this post was submitted on 29 May 2024
231 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

77795 readers
2296 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
231
‘Let yourself be monitored’: EU governments to agree on Chat Control with user “consent” [updated] (www.patrick-breyer.de)
submitted 2 years ago by nifty@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
35 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mox@lemmy.sdf.org 127 points 2 years ago (1 children)

users of apps with a communication function would have to agree via terms and conditions or pop-up messages that all images and videos sent to others will be scanned automatically and possibly reported to the EU and the police.

This is more like coercion than consent.

And let's be clear: The goal of legislation like this is not to allow investigating child abusers, which can already be done legally. The goal is to impose mass surveillance on the population, circumventing due process.

[–] dunz@feddit.nu 23 points 2 years ago (2 children)

What if I don't agree? No messages?

[–] lost_faith@lemmy.ca 16 points 2 years ago (1 children)

On the next EULA click no or don't agree and try using the service

[–] dunz@feddit.nu 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It works with cookie popups, except you need to deny them with every page load

[–] tb_@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

Those are a little different.

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago

Most likely.

[–] cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 67 points 2 years ago (5 children)

This will probably just make peer to peer messaging apps more popular.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Briar is pretty cool if you're on Android.

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What's the advantage over signal?

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If you have Internet it uses tor and there's no main server to rely on.

If there's no Internet it can use Bluetooth and Wi-Fi locally.

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Well I have to admit, those are some pretty snazzy tricks...

Using tor on a per app basis is pretty cool, I wonder what the security implications are for that? If some, but not all of your traffic is going through tor, I wonder if it's easier to disentangle somehow... Probably it's still secure though.

[–] Audalin@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Very cool and impressive, but I'd rather be able to share arbitrary files.

And looks like you can only send images in DMs, but not in groups/forums.

[–] steersman2484@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I don't think that most people will care

[–] LordCrom@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (2 children)

99 percent of people won't care, won't understand, or just be part of the mindset of why be scared if we have nothing to hide.

Only us techs will care

[–] robigan@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Facts, if I could donate a star or gold I would

[–] steersman2484@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I just don't get it why mainsteam media almost never reports about this.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 years ago

Because it's not been free press for a long time.

Remember when journalism was supposed to be outrageous? That's not a mark of quality, that's a rule. If it's not outrageous, then it's most likely not journalism.

It also never reports on wars outside of the agreed upon narrative. There's time and narrative for everything. That doesn't happen with free press. There may not be open censorship and coercion, but not seeing something is different from knowing it doesn't exist.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 6 points 2 years ago

Well, ones that aren't based on a service operating in the EU, at any rate.

[–] Oha@lemmy.ohaa.xyz 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

this could finally be a good "reason" to convice some people near me to get into meshtastic

[–] Bezzelbob@lemmy.world 60 points 2 years ago (3 children)

They always hide behind the claim it's for the children... but how many children have they actually saved from this?

[–] tal@lemmy.today 40 points 2 years ago (2 children)

They always hide behind the claim it’s for the children

Sometimes it's the terrorists.

[–] pirat@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

But... Are they then going to catch or protect all the terrorist children?

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 years ago

It's so that children wouldn't get recruited by terrorists.

Extrapolating a bit, children here may symbolize the civilian casualties of that world order becoming a bit more open, and terrorists those of us who don't agree.

See, I can do this without alcohol.

[–] Beaver@lemmy.ca 21 points 2 years ago (1 children)

They’re probably gonna put parents behind bars for a misunderstanding on their private lives

[–] Bezzelbob@lemmy.world 39 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This reminds me of that time google was scanning photos and reported a man to the police for being a pedophile, turns out it was a father sending a picture to his doctor

[–] Beaver@lemmy.ca 15 points 2 years ago

That's our tax dollars at work.

[–] applepie@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago

Catholic clergy is sill grifting around this here country...

[–] archchan@lemmy.ml 38 points 2 years ago

If consent mattered, governments and corporations all around the world wouldn't be pushing to expand the global surveillance apparatus.

Is this just another Tuesday now? Fuck me.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago

Self hosting for the win!

[–] uebquauntbez@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'd vote for testing this mass chat control on politicians and CEOs of the companies that want this mass control. Let's say for the next 10 years? Or 20? Pretty sure the results will be great. For people, for justice, for democracy.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 years ago

That won't happen. What will happen is that functionality will be there, on paper requiring your consent, but you'll never know how many times they've used it without consent.

They will read your correspondence, find threats to their power, make sure by soft nudges that those never materialize.

People saying that USSR was democratic will get to live in one, only without even the ideology of "freeing the humanity, building communism and colonizing space".

[–] barryamelton@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Even if you don't opt in, 99% of the people you interact with would have opted in. So you will monitored as they please.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

As if any chat systems inteded for dubious purposes in the darknet would give a flying f-ck about this law.