• schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    6 hours ago

    misleading headline, this isn’t a list of countries in which the law will (if it passes) be different (it won’t be, it’s an EU law, so will be the same in all EU countries), it’s a list of countries that currently support/oppose the law

    • unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      It isn’t misleading (that’d be a technically true headline, which this isn’t). This is a downright lie, or as some might say, “fake news”.

  • dave@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Countries which support the implementation of Chat Control:

    Spain, Romania, Portugal, Malta Lithuania, Hungary, Ireland, France, Denmark, Croatia, Cyprus, and Bulgaria.

    Countries that are undecided:

    Belgium, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Slovakia, and Sweden.

    Countries which oppose Chat Control:

    Slovenia, the Netherlands, Poland, Luxembourg, Germany, Estonia, Finland, the Czech Republic, and Austria

  • moretruth@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Wow, this is bad. I thought this was over when Germany chose not to support it. Apparently not!

  • truthfultemporarily@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    7 hours ago

    I’m missing a bit the fact that this is not a law yet. This is the position of the commission, which the parliament will then need to approve and has to get past the ECHR as well most likely.

  • Armand1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    It’s kind of unclear what “voluntary” means. Is it voluntary for countries to enforce? Is it voluntary for companies to scan chats?

    • DacoTaco@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      48 minutes ago

      The later. However, they could still be fines for not doing what is needed to reduce “the risks of the of the chat app”, whatever the fuck that can mean when talking about illegal.content

      • Armand1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        In that case, is there any change? Companies could already do that if they wanted. Many of them already did.

  • DuskyRo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Welp guys, looks like I’m moving to [insert country without that sh*t] (TBD). Or atleast my router is.

    • ඞmir@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 hours ago

      The implementation is client-side, so this wouldn’t work. It forces all apps to have a client-side backdoor.

    • bjrn@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Or Molly (alternative and more secure FOSS Android app for Signal), or Session or SimpleX.

      • Gutek8134@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Write your own E2E encrypted peer-to-peer chat app (nobody has got time for that) or use some that doesn’t care about the law (pretty risky if it’s not open source, I doubt they’ll survive for long in the open), I guess