this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
677 points (98.7% liked)

Privacy

32177 readers
659 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

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/6469594

How to contact your MEP.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] GekkoState@lemmings.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Would a way to legally bypass this be an app that can "encrypt" your text before your send it. The government would be able to see all of your messages but it would be scrambled in a way that they couldn't read it.

Something where both people would install the same text scrambling app and generate the same key to scramble all text (would need to do in person). They would then type all their text into the app and it would scramble it. The user would then copy The Scrambled text and send it over any messaging platform they want. The recipient would need to copy the text and put it back into the scrambling app to descramble it.

[–] You999@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

This is how PGP works and is pretty widely used. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Assume any encrypted system can be decrypted at some point anyway. The best encryption is at the source- your language and the way you present the message you want to keep hidden.

Of course, this does not apply to people who just want their general conversation encrypted. To you, I say you're out of luck and I'm sorry.

[–] emptiestplace@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I suspect you can easily relate to the frustration of being dragged into arguments on irrelevant details of a thing for which the actual concerns are fundamental in nature. That's not nothing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Norgur@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Yeah... Because hampering legal encryption will totally hamper all those who just continue to use the methods we have today.

[–] Asudox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I like how patrick breyer makes a warning with all the logical points. Especially this: "Fourthly, scanning for known, thus old material does not help identify and rescue victims, or prevent child sexual abuse. It will actually make safeguarding victims more difficult by pushing criminals to secure, decentralised communication channels which are impossible to intercept even with a warrant."

I am not sure what the people over there think, but the criminals will not just continue using these services.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›