3 ms·
Yes. Chat Control 2.0 was the big one in those regards. (Also, LOL @ Skype mention.)
by lrae 3mo ago
Yes.
Chat Control 2.0 was the big one in those regards.
(Also, LOL @ Skype mention.)
- mrtksn 3mo agoThen I'm not very moved about this. I always assumed that anything unencrypted is scanned one way or another. What I care is not having a backdoor for E2E, i.e. like client-side scanning telling me what I am allowed to talk about like with the LLMs. CSAM excuse is a great excuse to turn every conversation to what we have with AI today.
- stavros 3mo agoAnd the temperature of the frog pot rises by one degree.
- mrtksn 3mo ago[flagged]
- hnhg 3mo agoIt's a metaphor for a process. Calling people names like "maxxers" is unhelpful and probably against the rules here.
- mrtksn 3mo ago>It's a metaphor for a process. Calling people names like "maxxers" is unhelpful and probably against the rules here. Yeah we don't mean frogs, that's obvious. Calling people maxxers being offensive is surprising. Maybe you should consider offended for being called cancer instead?
- JoshTriplett 3mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation The truth is not always somewhere in the middle. If one group wants to serve water and another wants to serve cyanide, the right answer is not to mix the two, it's to serve water and to end the careers of the people who wanted to serve cyanide.
- mrtksn 3mo agoI am not arguing for a middle ground, I argue for addressing the issues directly instead of being maximalist in any way.
- JoshTriplett 3mo agoYou are dismissing things as "maximalist", which is not conducive to treating certain things as sacrosanct. For example: end-to-end encryption is sacrosanct, and must not be broken, ever. If you want access, your only option should be to serve one of the ends a warrant. That's not "maximalist", that's holding to a principle.
- kode-targz 3mo agoI disagree. The definition of "bad actor" constantly changes. Something you do legally today can and will become illegal in the future, and if you don't change your ways, you will be a bad actor, too. The people pushing for this under the guise of protecting children are the same people who went on The Island, or at least protect those who did. They never cared about children's safety. The biggest criminals of all are the very same people pushing for these laws, this surveillance, this control. Don't be fooled.
- mrtksn 3mo agoSure, the definition changes but whoever are the bad actors now create the desire to deal with them, which creates a motive or excuse to create or change systems for that. No matter how fair or unfair the treatment is, if you actually manage to stonewall that through technological or other means, those will be destroyed.
- kode-targz 3mo agoI don't think I understand what you're trying to say in this comment, but if by: >if you actually manage to stonewall that through technological or other means, those will be destroyed You mean some kind of resistance against tyrannical policies, then those "other means", if I understand what you're saying, are often illegal. True resistance that causes true societal change isn't parading the streets with signs or talking to your local representative. It's sabotage, vandalism, and in extreme cases, violence. True activism. The surveillance state's main goal is disrupting such initiatives before they can even get off the ground.
- alanwreath 3mo agoI assume the same, but not because it’s sanctioned. Sanctioning is a slippery slope or a degree change as has been mentioned.
- zelphirkalt 3mo agoIf reading messages that are not for ones eyes is OK, then it is a much smaller step to the next level, which is to also being able to read encrypted messages. Slowly boiling the frog.
- shangofox 3mo agoBut the next level IS the chat control 2.0 and yes it is the one people should be concerned about. But it's not like this is unprecedented this is literally just an extension of something that existed.
- Idesmi 3mo ago> I always assumed that anything unencrypted is scanned one way or another By this logic, I should be happy if mail delivered to my address always arrives already open.
- raverbashing 3mo agoAre my AIM chats safe?! /s
- mghackerlady 3mo agoYou kid, but there are still some active AIM users (or at least, a revival of it)
- ibejoeb 3mo agoYou should be using AIM OTR: https://otr.cypherpunks.ca/ https://otr.cypherpunks.ca/
- Bender 3mo agoAdding to this there is pidgin-otr and python-potr. For IRC there is irssi-otr. There was weechat-otr but I think it may have gone unsupported as their script did not work in python3. There is also ejabberd [0] that has OMEMO [1] preferred over OTR and PGP and supports many to many E2EE. Someone tried to MitM Jabber, discussion here on HN [2]. [0] - https://ejabberd.im/ https://ejabberd.im/ [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMEMO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMEMO [2] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37955264 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37955264
- bombcar 3mo agoDon't downplay Skype, as Teams is still just rebranded Skype for Business (LYNC).