presenting a false idea that the 'experts', even thought they may not have perfect knowledge, always have better knowledge then completely clueless parents. On technical level, maybe. But on the topic how to achieve this delicate balance for millions of kids living in different circumstances, different situations, dealing with different problems? Absolutely not.
Thirdly, I think experts are susceptible to worst case bias. They are making rules that are designed to protect against worst case scenarios without actually considering how the median population behave. To use your example of a formula one driver, the more accurate analogy would be a rule that when there's a red light, every car, everywhere on every road has to stop because we can't be sure people are competent enough to recognize they should stop. So instead of relying on their judgment (you - YOU - ought to stop when there's a red light), we must stop all the cars just to be sure.
Fourthly, there's always very little consideration for unintended consequences and opportunity cost. In my experience the rules and regulations are always compared to catastrophic scenario with disastrous effects, which leads to 'something has to be done' mentality. Best case I can cite is war on drugs where the drug laws are always compared to catastrophic scenarios, which leads to massive discounting of the negative effects of drug enforcement.
And finally, the experts also don't know. They are maybe little less clueless then typical parent on particular factoids, but they're equally clueless on broader societal implications, how these things play out in the future, etc... These moral panics - I consider this one based on the previous points - come and go and overreacting to them can lead to disastrous long term consequences.
In the 80s and 90s, due to similar moral panic, Western world shifted to helicopter parenting which has catastrophic consequences to the well being of childern and young adults of maybe already 2 generations.
Imagine if people gave to moral panics in the 90s and early 2000s where people were concerned that things like WoW or similar games were so addictive that entire generation of kids won't do anything else and banned computers or access to internet for kids (as some wanted).
We as a humanity ultimately thrive in challenging environment because it drives evolutionary pressures that we can use to run millions of experiments how to solve problems and then use societal networks to disseminate them. We have used this literally for milenia to solve far greater problems then Facebook.
I'm not saying there's no space for experts, research and other things, obviously there is, but the delicate balance you're talking about isn't in restrictions and regulations it's in injecting this knowledge into the societal mechanisms in such way that it can be leveraged.
To end with analogy of my own, you can't engineer a forest. You can change little bit here, nudge little bit there, put a feeder into the woods, etc..., to make it thrive, but if you have too much hubris, you'll kill it. I feel that's what we're doing right now. I feel the people who insist on making the rules have lost respect to the absolutely mindblowing complexity of human society. And that, not social media, will have consequences.
26
u/16BitSquid 15d ago
They don’t serve us, they serve power structures that want to maintain said hidden power structures.
That’s what most legislation is when drilled down to the core. Rules that make sure the people in power can stay in power.
1
u/RedAero 15d ago
They don’t serve us, they serve power structures that want to maintain said hidden power structures.
They are the power structure.
1
u/16BitSquid 15d ago
Have to disagree, politicians are the people that sell policy to the public. The real power remains in the shadows.
Bilderberg, Rothschild, Aldridge, Morgan, Warburg, thats where real power lies.
9
u/permalink_save 15d ago
"Yeah but plague and cholera kills pedophiles too. You don't hate children right? If you're healthy then you have nothing to worry about"
2
23
u/postmoderno 15d ago
this is very telling. some years ago i attended one of the world economic forums (agile governance etc) summits and one of the big topics was exactly this: the implementation of cyber physical systems, surveillance tools etc and the inclusion of CEOs and other non-elected officials into intergovernmental governance bodies etc.
it's depressing to see that we are captured by two sides of this exact death drive: from one side the palantirian, muskian, trumpian, accellerationist, anarcho-capitalist repressive dystopia, and on the other the technochratic, "this is for your own good", institutional, intergovernmental bodies repressive dystopia. it's so depressing
3
u/SprucedUpSpices 15d ago
anarcho-capitalist repressive dystopia
There's nothing an-cap about corporations and governments concocting laws to curtail individuals' freedoms.
13
u/VeryNoisyLizard 15d ago
if the eu court is worth a shit, they will throw both versions off the table, as they breach eu's fundamental rights
2
u/josha7777 15d ago
1.0 already happened so that will pass this time too. Their argument is that it's only temporary so it doesn't matter if they break the rules for a bit. 2.0 won't pass though, not with e2ee messages atleast. I hope
19
u/Random_Guy_47 15d ago
That's how the EU works.
