10 ms·

Glad we could delay it for now. It will come back again and again with that high of support though. Also the German Bundestag is already discussing a compromise

Glad we could delay it for now. It will come back again and again with that high of support though. Also the German Bundestag is already discussing a compromise: https://www.bundestag.de/presse/hib/kurzmeldungen-1108356 https://www.bundestag.de/presse/hib/kurzmeldungen-1108356. They are only unhappy with certain points like breaking encryption. They still want to destroy privacy and cut back our rights in the name of "safety", just a little less.

mrktf 1y ago
Yes, sad part it will be implemented and I betting even in worse form than it is proposed... And worst part of it "safety" it for current governing party to destroy any opposition. My wild guess it will voted for with overwhelming majority using "times changed" argument.
- FinnLobsien 1y ago
  Let's hope it will be implemented in typical "Germany does anything on the computer" fashion where they endlessly debate into a theoretically comprehensive, but impossible to implement solution.
- latexr 1y ago
  > it will be implemented and I betting even in worse form than it is proposed That doesn’t seem likely, because every time this fails the new version is compromised from the previous one. For example, in the last revision you would be able to refuse the monitoring but it would mean you would be unable to send files or links. Still bad, but not worse.
ta1243 1y ago
The only way to win the argument is to win the argument with the public. In the UK the public overwhelmingly support the age controls, so even political parties who would otherwise oppose it just stay silent, because the public narrative You have to shift the narrative. Farage does this - he's finally after 20 years managed to get elected to parliament, he's head of a company with 4 MPs, same say as the Greens, about the same as the nationalists, yet for 20 years he has steered the conversation and got what he wants time after time
- iLoveOncall 1y ago
  > In the UK the public overwhelmingly support the age controls This couldn't be further from the truth. People usually support the idea if asked on the street in passing, but don't support the implementation at all.
  - WithinReason 1y ago
    It depends on how you ask the question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GSKwf4AIlI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GSKwf4AIlI
  - ta1243 1y ago
    > > In the UK the public overwhelmingly support the age controls > This couldn't be further from the truth. > People usually support the idea if asked on the street in passing So pretty close to the truth then?
    - iLoveOncall 1y ago
      No, given that the implementation has already landed, people don't support it.
      - ta1243 1y ago
        They support the idea. That's the fundamental problem. If people didn't support the idea then it wouldn't have gone in.
        const_cast 1y ago
        People support lots of ideas. I support the idea of everyone getting 1 billion dollars. Can we do that ethically? No. Of course not. The implementation must necessarily require death and theft. Age verification is a similar problem. I support the idea of minors not accessing bad data. Okay, cool. Is there an ethical way to implement that? No, of course not. It would require extreme surveillance and said surveillance would necessarily be used for evil. I mean, imagine this. New law: children can never smoke law. Great! 100% support! Now you must upload a video of you smoking every time you smoke so the government knows a child isn't smoking. Uh... Not great, very bad. Its all about how you ask the question: "do you support children never smoking" => 100% support. "Do you support requiring video uploads to the government of every time you smoke" => 0% support. We're actually asking the same question, it's just a matter of how favorably we show the issue.
uyzstvqs 1y ago
The bigger issue is that we need to make the EU actually democratic. Start by removing every branch but the European Parliament. That's the only solution.
- arlcode 1y ago
  The EU council is formed by the democratically elected member states. This follows an "upper house" approach used in many european countries. I'm strongly in favor of giving the parliament the ability to propose laws (directives). Currently only the comission can do that.
  - lmpdev 1y ago
    As an Australian normally subject to two upper houses (the current state I happen to live in is the only unicameral state) that seems very counter intuitive The way it seems to work in practice (here at least) is most partisan/normative legislation goes through the lower house upwards And bipartisan (or broadly unpopular or highly technical) legislation goes from the upper house down It’s more complicated than that, but a one way flow committee sounds extremely restrictive for meaningful reform A small number of pathways is a good thing, one lone process is probably not (you risk over fitting on both sides) Edit: Australian legislation has a lot of flaws, but this multimodal setup from my experience is not one of them
    - boxed 1y ago
      I believe the point of the EU structure is precisely to make it hard to make laws, because the EU was designed to NOT be a federalist system.
      - rgblambda 1y ago
        I think it's less to make it hard to make laws and more to ensure the primacy of the member states governments over the parliament, but for the same reason you gave. To not become a federation. In theory, if parliament had the power to propose legislation, the council would still be able to shoot those bills down, assuming no other changes to the EU structure.
immibis 1y ago
What do you mean "we"? Politicians don't care about you and me, and protesting is merely a useful distraction.
joz1-k 1y ago
I also think this is just a delay, not a final win. Also, this page hasn't been updated yet: <https://fightchatcontrol.eu/ https://fightchatcontrol.eu/> I recently heard a political discussion about this topic and was disappointed by the lack of technical competency among the participants. What we're talking about here is the requirement to run a non-auditable, non-transparent black box on any device to scan all communications. What could possibly go wrong with that?
- 0points 1y ago
  It's always just a delay until the next round with these guys. Chat control has already been voted down more than once in the past. They will keep at it until they succeed [1]. The playbook was copied from the tobacco & oil industry and perfected by hollywood. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_to_Prevent_and_Combat_Child_Sexual_Abuse#Legislative_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_to_Prevent_and_Comb...
  - walterbell 1y ago
    > keep at it until they succeed Is there any EU process to codify principles (e.g. Human Digital Rights) that need to be upheld in future attempts?
    - 0points 1y ago
      The EU article #8 of human rights [1] is deliberately loosely defined, both sounding nice at the first glance, while allowing for Chat Control style surveillance. Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_of_the_European_Conv...
HexPhantom 1y ago
The game isn't to win once, it’s to keep resisting every watered-down version they throw
robbingtherob 1y ago
[dead]
kebman 1y ago
Is this a good time to plug the creation of chat protocols running over distributed hash tables (DHT) (essentially a decentralized way of creating mini message servers) and with forward security and end-to-end encryption? I made a POF in Rust but I don't have time to dev this right now. (Unless angel investors to help me shift priorities lol...)
- _aavaa_ 1y ago
  It’s not. This is a political problem, not a technical one.
  - cherryteastain 1y ago
    People keep repeating this defeatist drivel but it's just not true. It's still up in the air whether you can defeat a law using technical measures, but it is a thoroughly settled matter that you cannot legislate away mathematics. We saw how laws completely failed to make encryption illegal in the 90s as open source encryption code spread rapidly on the internet. "Exporting" encryption software was illegal in many countries like USA and France but it became impossible to enforce those laws. A technical measure defeated the law. Encryption is just maths. It is the law being unreasonable here, and it will be the law which will ultimately have to concede defeat. UK is the perfect example here - Online Safety Act's anti-E2EE clauses have been basically declared by Ofcom to be impossible to implement and they are not even trying anymore.
    - _aavaa_ 1y ago
      > People keep repeating this defeatist drivel but it's just not true. It is not defeatist drivel to argue for political action rather than trying to hit everything with a technological hammer. > We saw how laws completely failed to make encryption illegal In the USA free speech rights defeated that law. > Encryption is just maths. But nothing in those maths guarantee you the ability to use them legally.
      - Gormo 1y ago

