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
It is cute that they think they can regulate the use of math and how the internet can be used.
lol
Right
I sent my friend “ax4uol4wj83birqti336mk92mu8” and that’s what he got
Hahaha
We need more censorship-resistant, private, decentralized communication protocols. We need them to be widespread enough that lawmakers see censoring/controlling them as technically impossible and politically unwise. That means they need to be easy to use for the average person so we can get sufficient adoption. Donate to your software of choice, that’s how it happens.
This is kinda how Bitcoin is. Even if a nation-sate wants to “ban” it or attack the network, the network is gonna keep working and doing its thing (technically impossible) and they will piss off a bunch of voters and/or other keys to political power and potentially lose out on businesses and jobs building in this sector (politically unwise). The CCP tried to ban Bitcoin some years ago, did not work at all, and the network wasn’t nearly as strong or large as it is today.
I would say matrix but that is unlikely. Simplex Chat and Signal it is.
Matrix is in fact decentralized, SimpleX too. But Signal is centralized.
I won’t disagree
Signal has downsides but it us still better than Whatsapp
Almost everything is better than WhatsApp
And yet all of my friends and family refuse to leave whatsapp no matter what because everyone they talk to is also on whatsapp and they don’t want to deal with multiple apps.
🫤
Try your best to switch apps, and maybe one day you will succeed
Doesn’t scanning before upload imply the encryption is broken somewhere? Is that the point, to remove encryption? Forgive my naivete.
For sure! The EU will tell to the apps to backdoored their encryption to accept this law. For example Google, Meta and Microsoft are okay with it if it is implemented. And Signal would leave the EU market.
I thought the chat control law idea kinda died already
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.
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.
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
That’s right, first try to vote and be listen.
They will try to bring it back to life every few years or so
Never, they’ll try again and again with different names, covered by different purposes and stuck to another law.
They try every year…
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.
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?
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).
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.
Good luck with it, mister/miss
Thank you, good luck to you too
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
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?
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
They can’t if you use a VPN and the app is not in their jurisdiction
That would be difficult for sure but in fact it would be illegal
I don’t care if it’s illegal if the law violates people’s privacy tbh
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.
The only is avoid centralized chats, using decentralized encrypted ones. For all those which use Watsfuck and others like these Google-Zuckerbot derivates it makes anyway no difference if the EU scan or not their chats, especially using stock iPhone or Android.
That’s right but the EU wants to break the E2EE encryption for its power
Yeah, wait for it. Even in China they are not cappable to control all the privacy tricks and measures for messages by the users. Where there is a law, there is also a trick to go around it, I doubt very much that they manage to control more than the usual chat apps, the effort would be economically unaffordable to do it also in decentralized or even on self-hosted private networks.
They don’t actually have to enforce that though. Rather, it’s a neat trick: if you do use encrypted chats, well, you’re purposefully doing something illegal! To hide information, no less! That surely means you have more to hide, and since you’ve already broken a law, let’s investigate further!
To be clear: I’m not saying this is the intended effect. But it is a frighteningly possible one. Anyone who has reason to hide their communication (regime critical activists, opposition politicians, investigative journalists,…) either have to
- accept that their communication will be scanned, making it trivial to spy on them and use that information (legally, no less!) to hinder/stop them, or
- do something illegal, giving pretext for hindering/stopping them since they’ve now committed a crime
the argument ?I’ve nothing to hide? isn’t valid. Ask the people if then it’s also OK if the Postman or anyone else read their private correspondence, or is looking over their shoulder while you are chatting with someone, above you are investigated by the authorities when you try to avoid it, it’s exactly the same
Oh, absolutely. In case it wasn’t clear, I’m against chatcontrol.
They don’t want to forbid the encryption only to backdoor to have a control on it. But that’s almost impossible to backdoor all of them…
I know that the law is almost impossible to apply but first we have to stop it, if they gain the power of reading trough WhatsApp and else, they could ask for more after
Asking and being capable to do it are two different things.
Lol Facebook was too dumb to even share my father’s posts when he joined. Just kept spamming me with rage bait and posts from someone obnoxious I met at a party years before and never really had a real contact with. How is this company supposed to detect anything? To me it’s just a cesspool that provides a few people with power.
Let’s imagine the error rate would be 0%, anonimity is a right and none of the privacy tools are broken, would you be on board with it? Or are there concerns I am missing here.
That’s why the EU wants to control the chats. They would ask to software producers to backdoor their apps, and Meta Google and Microsoft would be OK with it.
You mean like a secret power motive? I’ve never sought that in the EU. Would appreciate any references.
Read this how it affects you text : https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/#how-does-this-affect-you
All of your chat conversations and emails will be automatically searched for suspicious content. Nothing remains confidential or secret. There is no requirement of a court order or an initial suspicion for searching your messages. It occurs always and automatically.
Intelligence services and hackers may be able to spy on your private chats and emails. The door will be open for anyone with the technical means to read your messages if secure encryption is removed in order to be able to screen messages.
Hmm I’m not under that impression, at least not from the parliament. I’m unfamiliar with the dynamic between the commission and the parliament but it might be that the commission tends to state what’s possible and the parliament then picks what they want.
It’s not a backdoor as far as I understand it and it doesn’t compromise e2ee, but a scan on a system you trust. Local or on a server you trust.
The only issue I personally have is with the error rate. It seems to be at 80%. Personally I would find any level of error a problem. I don’t see any reasonable solution with our current tech.
By acting as a man-in-the-middle with the ability to read unencrypted message data (absolutely required in order to try to match against known CSAM), this is absolutely providing a backdoor as well as undermining privacy and security. By needing to trust another party, there is now a greater threat surface which is outside of end user control. One compromised account with access to that third-party is all it would take to extract private details from any messages, undetected, whether for sale on there blackmarket or for suppressing political dissidents, that’s exactly where this would go and we know this because state actors have been caught doing it and getting their toolkits leaked to criminals.
This kind of law doesn’t make children or regular people any safer.
I think we have different information. What I’ve read showed that the commission had a very broad and extreme proposal just as you just mentioned. I’d definitely not be on board with that.
However the parliament’s proposal was way more restrictive. If I understood it right it’s the commission that makes proposals but the parliament can react to it and this goes back and forth. The parliament is the one in the end that turns it into law.
I’m still a newbie in this area because I wasn’t able to vote due to my circumstances until last week.
As I mentioned before this might just be a standard day at the office for them. The commission makes wide and extreme proposals. Perhaps they even survey that stuff and look at the public opinion and allow time for debate. Eventually they create a reasonable law.
With Christian democrats in the majority (preliminary results), it’s doubtful the saga is over.