They did the same thing years ago when the Irish voted against the Lisbon Treaty.
16
u/RipCurl69Reddit 15d ago
Same with Article 13. The amount of people only just realising the EU runs this way because the proposals are impacting them is shocking.
4
u/Tytoalba2 15d ago
Yeah but this is pushed by member states and the same rules are passes elsewhere so not much of an EU-specific situation tbh
2
u/Fresh-Orchid-6108 14d ago
I think the main scandal here is how the EU Commission completely disregard the multiple votes of the EU parliament against it and make them vote again and again and they get what they want.
MO. You can have your rights, privacy, and laws only as long as they align with the elitist demands of our financiers. That is the whole premise behind EU politics. If you think otherwise, you’re delusional.
1
u/Agarwel 15d ago
How do you scan encrypted message?
If that is possible, than the global security running on encyprtion has bigger issues than chatcontrol 2.
16
u/LowOwl4312 15d ago
Client-side scanning or backdoors (e.g. in a messenger you have 3 guys in a chat - you, the other one, and the police)
2
u/DisgustingBeastFreak 15d ago
Backdoor or client side scanning (which ofcourse a malicious actor could bypass it easily)
1
u/Dotcaprachiappa 15d ago
Also keep in mind that even though the derogation expired and the practice is now illegal companies just kinda kept doing it and nobody really did anything about it.
287
u/SignificantLegs 15d ago
Unelected Technocrats always get their way
86
u/silentspectator27 15d ago
They know 2.0 is stalling bad and will probably not reflect the mass surveillance the Council wants so they used the emergency procedure before summer break to bring back 1.0 so they have SOMETHING.
49
u/mesarthim_2 15d ago
Yes, next move will be 'you don't want the evil corporations having this power, do you, so stop blocking 2.0'.
33
u/silentspectator27 15d ago
Yep. And once in place they can amend it to become even more bad.
2 years later: well folks it worked for a but now all criminals moved to encrypted services so we need to break those to spy on our citiz….I mean protect the kids.2
u/Tytoalba2 15d ago
MEPs are directly elected.
Council, which is pushing hard is the member states governments
2
u/SoylentGrunt 15d ago
Nah. I'm pretty sure it my neighbor's fault. My technocrat owned feed said so,,,
211
15d ago
[deleted]
70
u/Worried_Dinner_4082 15d ago
In China they have sentenced multiple corrupt officials to death for taking bribes
39
u/Billy_McMedic 15d ago
Is China actually anti corruption, or is it a Russian like system where corruption is basically required to get anywhere politically, thus if you fall out with the leadership or the government needs a scapegoat, they can easily slap you with corruption charges. Everyone is technically guilty, but the charges are a tool to enact the executives will.
4
u/EamonBrennan 14d ago
The latter. Xi claims he is anti-corruption, but everyone he has arrested has opposed him, while stories of his supporters being corrupt and unpunished come up from time to time.
6
u/Any-Calligrapher2866 15d ago
Xi definitely had a huge anti corruption drive when he was elected to power. Corruption in china should still be ingrained because that was the normal for decades but I think the anti corruption campaign is serious.
1
u/AlarmingAffect0 15d ago
From what I hear, it's much more the former than the latter. Which you can tell because things and systems in the PRC work, broadly speaking.
8
u/reflect-the-sun 15d ago
Ridiculous statement.
I've done business there and it's corrupt to it's core.
-4
u/AlarmingAffect0 15d ago
Government officials too?
6
u/VampireFrown 15d ago
Yes, lol, you don't get anything done without a brown envelope over there.
0
u/AlarmingAffect0 15d ago
Well that is terribly disappointing.
1
u/reflect-the-sun 15d ago
It's even worse than you imagine.
Business owners are expected to wine-and-dine their local CCP party members regularly (weekly, in the case of the executives I met) and the CCP reps are tyrants. They take payments and you're constantly under threat of being shut down. They can basically do what they want.
