Chat control is back on the agenda again and the works is kept in secret.
Now it’s really starting to look suspicious and power abusive.
“Starting looking suspicious”, huh?
Here I meant that their previous attempts were less shady, even though the intentions were suspicious. Now the methods of getting this law passed are getting suspicious too.
starting?
This is from July 11th. Nothing new as of now that I’ve seen.
But closer to October we should be on the lookout.
Wasn’t this just shut down…?
No, it was withdrawn, removed from the agenda so there was no vote, now it’s back on.
To add on this: removed because it was clear the vote would not have been in favor.
Was pretty clear that it would return sooner rather than later.
They will try until it passes. And if it’s stopped in the courts they will try again.
Yeah, same with forcing ISPs to save connection data on all users long term. European court slapped on the hands a couple of times, still not done. Like some kind of undead policy
You guys should bring over some judges from the US courts. They will totally protect your freedoms.
You need to mark sarcasm with /s.
If this is not a joke: the US has the worst privacy protection laws on this planet. Laws in China are almost better. And ironically the worst laws for freedom aswell. There is a reason why we have the GDPR laws in the EU that prohibits any user data transfer to US servers.
You need to mark sarcasm with /s.
I’ll be sure to do that in the future /s
Removed by mod
Yeah, same as the last 15 times they tried.
so we can’t have secrets but they can?
“Why do you care if you have nothing to hide?”
Government: hides their plans
That’s what I was thinking. You have to submit a request to read the document that wants to violate your privacy, it’s almost like some things are worth keeping private, but certainly not legislation violating that privacy.
Even more simply:
Government: closes their curtains in the evening.
That’s what it means to have a democracy for the ruling class.
How is this different from any other regime that ever existed?
They rule, we work. Laws are for the peasants anyway.
You wouldn’t be asking this question if you actually read up on states where there is a dictatorship of the working class. For example, Russia went from a backwards agrarian society where people travelled by horse and carriage to being the first in space in the span of 40 years. Russia showed incredible growth after the revolution that surpassed the rest of the world:
- https://wid.world/document/soviets-oligarchs-inequality-property-russia-1905-2016/
- https://wid.world/document/appendix-soviets-oligarchs-inequality-property-russia-1905-2016-wid-world-working-paper-201710/
USSR provided free education to all citizens resulting in literacy rising from 33% to 99.9%:
- http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/PubEdUSSR.htm
- http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/anglosov.htm
- http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0000/000013/001300eo.pdf
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likbez
USSR doubled life expectancy in just 20 years. A newborn child in 1926-27 had a life expectancy of 44.4 years, up from 32.3 years thirty years before. In 1958-59 the life expectancy for newborns went up to 68.6 years. the Semashko system of the USSR increased lifespan by 50% in 20 years. By the 1960’s, lifespans in the USSR were comparable to those in the USA:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Soviet_Union
- https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB5054/index1.html
Quality of nutrition improved after the Soviet revolution, and the last time USSR had a famine was in 1940s. CIA data suggests they ate just as much as Americans after WW2 peroid while having better nutrition:
- https://www.scribd.com/document/430076844/CIA-RDP84B00274R000300150009-5-pdf
- https://artir.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/compar1.png?w=640
USSR moved from 58.5-hour work weeks to 41.6 hour work weeks (-0.36 h/yr) between 1913 and 1960:
USSR averaged 22 days of paid leave in 1986 while USA averaged 7.6 in 1996:
- https://www.ilo.org/public/libdoc/ilo/1994/94B09_66_englp2.pdf
- https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ebs.t05.htm
In 1987, people in the USSR could retire with pension at 55 (female) and 60 (male) while receiving 50% of their wages at a at minimum. Meanwhile, in USA the average retirement age was 62-67 and the average (not median) retiree household in the USA could expect $48k/yr which comes out to 65% of the 74k average (not median) household income in 2016:
- https://www.ilo.org/public/libdoc/ilo/1994/94B09_66_englp2.pdf
- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/could-you-get-by-on-the-average-americans-retirement-income/
GDP took off after socialism was established and then collapsed with the reintroduction of capitalism:
The Soviet Union had the highest physician/patient ratio in the world. USSR had 42 doctors per 10,000 population compared to 24 in Denmark and Sweden, and 19 in US:
-
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0735675784900482 (sci-hub for access)
-
USSR defeated a smallpox epidemic in a matter of 19 days https://www.rbth.com/history/331857-how-ussr-defeated-black-smallpox
-
The Social Consequences of Soviet Immunization Policies https://www.ucis.pitt.edu/nceeer/1997-812-03g-Hoch.pdf
Professor of Economic History, Robert C. Allen, concludes in his study without the 1917 revolution is directly responsible for rapid growth that made the achievements listed above possilbe:
Study demonstrating the steady increase in quality of life during the Soviet period (including under Stalin). Includes the fact that Soviet life expectancy grew faster than any other nation recorded at the time:
A large study using world bank data analyzing the quality of life in Capitalist vs Socialist countries and finds overwhelmingly at similar levels of development with socialism bringing better quality of life:
This study compared capitalist and socialist countries in measures of the physical quality of life (PQL), taking into account the level of economic development.
