• gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      3·
      1 hour ago

      All that means it’s that it won’t become EU-wide, could still become applied in those “Yes” voters off their own initiatives

  • Tattorack@lemmy.world
    9·
    2 hours ago

    Still can’t fucking believe Denmark, my country, supports this. Yeah, it got revised thanks to Denmark, but it shouldn’t be revised, it should be killed.

    • Obin@feddit.org
      3·
      45 minutes ago

      Denmark not only supports it, it was and is the one country that pushes the hardest for it, from the start. Which is weird because to my German perspective, because I wouldn’t exactly associate Denmark with a police-state, quite the opposite actually, especially compared to Germany.

      • eldavi@lemmy.mlEnglish
        21·
        37 minutes ago

        the europeans on lemmy continue to insist that americans are ahead of the fascism game; but we still don’t have chat control and have only elected one fascist so far. lol

  • olenkoVD@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    4·
    2 hours ago

    Question for a the Fight Chat Control website: My country’s primary language is not English, do I need to translate the e-mail?

  • WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today
    16·
    59 minutes ago

    I was against it until I realized they would also ban minors from Roblox.

    That’s kind of weird, but it would be awesome to invade the now empty lego game, filled with only adults…

    • explodicle@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      21·
      16 minutes ago

      As a parent, I ban my own kids from Roblox. Because it’s my job to protect my own children, not the government’s job to treat everyone like children. This policy would put my children in more danger because they’ll need free speech once they’re adults.

  • Zagorath@aussie.zoneEnglish
    6·
    5 hours ago

    outlaws anonymous communication by requiring every citizen to verify their age before accessing a service

    This is likely to be the case in practice, but technologically, it does not have to be the case.

    If the age verifiers (which IMO should be the governments themselves[1], but could also be a private third-party, as long as it’s not the same as the social media company) only ever receive a blinded token representing the user, verify the user’s age, and then the user brings that token back to the social media site, unblind it, and present them the signed token, there is no way for the age verifier to track which sites a person visits, and no way for the sites to have any detail about who their users are (other than what they already have).

    1. obviously, it actually shouldn’t be anyone at all: parents should be put in charge of their own kids, and maybe given the tools with robust parental control software to handle it client-side. Government server-side age verification is just not a good option. But if we assume they’re going to do that, we should at least discuss the way it could be done in the least-bad way. ↩︎

  • lascapi@jlai.lu
    12·
    7 hours ago

    That’s not a surprise, but that’s sad!!

    Let’s continue to fight against!!!

  • HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.orgOP
    951·
    10 hours ago

    Why is this specifically relevant to Linux users?

    Well,

    • controlling end-to-end encrypted messages is only possible if either the keys/certificates are not secret (which is possible with TLS), or the software on the end-users device is not controlled any more by the user (but perhaps by law enforcement, or companies). This overturns the basis of any FLOSS software system where trust is based on transparency and user control.
    • age verification will typically done by a form of attestation, a highly problematic concept. Again, this would require to run software on the users device which can’t be controlled by him or her, which is deceptively called “trusted computing”. (Technically, age verification could be done by other means, but this is not what these proposals aim for).
    • in the world of public-key cryptography, which is what TLS , GnuPG, and most other modern systems are based in, encryption and digital signatures are nothing but two sides of the same coin: Who breaks encryption keys necessarily also breaks signature keys. This means it is not possible any more to sign software such as the Linux kernel, or Email clients, or browser packages. Or even banking apps or bootloaders for smart phones. Which means to give control away to the entities, groups or induviduals controlling these keys. Ironically, this will make computing lot less safe, and also undermine trust in communication networks, because communication where we can’t be sure that the communicated symbols are genuine is for humans as worthless as the numbers on fake money. (As a corollary, it is also bad for business: All business is based on some amount of trust. Would you do important business with somebody if the only communication channel you have happens to be a messanger which is a compulsory liar?)

    To sum up, this is a massive transfer of control.

  • Engywook@lemmy.zip
    27·
    9 hours ago

    Just a question from my ignorance: but is this really enforceable, outside of mainstream apps/services? What happens if someone creates a custom app relying on a custom sever and uses it only among few trusted people?

    • HelloRoot@lemy.lolEnglish
      501·
      9 hours ago

      mainstream

      is the keyword here. Mainstream is really big.

      They come for the lions share first. You do nothing because you think you’re unaffected. Then later they will come for you. And nobody will do anything for you either.

      Of course, professional criminals like yourself (sarcasm) will find a way to escape the law. But I doubt it’s nice to live on the edge of society like that anyway, being unable to interact with most services.

      • Engywook@lemmy.zip
        1·
        1 hour ago

        Yeah, criminals are smarter than politicians anyway. And far more knowledge, with respect to technology.

      • HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.orgOP
        22·
        9 hours ago

        Just an example: Of course you can use a private email service. You don’t need to give a copy of all your communications to Google Mail or outlook. Or medical data.

        But what helps that, if 97% of the people you communicate with (including your doctor) use outlook or gmail, and all messages you write them are kindly stored there “for them”?

    • HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.orgOP
      21·
      9 hours ago

      For the moment, that would not be enforceable in respect to people with technical knowledge. Enforcing it would require authoritarian control and even China’s Great Firewall has way to circumvent it.

      On the other hand, this is already far more difficult than you might think. You could not install such an app from a server authenticated with TLS because the TLS keys might be subverted - the certification chain has national institutions as the top certificate authorities. You would also not be able to install such an app on an Android phone because Google has decided it needs developer attestation to install apps in a way accesible to end users. You can run Linux now but if all that is taken seriously, your options to run Linux might become limited. E.g. you already can’t run many banking apps on phones with user-controlled OS software. Railway apps like the German one already don’t work. In future, you might not even be able to use a municipial library’s or bookstore’s website this way.

      But more to the point, the real application case for this kind of civil rights is not some nerd kids which want to play DnD or minecraft on their own server or test their self-written IRC service. The real application case is what we see in the US, people being dragged out of their house and disappearing just because of their ancestry, how they look, being poor or the area they live in. They don’t have time to compile software or configure port-knocking protocols.

      Somebody has called these systems of “democratic” mass surveillance uncovered by Snowden “Turnkey Dictatorship” . I for sure wish they would have been wrong.

    • bruce965@lemmy.ml
      8·
      9 hours ago

      Well… I assume that might be illegal. Or maybe these rules would only apply to public software? For sure it wouldn’t be enforceable, and it would still allow criminals to use it to communicate privately between each other, but it would make it harder to exploit mainstream public apps (e.g.: WhatsApp) to scam or exploit weaker individuals.

      • Kami@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        2·
        2 hours ago

        Because after trying it wasn’t even remotely clear if I was doing it correctly and if any recipient was actually selected, so I decided to ask since it’s a pretty important thing that I must not fuck up and I can’t go for trial and error.

        • zergtoshi@lemmy.worldEnglish
          11·
          2 hours ago

          Doesn’t it open your email program with all selected addressees?
          What did you expect to go horribly wrong?

          • Kami@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            1·
            2 hours ago

            I am sorry if me trying to be sure about what I am doing before starting clicking buttons is bothering you somehow.

            Next time you can ignore my question, I’ll wait for someone else’s answer.

            Thank you and have a good day.

            • zergtoshi@lemmy.worldEnglish
              11·
              1 hour ago

              I don’t think that I’m the one in this conversation who appears to be bothered 🤗
              I hope you manage to send the email and wish you a good day too.