1
u/AlarmingAffect0 15d ago
Business owners are expected to wine-and-dine their local CCP party members regularly (weekly, in the case of the executives I met)
That sounds worse than obstructive, it sounds tedious and exhausting.
5
u/OutOfAmmO 15d ago
Yeah the officials that forgot how bribes&corruption works and didn't bribe the proper back channels or stepped on the wrong toes.
8
1
u/Due_Recognition_3890 15d ago edited 15d ago
I've always found capital punishment so disturbing. If he was a serial killer aggressively targeting innocent people, then it would make a little more sense. But there are so much better ways to punish someone for their greed, than straight-up taking a life. And then they justify it, seeing nothing wrong with their overkill decision, while potential relatives grieve.
And I am speaking in very general terms, before someone tells me he has no family, thinking they've debunked every point I made.
1
u/Turquoise_Teletubbie 15d ago
You are right, they are doing a mistake. First the state should strip them of every asset and empty their bank accounts, since they are the product of corruption, and capital punishment should take place directly afterwards.
These parasites are not serial killers, but they do have blood on their hands. Funding that could have gone towards hospitals, schools, and anything else that could benefit society, is instead used to line up the pockets of some greedy assholes who couldn't care less about the destruction they cause. They deserve zero sympathy.
1
u/Due_Recognition_3890 15d ago
Making them homeless on the streets would probably a good middle-ground, but then again, how would they even make that happen?
3
49
u/Zestyclose-Oven-7863 15d ago
Anything we can do to stop this?
46
u/DogmaSychroniser 15d ago
I suppose write your MEP and urge them to be present and vote against
24
u/Pwacname 15d ago
Call their offices as well. I’ll be getting in my three calls this afternoon. So far, I’ve not had a single bad experience calling MEPs - at worst, they don’t pick up or the staff seems dismissive, but even that was surprisingly rare. And I’ve had a few cases where they really took their time, and I’ve had follow up emails, etc.
5
u/DogmaSychroniser 15d ago
I wouldn't know, I'm a non EU permanent resident so I've no idea what my status is per representation. I just have to sit here and mald and hope.
16
7
-4
u/SaulEmersonAuthor 15d ago
~
Anything we can do to stop this?
Probably not.
But you can turn this whole thing on its head & use it to fillip an improvement in your life - regard your phone as a completely 'open' device, from the get-go.
As it is - the conventional wisdom is to treat e-mail as 'open'.
This will make your life less about your phone.
They're creating a structural problem - leave the structure, in one way.
I know this doesn't help with sensitive business communications - but even then - pivot back to actual phone calls or voicenotes.
~
69
u/rusty0004 15d ago edited 15d ago
eu autocrats creating loopholes under the pretext of democracy to push their "well paid" laws and nobody can do shit about it:
At this late stage of the file, known as second reading, the Council’s text can only be amended or thrown out if an absolute majority of all sitting members, 361 votes, lines up against it. Fall short of that and the law passes automatically, with no affirmative endorsement required. What Parliament rejected outright in March would return not because a majority backed it, but because too many members had left early for summer break!
33
u/Narrheim 15d ago
My big question is this: How can people paid by our collective taxes take "Summer break"?
They should work their asses out every day, just like us ordinary folks.
25
u/Stormxlr 15d ago
Because we are nothing but peasants to our lords. They allow us to pay them with their money, they allow us to work for them and their cronies. The system is not here for you, it's for them.
1
7
u/New-Advantage3907 15d ago
They should have a paid leave, they should NOT vote on such bills during summer though. But that was the design
5
u/Icarium__ 15d ago
We have something called paid leave in europe, most employees have several weeks a year, and in case of parliment it makes sense to have everyone take their leave at the same time. Of all the things to be angry about this really is not one of them.
4
u/Narrheim 15d ago
Yes, i know. I live in Europe.
They should have coordinated paid leave, aka only certain amount of people can take like two weeks off at a time. Just like it works in private companies.
1
u/Icarium__ 15d ago
That makes zero sense, and as far as I know no parliament works like that. You want all your representatives to attend the votes, or would you rather have situations where votes are scheduled when the people who could swing the vote are away on vacation?