mrktf 1y ago

Yes, sad part it will be implemented and I betting even in worse form than it is proposed... And worst part of it "safety" it for current governing party to destroy any opposition. My wild guess it will voted for with overwhelming majority using "times changed" argument.

FinnLobsien 1y ago
Let's hope it will be implemented in typical "Germany does anything on the computer" fashion where they endlessly debate into a theoretically comprehensive, but impossible to implement solution.
latexr 1y ago
> it will be implemented and I betting even in worse form than it is proposed That doesn’t seem likely, because every time this fails the new version is compromised from the previous one. For example, in the last revision you would be able to refuse the monitoring but it would mean you would be unable to send files or links. Still bad, but not worse.

ta1243 1y ago

The only way to win the argument is to win the argument with the public. In the UK the public overwhelmingly support the age controls, so even political parties who would otherwise oppose it just stay silent, because the public narrative You have to shift the narrative. Farage does this - he's finally after 20 years managed to get elected to parliament, he's head of a company with 4 MPs, same say as the Greens, about the same as the nationalists, yet for 20 years he has steered the conversation and got what he wants time after time

iLoveOncall 1y ago
> In the UK the public overwhelmingly support the age controls This couldn't be further from the truth. People usually support the idea if asked on the street in passing, but don't support the implementation at all.
- WithinReason 1y ago
  It depends on how you ask the question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GSKwf4AIlI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GSKwf4AIlI
- ta1243 1y ago
  > > In the UK the public overwhelmingly support the age controls > This couldn't be further from the truth. > People usually support the idea if asked on the street in passing So pretty close to the truth then?
  - iLoveOncall 1y ago
    No, given that the implementation has already landed, people don't support it.
    - ta1243 1y ago
      They support the idea. That's the fundamental problem. If people didn't support the idea then it wouldn't have gone in.
      - const_cast 1y ago
        People support lots of ideas. I support the idea of everyone getting 1 billion dollars. Can we do that ethically? No. Of course not. The implementation must necessarily require death and theft. Age verification is a similar problem. I support the idea of minors not accessing bad data. Okay, cool. Is there an ethical way to implement that? No, of course not. It would require extreme surveillance and said surveillance would necessarily be used for evil. I mean, imagine this. New law: children can never smoke law. Great! 100% support! Now you must upload a video of you smoking every time you smoke so the government knows a child isn't smoking. Uh... Not great, very bad. Its all about how you ask the question: "do you support children never smoking" => 100% support. "Do you support requiring video uploads to the government of every time you smoke" => 0% support. We're actually asking the same question, it's just a matter of how favorably we show the issue.

