3 ms·

> So, if I'm reading this correctly, Chat Control [2.0, implied] is bound to become law? Nope. This is bad, but not THAT bad. This is an extension of the exis

> So, if I'm reading this correctly, Chat Control [2.0, implied] is bound to become law? Nope. This is bad, but not THAT bad. This is an extension of the existing Chat Control 1.0, which was set to expire (or maybe already has, I didn't keep track). AIUI it gives chat companies permission to scan user chats for illicit content, but does not mandate it. This is bad, but it's not the much worse still Chat Control 2.0 that was defeated several times already.

delusional 3mo ago
> or maybe already has, I didn't keep track Literally second paragraph. > to reinstate the transitional regulation for Chat Control, which expired in April
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
belowavgiq 3mo ago
Thanks for the correction! I guess I can live with that.
- MaxikCZ 3mo ago
  yes. Frog will be boiled tomorrow, no need to panic today.
  - order-matters 3mo ago
    I think their point is that you lose some battles in a war, chat Control 1.0 is a battle that was already lost. While it is still worthwhile to make an effort to retake lost ground there, that can be done strategically and through habitual effort and does not demand immediate attention the same way an imminent threat of losing new ground would be
    - dgellow 3mo ago
      > chat Control 1.0 is a battle that was already lost That’s not true, the previous instance of it expired, and the parliament rejected it. It wasn’t already lost, it was actually a win for people against the proposal
      - inigyou 3mo ago
        I can't actually think of a good reason that the law should prohibit a company from having the option to automatically scan private messages for CSAM. Can you? Certain implementations may fall afoul of data protection laws however.
        rightbyte 3mo ago
        A good reason might be that you don't want your private messages to be scanned by any third party in a conversation...
        inigyou 3mo ago
        Then don't send them over Facebook - with or without this law
        throw1234567891 3mo ago
        Yeah, or by email, or text message.
        AngryData 3mo ago
        Because they shouldn't be scanning private messages indiscriminately no matter for what. Lets rephrase it and look at it from "private companies will scan their users private messages for evidence of crimes and report people to police." Where is the limit here? I think it is naive to assume this will stop at csam and will soon be used as a judicial bludgen to extort random citizens for petty crimes that in any other case nobody would ever care or know about.
clear-octopus 3mo ago
[dead]

delusional 3mo ago

> or maybe already has, I didn't keep track Literally second paragraph. > to reinstate the transitional regulation for Chat Control, which expired in April

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]

belowavgiq 3mo ago

Thanks for the correction! I guess I can live with that.

MaxikCZ 3mo ago
yes. Frog will be boiled tomorrow, no need to panic today.
- order-matters 3mo ago
  I think their point is that you lose some battles in a war, chat Control 1.0 is a battle that was already lost. While it is still worthwhile to make an effort to retake lost ground there, that can be done strategically and through habitual effort and does not demand immediate attention the same way an imminent threat of losing new ground would be
  - dgellow 3mo ago
    > chat Control 1.0 is a battle that was already lost That’s not true, the previous instance of it expired, and the parliament rejected it. It wasn’t already lost, it was actually a win for people against the proposal
    - inigyou 3mo ago
      I can't actually think of a good reason that the law should prohibit a company from having the option to automatically scan private messages for CSAM. Can you? Certain implementations may fall afoul of data protection laws however.
      - rightbyte 3mo ago
        A good reason might be that you don't want your private messages to be scanned by any third party in a conversation...
        inigyou 3mo ago
        Then don't send them over Facebook - with or without this law
        throw1234567891 3mo ago
        Yeah, or by email, or text message.
      - AngryData 3mo ago
        Because they shouldn't be scanning private messages indiscriminately no matter for what. Lets rephrase it and look at it from "private companies will scan their users private messages for evidence of crimes and report people to police." Where is the limit here? I think it is naive to assume this will stop at csam and will soon be used as a judicial bludgen to extort random citizens for petty crimes that in any other case nobody would ever care or know about.

clear-octopus 3mo ago

[dead]