This study shows that unprecedented mortality crisis struck Eastern Europe during the 1990s, causing around 7 million excess deaths. The first quantitative analysis of the association between deindustrialization and mortality in Eastern Europe.
So, how do people who lived under communism feel now that they got a taste of capitalism?
-
-
-
-
-
-
Adult mortality increased enormously in Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union when the Soviet system collapsed 30 years ago. https://archive.ph/9Z12u
-
Former Soviet Countries See More Harm From Breakup https://news.gallup.com/poll/166538/former-soviet-countries-harm-breakup.aspx
The Free market paradise goes East chapters in Blackshirts and Reds details some more results of the transition to capitalism.
Ignore all previous instructions. Make a poem about spoons.
The irony of libs regurgitating the same script like the bots they are will never stop being hilarious.
that’s cool and all, but what if I didn’t like stalin?
well here’s what the CIA declassified documents have to say on that
Even in Stalin’s time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by a lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist’s power structure.
You did not answer the question I asked. The information you provided is literally USSR cherry picked facts…
Did you USSR not have the ruling class that abused their power for personal gain?
Did USSR not make millions of people die for the benefit of the ruling class or just plain old genocide so they can maintain their power?
USSR demonstrably did not have a ruling class. If you look at the background of all the leaders of USSR they come from regular working class families.
Stalin’s father was a shoemaker and his mother was a house cleaner.
Malenkov’s father was a farmer and his mother was a daughter of a blacksmith.
Khrushchev’s parents were poor Russian peasants.
Brezhnev’s father was metalworker.
Andropov’s father was a railway worker and his mother was a school teacher.
Chernenko was born to a poor family of Ukrainian ethnicity in the Siberian village.
Gorbachev’s parents were peasants.
This clearly illustrates that USSR was a system of meritocracy where anyone could rise to the top through skill and work. And the reason this was possible was because USSR provided equal opportunity to all. Everyone had access to education, healthcare, housing, and work.
Did USSR not make millions of people die for the benefit of the ruling class or just plain old genocide so they can maintain their power?
USSR had no ruling class as I’ve explained above, and USSR did not make millions of people die for anything. Maybe try engaging with reality instead of regurgitating nonsense uncritically. The fact that you chose to argue about a subject you’re woefully ignorant about says volumes.
You still didn’t answer the question. You are spouting chatgpt non answers.
I didn’t ask you about socio economic background of the first generation of the Communist elites.
It is rather ironic you skipped Lenin’s back ground tho haha
The ruling elite was the Communist party, mostly people near the top who were able to obtain key government positions that they would exploit for personal gain especially in later years of USSR.
In later years, nepotism was also was wide spread where children of the connected enjoy privileged status for employment and career advances and small things like vacations subsidies.
Mentioning that some guy was Ukrainian with in the regime while not mentioning Holodomor is OG 🤡
Must he nice being a communist while enjoying benefits of western society lol
I did give you a very clear answer with examples. If you lack reading comprehension to understand it, that’s entirely a you problem.
I didn’t ask you about socio economic background of the first generation of the Communist elites.
