this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024
119 points (99.2% liked)

Privacy

31281 readers
811 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

Chat rooms

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
119
Chat surveillance law by the EU Parliament? (results.elections.europa.eu)
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] noodlejetski@lemm.ee 19 points 3 months ago (3 children)

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.

https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/

[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 13 points 3 months ago (2 children)
[–] doodledup@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Great, so I'm seing this right that everyone is voting Yes?

[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's it, only the green party is "okay"

[–] doodledup@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Why is this not headline number 1 in every newspaper? It can't get any more dystopian than that. Why does nobody care, god damnit...

[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

Why it's not number 1? Because people are using SMS, Messenger and Instagram chats...

[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

You're right this world is crazy, they should talk about the right things...

[–] chordsphere1@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Is it true it's already implemented by google, meta...?

[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 months ago

No it's not implemented but they would implemented this backdoor if the law pass

[–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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?

[–] noodlejetski@lemm.ee 13 points 3 months ago (3 children)

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).

[–] chordsphere1@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Good luck with it, mister/miss

[–] chordsphere1@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 months ago

Thank you, good luck to you too

[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

That's sad but try to "afraid" a bit that's almost the only way to convinced non-privacy guy to switch...

[–] chordsphere1@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Sorry, what does "unfraid" mean?

[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago
[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Signal is great but lack some points, like the requirement of the mobile number or the centralisation of the servers

[–] noodlejetski@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

okay, but that's not relevant to what I'm talking about here.

[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago
[–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

I wasn't even talking about such cases. I was talking about people who need really secure and private communication in that particular comment

[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They can't if you use a VPN and the app is not in their jurisdiction

[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That would be difficult for sure but in fact it would be illegal

[–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I don't care if it's illegal if the law violates people's privacy tbh

[–] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago
[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I understand totally but it is better to stop this law as soon as possible

[–] EngineerGaming@feddit.nl 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 months ago

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

[–] eveninghere@beehaw.org 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] noodlejetski@lemm.ee 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] eveninghere@beehaw.org 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I read that and hoped for further information.

[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

In fact it would be "scanned" by AI for searching all the kinda sexual, abusive stuff... In fact to protect children

[–] eveninghere@beehaw.org 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

But the link described it as if it'll do database matching to find well-known images.

[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's why it's a scan, like done apple with their gallery. Scan signatures, AI recognition etc...

[–] eveninghere@beehaw.org 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

No, what I've interpret from the webpage is far more basic. Just matching images, almost like pixel-by-pixel. If you think about it, legally describing your interpretation (Apple's gallery) is very challenging and is thus possibly infeasible.

As a result, my feeling is that the EU is going with a far inferior method that doesn't have to send images to the server. Technically speaking (they might still require that).