Top
Best
New

Posted by speckx 3 days ago

Chat Control proposal fails again after public opposition(andreafortuna.org)
591 points | 156 commentspage 2
Caius-Cosades 1 day ago|
The question is not whether or not it will pass, but when. There are no limits to the times something can be proposed or voted on, and it is only required to pass that voting/proposal loop once. And this brute-force method has been proven to work in Europe and in the EU.
spwa4 2 days ago||
If you're going to do this, I wish people would go the other way. Don't work to prevent the worst from happening.

Write a law that end-users have an unlimited right to execute their own programs on their own devices, on par with the producers of said devices, just any code they want. A device doesn't support that? No selling in the EU for you ...

Such a right would make chat control impossible and unworkable as well, for the same reason that open source encryption can't be hacked. It will be impossible to prevent secure messengers to be installed.

IshKebab 3 days ago||
> the fundamental misunderstanding of encryption technology continues to plague policy discussions across Europe.

> Client-side scanning, the technical approach favored by Chat Control advocates, attempts to circumvent this limitation by analyzing messages on users’ devices before encryption or after decryption. While this might sound like a clever workaround, it fundamentally breaks the security model of encryption.

It's not a misunderstanding, it's deliberate circumvention. It doesn't do anyone any good to pretend that they just don't understand.

shevy-java 3 days ago||
People, as I reasoned on reddit - do not trust those who want to push for it. Several mega-corporations want it. See how lobbyists continue to fight for this.

Watch them carefully. They will 100% try again. The enemy is the general public.

api 3 days ago||
Big corporations like expensive complicated regulations and onerous mandates because it’s a moat. They can afford to comply while indie companies, open source efforts, and startups cannot. The cost of regulatory compliance is nothing compared to the benefit of not having to compete.

A heavily regulated market becomes an oligopoly of a few players with revolving door access to government and often interlocking directorates, patent cross licensing, and other ways of further colluding to keep out competition.

This is why, for example, the big lavishly funded AI ventures are all about “safety” regulation. It would stop anyone from competing. So far that effort has also failed but expect them to keep trying.

mouse-5346 3 days ago||
If these AI companies wanted to preserve privacy they would have done it immediately after it was apparent OpenAI scraped data it shouldn't have to train it's models. Any resistance and privacy concerns these businesses raise now is only to gatekeep training data out of the hands of.would be competitors and only accessible to themselves.
echelon 3 days ago||
> They will 100% try again.

We only have to lose once. Erosion is a process.

Every country should fight for constitutional protections for its citizens' rights to (internet) privacy. But that'll never have support from politicians, and laypeople don't have the ability to appreciate this highly technical and nuanced topic.

It's only when opposition is mounted to each individual attempt that we can rally public support. Sadly, we can only muster this energy in the face of losing freedom. And it only has to falter once.

rsynnott 2 days ago|||
In practice, this is likely both unconstitutional in many member states and at least pretty dodgy with respect to the EU’s can’t-believe-it’s-not-a-constitution.
hereme888 3 days ago|||
[flagged]
mcny 3 days ago||
I wouldn't trust a single word that comes out of his mouth.
hereme888 2 days ago||
A statement directly from the authority himself? As opposed to what, an opinionated CNN journalist?
quantummagic 3 days ago||
People should be ashamed to support such chat control proposals. It should become as socially taboo as racism or sexism, and people who transgress such social norms should be tarnished with the same social stigma.
varispeed 3 days ago||
This was just another terrorist attack attempt by white collar autocrats. EU failed to recognise it as such. Groups proposing such mass assault at the public belong behind bars, not to be given consideration. If someone proposed legislation for compulsory mass rape, would European Commission take it through legislative process? Unlikely. So they have a massive blind spot, or are working together to move Overton window and eventually this will pass. Dangerous times.
tjpnz 2 days ago||
All the politicians who supported this should be named so people know to choose better next time.
dfajgljsldkjag 3 days ago||
Article is just AI generated slop. Don't bother clicking.
hexbin010 2 days ago||
Is it because they're focusing their efforts on the much worse ProtectEU? I can't keep up
gotekom952 3 days ago|
victory... until we meet again.
More comments...