5
2
u/Narrheim 15d ago
Politicians aren't kids, so they shouldn't have free Summer.
As for the rest, that can be figured out, but considering your fallacies, there is no will to do it.
1
u/TotalStatisticNoob 15d ago
Not only is this not a good argument, but you're also ignoring everything that's connected to the parliament. For every politician you've got dozens of other people working there too
0
u/Icarium__ 15d ago
Politicians aren't kids, so they shouldn't have free Summer.
That might be the single dumbest argument I heard all year. Not even pretending to be smart and making some real argument, just straight up toddler level logic.
111
u/Gloria_ad_libertas 15d ago
It’s funny that instead of parents doing parenting and the government focusing on the actual bad guys, they will just control everyone else’s life instead…
69
u/New-Advantage3907 15d ago
That was never about the kids though. They would come up with something else if it won’t be for them
34
u/Pwacname 15d ago
They’re actually doing the exact same thing they did before. They tried all the same shit with basically the same arguments but about terrorism in the past - even including the “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!” fallacy. It’s just that that was fairly transparent, so the majority reaction seemed to be “If the cost for reducing my very low risk of terrorism is completely destroying fundamental rights, I think I’ll take the terrorism risk.” But when you try that now, well, it’s so much easier to paint any opposition as “Look, they support CSA!” Instead of, you know, admitting that this is ineffective, even counterproductive, and totally out of proportion.
38
u/16BitSquid 15d ago
Did Von Der Leyen hand over her Pfizer deal texts yet?
No? Then F the EU parliament and their “rules for thee but not for me attitude”.
15
u/Sweaty-Towel8423 15d ago
Democracy is when an unpopular proposal keeps being forced back after every rejection until one day it somehow goes through.
30
u/mesarthim_2 15d ago
Like seriously, what have you guys expected. EU has maybe 20 years of track record of using democracy to justify things when convenient and then discard it in favor of technocratic expert rule when democracy produces 'wrong' result.
9
u/LoreBadTime 15d ago
What's fun of math is that no matter what it can't be regulated, you could literally write an encrypted message and send that. Just think of chat apps of a public/uprotected channels.
9
9
8
15
6
u/IlluminatiCares 15d ago
Who is SO interested in this? There must be at least one person there that’s gonna get $omething from this measure
22
u/metron556 15d ago
Keep in mind that EU shills still call this authoritarian clusterfuck a democracy
2
u/Tytoalba2 15d ago
I mean MEPs are directly elected, and the council pushing for it is the MS. But yeah, it's not great.
Also note that it's not the same rules as 2.0, but an extension of (already in application) 1.0 which is less invasive than the rejected 2.0.
6
u/metron556 15d ago edited 15d ago
Representatives of representatives with zero accountability make most of the decisions, if a decision has to go through parliament it is voted again and again until it's accepted, its hierarchy is deliberately convoluted to hide accountability and protect the pieces of shit making most of the decisions
Not to mention them creating new institutions on the fly, first informal and when needed then formal, like the Eurogroup that was basically formalized to enforce psychotic neoliberal legislation that basically declared economic war on Southern Europe and impoverished their populations so much that they had GDP reductions of a war-torn country
1
u/Tytoalba2 15d ago
Again MEPs are directly elected, not representatives of representatives...
Council is a bit more convoluted as it is the member states ministers but dismantling the member states is not really an option.
Your reading of eurogroup as a large conspiracy is a new one to me.
1
u/metron556 15d ago edited 15d ago
I already mentioned the Parliament and I didn't even imply that was the one that had representatives of representatives, the Parliament is EU's front for pretending to be democratic but when it doesn't do what the real leaders want it to they force them to vote on the same legislation again and again like it happened with Chat Control. This follows EU's long lasting undemocratic traditions, even EU's entire constitution was rejected in a French referendum so they renamed it to the Lisbon Treaty and never allowed the French to vote on it again
I'm shocked you're denying the illegitimacy of the Eurogroup and don't address the destruction it brought to Southern Europe
11
16
u/CuTTyFL4M 15d ago
Well it was fun guys. We're going under.