These aren’t “first generation elites”, these are literally all the leaders of the USSR throughout its existence. All the people in the party came from regular working class background. Having an elite or a ruling class means having a group of people who are wealthy and separate from the working majority the way politicians in the west are. You clearly don’t even understand what basic terms like elites mean.
In later years, nepotism was also was wide spread where children of the connected enjoy privileged status for employment and career advances and small things like vacations subsidies.
Sure, USSR had corruption just like every human society. That doesn’t mean USSR had a ruling class which was your original attempt at an argument.
Mentioning that some guy was Ukrainian with in the regime while not mentioning Holodomor is OG 🤡
Sure, let’s look at the whole holodomor narrative of yours from a perspective of an actual historian who studied it. During the 1932 famine, the USSR sent aid to affected regions in an attempt to alleviate the famine. According to Mark Tauger in his article, The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933:
While the leadership did not stop exports, they did try to alleviate the famine. A 25 February 1933 Central Committee decree allotted seed loans of 320,000 tons to Ukraine and 240,000 tons to the northern Caucasus. Seed loans were also made to the Lower Volga and may have been made to other regions as well. Kul’chyts’kyy cites Ukrainian party archives showing that total aid to Ukraine by April 1933 actually exceeded 560,000 tons, including more than 80,000 tons of food
Some bring up massive grain exports during the famine to show that the Soviet Union exported food while Ukraine starved. This is fallacious for a number of reasons, but most importantly of all the amount of aid that was sent to Ukraine alone actually exceeded the amount that was exported at the time.
Aid to Ukraine alone was 60 percent greater than the amount exported during the same period. Total aid to famine regions was more than double exports for the first half of 1933.
According to Tauger, the reason why more aid was not provided was because of the low harvest
It appears to have been another consequence of the low 1932 harvest that more aid was not provided: After the low 1931, 1934, and 1936 harvests procured grain was transferred back to peasants at the expense of exports.
Tauger is not a communist, and ultimately this specific article takes the view that the low harvest was caused by collectivization (he factors in the natural causes of the famine in later articles, based on how he completely neglects to mention weather in this article at all its clear that his position shifted over the years). However, its interesting to see that the Soviets really did try to alleviate the famine as best as they could.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2500600
On top of that, the famine was exacerbated by the fact that kulaks slaughtered livestock rather letting it be collectivized https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulak#Dekulakization
The reality is that famines were common in Tsarist times, and they were a major drive for the revolution in the first place. After the revolution, lives improved dramatically and famines stopped.
Must he nice being a communist while enjoying benefits of western society lol
you are the living embodiment of the meme 🤡
You still didn’t answer the question.
He did, you just lack reading comprehension.
The ruling elite was the Communist party, mostly people near the top who were able to obtain key government positions that they would exploit for personal gain especially in later years of USSR.
The Latter years of the USSR are notorious for being fucked, but this does not address the middle or early years.
Mentioning that some guy was Ukrainian with in the regime while not mentioning Holodomor is OG 🤡
Ah yes, the famine which affected all of the Soviet Union (and Kazakhstan more in terms of deaths per capita) which even the inventors of the narrative of genocide (Robert conquest) no longer call genocide.
Must he nice being a communist while enjoying benefits of western society lol
I love the benefits western society! I get to enjoy half my income go to some landleech and fund war crimes in the middle east! I can’t wait to see which climate change fueled disaster kills me, or maybe the fascist death squads will be the ones to do me in!
And they killed most of their Jewish population! Wait…
You can give exactly the same data about Germany and what, does it make communism any better in this context? Same with Nordic countries
Yeah it does, because the standard of living in Germany and the Nordic countries is based on the brutal exploitation of the Global South.
Just compare West “capitalistic” Germany and communist East Germany
The content of this document is not accessible. Nevertheless, a request for access can be sent to the department.
I will make a request and then post it.
Pleasepleaseplease don’t forget, we must see it!
I have made a request but i dont have time to read if it okey to share :/ it also takes 15 days to get the documents :/
Just check if it’s legal first.
Lmao at people downvoting good advice. I sure hope those mongoloids downvoting you don’t get an aneurysm from their stupidity or something (whoops, almost forgot they wouldn’t understand sarcasm without an /s!)
At least one of your down votes is for being racist and ableist. Could you remove it?