uyzstvqs 1y ago

The bigger issue is that we need to make the EU actually democratic. Start by removing every branch but the European Parliament. That's the only solution.

arlcode 1y ago
The EU council is formed by the democratically elected member states. This follows an "upper house" approach used in many european countries. I'm strongly in favor of giving the parliament the ability to propose laws (directives). Currently only the comission can do that.
- lmpdev 1y ago
  As an Australian normally subject to two upper houses (the current state I happen to live in is the only unicameral state) that seems very counter intuitive The way it seems to work in practice (here at least) is most partisan/normative legislation goes through the lower house upwards And bipartisan (or broadly unpopular or highly technical) legislation goes from the upper house down It’s more complicated than that, but a one way flow committee sounds extremely restrictive for meaningful reform A small number of pathways is a good thing, one lone process is probably not (you risk over fitting on both sides) Edit: Australian legislation has a lot of flaws, but this multimodal setup from my experience is not one of them
  - boxed 1y ago
    I believe the point of the EU structure is precisely to make it hard to make laws, because the EU was designed to NOT be a federalist system.
    - rgblambda 1y ago
      I think it's less to make it hard to make laws and more to ensure the primacy of the member states governments over the parliament, but for the same reason you gave. To not become a federation. In theory, if parliament had the power to propose legislation, the council would still be able to shoot those bills down, assuming no other changes to the EU structure.

immibis 1y ago

What do you mean "we"? Politicians don't care about you and me, and protesting is merely a useful distraction.

joz1-k 1y ago

I also think this is just a delay, not a final win. Also, this page hasn't been updated yet: <https://fightchatcontrol.eu/ https://fightchatcontrol.eu/> I recently heard a political discussion about this topic and was disappointed by the lack of technical competency among the participants. What we're talking about here is the requirement to run a non-auditable, non-transparent black box on any device to scan all communications. What could possibly go wrong with that?

0points 1y ago
It's always just a delay until the next round with these guys. Chat control has already been voted down more than once in the past. They will keep at it until they succeed [1]. The playbook was copied from the tobacco & oil industry and perfected by hollywood. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_to_Prevent_and_Combat_Child_Sexual_Abuse#Legislative_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_to_Prevent_and_Comb...
- walterbell 1y ago
  > keep at it until they succeed Is there any EU process to codify principles (e.g. Human Digital Rights) that need to be upheld in future attempts?
  - 0points 1y ago
    The EU article #8 of human rights [1] is deliberately loosely defined, both sounding nice at the first glance, while allowing for Chat Control style surveillance. Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_of_the_European_Conv...

HexPhantom 1y ago

The game isn't to win once, it’s to keep resisting every watered-down version they throw

robbingtherob 1y ago

[dead]

kebman 1y ago

Is this a good time to plug the creation of chat protocols running over distributed hash tables (DHT) (essentially a decentralized way of creating mini message servers) and with forward security and end-to-end encryption? I made a POF in Rust but I don't have time to dev this right now. (Unless angel investors to help me shift priorities lol...)

_aavaa_ 1y ago
It’s not. This is a political problem, not a technical one.
- cherryteastain 1y ago
  People keep repeating this defeatist drivel but it's just not true. It's still up in the air whether you can defeat a law using technical measures, but it is a thoroughly settled matter that you cannot legislate away mathematics. We saw how laws completely failed to make encryption illegal in the 90s as open source encryption code spread rapidly on the internet. "Exporting" encryption software was illegal in many countries like USA and France but it became impossible to enforce those laws. A technical measure defeated the law. Encryption is just maths. It is the law being unreasonable here, and it will be the law which will ultimately have to concede defeat. UK is the perfect example here - Online Safety Act's anti-E2EE clauses have been basically declared by Ofcom to be impossible to implement and they are not even trying anymore.
  - _aavaa_ 1y ago
    > People keep repeating this defeatist drivel but it's just not true. It is not defeatist drivel to argue for political action rather than trying to hit everything with a technological hammer. > We saw how laws completely failed to make encryption illegal In the USA free speech rights defeated that law. > Encryption is just maths. But nothing in those maths guarantee you the ability to use them legally.
    - Gormo 1y ago