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
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
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
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.