• RandomSomeone@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 years ago

      It is, actually. The reason:

      Chat Control is a temporary measure (on paper, we’ll see how that actually shakes out)

      Little by little, we’re loosing ground. Temporary often means permanent. They’ll go with bullshit like “the measure has been proven very effective, we decided to make it permanent for [insert here emotional reasons]” (this is for the media) and then show some biased data.

    • Jama@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 years ago

      Nah, it is. Of course it isn’t a Chinese-like social score system, or an USA-like level of mass surveillance, but it is serious and extremely dangerous. There is no way to check if an e2e message contain something specific without building a backdoor in every service or in every device. European Parliament doesn’t know how e2e work and they really want to check every message without technically breaking e2e (of course this is impossible). Some proposal to do that are: bake a system in every new PC/smartphone to check images or contents BEFORE those are encrypted and sent, bake a system in any app/program that officially works in the UE to check for suspicious content directly on the sender device… These are absolutely dangerous and terrible measures that will potentially endager the whole population.

  • yxzi@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.”

    What happened to freedom of speech?

    • freely@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      EU != USA.
      Do they even have something akin to Miranda rights?

      I got curious and found Article 10 of the ECHR which refers to their version of freedom of speech and it does have restrictions based on the following:

      • interests of national security
      • territorial integrity or public safety
      • prevention of disorder or crime
      • protection of health or morals
      • protection of the reputation or the rights of others
      • preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence
      • maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary

      I could see how that could be misused by any politicians to do as they please. But we have the same problems in the USA so no suprise there.