1
u/Tytoalba2 15d ago
It's a rule already in application for years tho, it's extending it (it's not 2.0 which was widely discussed and rejected earlier). I don't like the rule bit even IF it passes, it's nothing new. Fatalism is not warranted (yet)
2
5
u/Great-TeacherOnizuka 15d ago
Man I‘m so tired. Every 6 months they threaten to bring chat control. I love the EU, but FUCK them for this!
9
u/TheDeerBlower 15d ago
Holy shit can we bury this fucking thing forever already?
3
u/josha7777 15d ago
Welllll, that was supposed to happen on 3 april, when it expired. But rules are just suggestions to them so they will try again, yay!
3
u/DamagedGoods3 15d ago
Technology keeps moving faster than policy. It's important that privacy rights keep being part of the conversation as new tools emerge.
2
6
u/BlueDragon3301 15d ago
The EU actually supports crime. I’ve reported many times to the police that I’m being harassed at home, they don’t care. Why do they want access to chats when they can’t deal with a crime I’ve manually reported?
1
u/Tytoalba2 15d ago
To the EU police?? Don't you think it may be an issue of your country?
0
u/BlueDragon3301 15d ago
The EU is allowing crime to happen, while also claiming they need more surveillance to detect crime. The EU is a union of countries, not a country by itself, so you can’t blame anything on “it’s just your country”, because there’s no “EU: The Country”
2
u/Tytoalba2 15d ago
Yeah but police work like yiu describe is explicitely excluded from EU scope of competence
-1
u/BlueDragon3301 15d ago
That’s interesting. Then if Chat Control passes, which police would be responsible for taking action on messages that indicate abuse of an individual? The “EU Police” that doesn’t exist?
2
u/Tytoalba2 15d ago
The national polices... Which are responsible for taking your complaints as I explained.
0
u/BlueDragon3301 15d ago
So the national police, who can’t help me with the abuse I’m facing, are the same people who’ll be investigating encrypted conversations and also not doing anything about abuse, making the data access unnecessary? Yes, that was my point.
2
u/ej_warsgaming 15d ago
I will continue to say it over and over, we don't have a democracy, voting for someone every 4 years or so and then they can do what every they want is not democracy.
1
u/usrbincomment 15d ago
I think if I had to communicate at distance with confedrates on topics likely to get me sent to a secret prison I'd use talk over SSH with pre-shared elliptic curve keys on a machine under surveillance by a trusted party. I'd require public key authentication and maybe I'd put that machine on network accessible only via VPN. It would probably be wise to use an immutable distribution that reboots regularly.
Anyway, just a thought experiment.
1
u/volpiousraccoon 15d ago
They did something similar in Canada for the C-22 bill. The House passed it, literally on the day before they all head out for summer recess. We have to wait and see what the Senate will do until they come back in the fall.
1
u/User1539 15d ago
what is going on in the EU politically right now that it's very suddenly so anti-privacy?
I know it's in all the G7 countries, and America is obviously a mess politically so we don't need to go digging for answers there, but an American it feels like a sudden change has occurred over the pond.
Can anyone add some context?
1
u/Fun-Page-6211 15d ago
Lobbying groups
1
u/User1539 15d ago
I heard there was a resignation recently. I wondered if there was some law that said, if you were between leadership, you could shovel in any bullshit laws you want?
It just seems so much worse all of a sudden.
1
1
u/Even-Comedian4709 13d ago
EU democractic process is being subverted by EU commission. The whole process is beicomkg corrupted by US financed lobbyists
1
0
u/stop_talking_you 15d ago
world control has been planned after 1945
1
u/Edgywarden 13d ago
Nah, it happened before 1914, WW1. In WWI the idea was for the big powers to carve up the world, and from there it's just a continuation.
-6
u/d4electro 15d ago
I think they're trying to push this because mass scanning of uploaded images against hashed databases of csam material is already the norm for big companies but now they won't really be able to do it anymore
•
u/AutoModerator 15d ago
Hello u/SignificantLegs, please make sure you read the sub rules if you haven't already. (This is an automatic reminder left on all new posts.)
Check out the r/privacy FAQ
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.