Posted by _p2zi 9/8/2025
They do this using warrants. And subpoena.
We need a personal declaration of rights that says private systems are not in anyway obligated to extend the reach of govt surveillance networks, without the consent of the private party.
It is a small protective measure. The next step will be for govt to bully everyone to give consent to their surveillance systems … or else.
But as of right now, the law is arbitrarily taking for granted that private surveillance systems belong to govt regulations.
especially technology
especially information technology
politicians are selected for being people-oriented therefore most are hopelessly underinformed
and it's very very very easy to get caught up in ideologies
and then means to an end seems like business as usual
Democracy is being served. People want this stuff. HN people maybe not, but let's not pretend we represent anything but a noisy minority. It's entirely democratic AFAICT, "think of the children" and "think of the terrorists" won the argument some time ago.
Free speech is not held as an absolute in many countries as it is in the US, and never has been. It is in a bad state in some places (the UK seems to be performing poorly on this measure) but a lot of places feel the right to spew whatever toxic lies spring to mind without consequences might not be entirely healthy either.
Justice? I think justice is performed better in many European nations than most of the rest of the world.
And freedom... lots of people like to claim the US is the most free place on earth, but it's really not clear that's true. There are freedoms in other countries not enjoyed in the US. Here in Australia for example, I am free to collect the rainwater and filter it for my drinking-water supply, something that's not true in every state.
Is this an authoritarian move that ought to be spoken against by those who know and care? Absolutely. Does it mean that there's no more democracy in Europe? No, that's a little ridiculous.
As long as you know when you're being used by their fake services.
Disclaimer that I actually don't know what the full extent this chat control law is asking for, except for the fact that it will deeply compromise encryption
then what? you decrypt the answer and send it back to them? promise that you totally didn't change the answer?
FHE is the wrong tool for the job. you'd want verifiable computation (e.g. ni-ZKP) instead. both are too complex and faaar too computationally expensive for actual use.
>Apple, for instance, already solved this with NeuraHash
"Solved"
So did anyone ask the question ... is law enforcement actually helping children, when they act? This of course often results in the state raising such children, so the real question is how well that works, compared to not acting at all. Turns out there's a huge study on this, and of course the answer is a big fat no. And that was before another 10+ years of funding cuts.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120609063509/https://www.usato...
https://mitsloan.mit.edu/shared/ods/documents?PublicationDoc...
So no, this is not about law enforcement helping children, because they don't provide a solution for the damage they do when acting. The result is law enforcement, on average, makes things worse for children, not better. These institutions are also getting systematically defunded across the EU, it's not getting better.
It is not reasonably believable this is about protecting children. You want to protect children? FIRST, you restore the budget of the institutions caring for children after law enforcement "helps".
If the writer of this post wants people to oppose it, they really should do a better job of explaining at the very top what "it" is.