• bier@feddit.nl
    2·
    22 days ago

    EU: We are not going to read your chats or look at your photos, we just stop the CP.

    People: so how will you know what chats and photos contain CP?

    EU: Just trust me bro…

    • wolfiedafloof@lemmy.world
      0·
      21 days ago

      I don’t see how we can stop it. If they don’t succeed this year, they will try the next, and if not next, they will try the year after until it works. How do we stop this? We can’t. Its like cancer. You can only slow the process down by being against them. Thats it :/ we all will be surveiled and there is nothing to stop it.

      All we do as privacy advocates is to jump around. If one thing becomes illegal, we jump over to something else that provides privacy once again.

      We are slowly becoming cashless, but new tech arrived and we started with crypto like monero. Once crypto is banned, we find different methods in staying anonymous or private :)

  • onlooker@lemmy.ml
    1·
    23 days ago

    Only material that is clearly child sexual abuse will be searched for and can be detected.

    Uh-huh. And how do you search for something specific without decrypting everything first? This is fucking embarrassing.

    • Scavenger8294@feddit.orgEnglish
      0·
      23 days ago

      Wasn’t the plan for the messenger to scan for explicit material before the messages were sent (and encrypted)?

      • onlooker@lemmy.ml
        0·
        23 days ago

        I’m going off of a article by TechRadar, but essentially: yes. This isn’t about breaking encryption as I initially thought, though that seems to have been the goal when the same law was proposed (and rightfully rejected) in 2022. Rather, the new revision is about making encryption utterly pointless through the virtue of scanning all messages on your device, as you suggested. At least that’s my read on the situation.

        • Eirikr70@jlai.lu
          0·
          23 days ago

          And so, where is the problem?.. Your message is scanned. If it is illegitimate you can’t send it. What is the problem?

          • Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            1·
            22 days ago

            What if they decide tomorrow that critisising the government is unlawful? That you get arrested for being LGBTQ? Send “Free Palestine” at your friends and have cops at your door?

            If they allow this scanning, they just need to edit a text file to immediately flag thousands for having certain beliefs.

            Besides, the real criminals will just move encryption to a different level or find different ways to bypass this.

            Ultimately, there’s only one solution for governments. That is to ban all encryption. And hopefully that’s something we never see happening.

  • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    1·
    23 days ago

    “Only the thing we are searching for will be searched for”

    How do you know if a message has that content without scanning all messages to begin with?

    The fuck? Do they think we are stupid?

    • tiwdll@lemmy.ml
      1·
      23 days ago

      Do they think we are stupid?

      They definitely do. And they are partly right, for the average person this is enough to stop worrying

  • Fluffy Kitty Cat@slrpnk.netEnglish
    1·
    23 days ago

    Yeah we all know that’s BS. “Child porn only” will become “anything illegal” which will become “whatever we want” and SL"with a warrant" will become “all the time”

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    0·
    23 days ago

    … And how will you be able to distinguish between encrypted child pornography and encrypted normal messages?

    It’s kind of the crux of the matter, so please answer this question

    • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
      1·
      22 days ago

      Here is a less radical version

      Privacy is not negotiable. It is not a privilege granted by the state, but a fundamental condition of human freedom. Any attempt to undermine encryption, to insert backdoors, or to surveil private communications is not about protecting children, it is about total control.

      The invocation of child protection is not neutral. It is a deliberate emotional manipulation, weaponized to silence dissent and shame opposition. If these proposals were truly about helping children, they wouldn’t be attacking the one technology that protects vulnerable people, encryption, including children themselves, activists, journalists, and victims of abuse.

      Once the infrastructure for total surveillance is in place, it will never be dismantled without revolution. History is clear: power concedes nothing voluntarily. There will be no going back. The moment we compromise, we lose everything, and we will not get it back without blood.

      There is no middle ground between liberty and submission. This is not a policy debate. This is a war for the future of human autonomy. We must reject this system entirely, not tweak it, not reform it, but destroy it at its root. To preserve freedom, we must be absolutely ungovernable.