4 ms·
In this case it's not really about mass surveillance. I genuinely do not believe it's the intended purpose (even if it is the actual outcome). The issue is tha
by IMTDb 2y ago
In this case it's not really about mass surveillance. I genuinely do not believe it's the intended purpose (even if it is the actual outcome).
The issue is that Europe is behind in tech; particularly big communication networks (aka: social networks). One key element here is that the amount of taxes paid by the Facebooks and co. is ridiculously low and their importance in the economy is getting bigger and bigger. This causes a significant risk for the future.
Any attempt that we made to combat this on the technological aspect has been a complete failure.
To protect its citizen, Europe uses the biggest weapon at its disposal: regulations. The point is not to impose mass surveillance, nor is it to protect the children; the point is to hurt social networks because they are perceived as a threat (real or not). Hammer them with regulations until it's almost impossible to comply, if possible by implementing conflicting ideas (protect privacy of everyone BUT check every image for child pornography !).
The desired outcome is that: either the social network goes out of Europe, or decides to accept the fines, which more or less corresponds to what Europe believes should have been paid by a fair tax system.
Expect the exact same thing to happen with AI.
- dsign 2y agoDomestic incumbents (social networks or messenger apps) would need to jump through the same hoops. So, I would say that, as a whole, the goal is to get people to self-sensor and to fear the establishment. If the EU wished more competition by domestic companies, they could simply pass a law restricting the income tax by member states to not go over 50% of earned income. In my current jurisdiction, a lowly IT worker can easily pay a 66% tax rate, with 54% being paid as nominal taxes and the rest going as employer taxes. Unless you are self-employed, in which case you will get to pay your 66% with no smoke curtains in the middle.
- account42 2y ago> In my current jurisdiction, a lowly IT worker can easily pay a 66% tax rate, with 54% being paid as nominal taxes and the rest going as employer taxes. Now add VAT to really see how little of your labour translates into purchasing power.
- vaylian 2y agoThat doesn't make sense. There are 2 versions of chatcontrol: 1. Voluntary chatcontrol (i.e. temporary derogation of the ePrivacy directive) 2. Mandatory chatcontrol (i.e. services must scan private communication once a detection order is issued) The first version of chatcontrol is currently in effect, but it will expire in a few years. It was introduced, because social media (like facebook) was already scanning private communication to find CSAM and then someone pointed out that this is illegal in the EU and thus the ePrivacy directive was sabotaged to allow the scanning of private communication. Facebook wanted to have a legal basis for the scanning of private communication. This does not hurt non-EU social networks, it helps them.
- EasyMark 2y agoThey don’t need mass surveillance to crush Facebook/tiktok in the EU, so I don’t see how you can draw this conclusion. They can easily regulate those two (and other)entities out of existence. Just make it illegal for anyone under 21 to use them and require everything to be kid friendly (no porn, no violence, no addictive advertising, etc) and they will be useless to virtually everyone except the elderly and that’s not where the money is. So I feel that this 100% about surveillance for the police state to comb through everyone’s lives looking for crimes to prosecute. There are so many laws and regulations I suspect most of us break multiple ones a day without realizing it.
- account42 2y agoThis doesn't make any sense. The big social networks can aren't hurt by a requirement to scan messages. At best its another operating costs.