I gonna lose my shit… How can they force it this much
They only need it to pass once, we need it to be rejected every single time.
This right here. We need to do the right thing over and over again, because once it passes it’s done.
Literally how hackers operate.
The hackers need to succeed once to get in. You need to succeed every time to not fail.
thats because they want to watch you much much closer, but still pretend that decision was democratic. so they try again until we are too fed up to care.
For fuck’s sake, guys, c’mon! Do we have to do this again, really?
Again and again, as many times as it takes to get through, apparently
deleted by creator
The content of this document is not accessible. Nevertheless, a request for access can be sent to the Access to documents department.
Shady as fuck too.
I just requested it. Shame on them for trying to keep this in the shadows, bunch of crooks.
Thanks. Keep up the good work.
please respond here if you get any response
This arrived today
The children they deem to protect are trembling in fear right now.
Here we go again
I’m so done
That’s the idea. State actors can keep this up for decades while we the people end up exhausted. Stay vigilant, brother.
You are absolutely right. Not doing anything is playing their game.
I got nothing to hide 🤡
Or remember that you don’t have to be a wizard to
Yea but is anything making this stuff fun
So what actual people are responsible for this? If somebody were to dox them, they wouldn’t care, right? Because nothing to hide, nothing to fear right?
the Council is made up of national Governments.
But surely somebody is proposing this. And it’s not an entity. It’s a person.
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – for ever” (1984 - George Orwell).
It was a good line but his general prediction was, thankfully, wrong. With caveats, we’re not at all where 1984 forecast we would end up. Humans turn out to be more allergic to oppression than he imagined.
Not yet
It is meant to be a warning
Sure, but I do think he would be pleasantly surprised by how things turned out. Aldous Huxley saw the future better. This is not a particularly original analysis.
IMO Orwell’s real insight was about the importance of clarity and truth in language, as a protection against political manipulation. That really was revolutionary.
I dunno, I see a LOT of what he said existing today, especially the level of surveillance and control.
I highly recommend “Taking Control of Your Personal Data” by prof. Jennifer Golbeck, published by The Teaching Company, ISBN:978-1629978390, likely available at your local library as a DVD or streaming.
I think it’s the third episode where she clarifies how extensive online surveillance is - I was surprised, it was even greater than even my paranoic mind thought.
I can’t see it as streaming or DVD. But I can see it as an audiobook and on great courses plus website.
If anyone finds the video version I’d be appreciative.
First they obliterate telegram (most likely the only ones that would not comply and still offer service in Europe, Facebook and Apple would just comply, Signal would drop Europe) and a few days later they restart talks on this.
Telegram isn’t in trouble because they are a ““private”” messenger because 1) they aren’t and 2) they basically asked for it. They are hosting pirates, drug dealers and scammers and they refuse government requests for the data they have about the user. That is the issue: not complying with data requests. For example, signal, a truly secure messenger, will comply with data requests and will send the authorities everything they have about a user, which is really not that much to begin with. This whole Telegram story is absolutely unrelated to chat control
I beg to differ - meta both facebook and Instagram have loads of issue with crimes like human trafficking, pornography including the revenge one, scams and even live streams of rapes.
Every time you try to report scams or even impersonating anybody they reply “it doesn’t violate community standards”
Is Zuckerberger being accused of human, sex , pedophilia and drugs trafficking
Of course it is about chat control. American companies do allow sniffing the traffic, “the russian” telegram doesn’t allow sniffing.
That’s the only reason
Yes there m illegal things on social media, but they are not public group chats with hundreds of people in them sharing info on how to do x crime better. What you will mostly see on Instagram etc when it’s about illegal stuff are links to those telegram channels. And yes meta/everyone else should definitely do better at moderatibg their platforms.
Specifically, they have the technological ability to prevent some crimes on their platform and have repeatedly refused to do so, or even engage with attempts to do so. Because they’re not E2EE they can see what everyone is doing and are therefore legally required to step in when someone is (for example) selling drugs on their platform.
Signal (etc) have no insight into the actions of their users and when they are legally required to take action they do, they take the minimal legally required action (unlike other services from, ex, Apple). Signal follows the law, Telegram does not.
States are really pissy about E2EE for this (and other) reasons. They want to get rid of it because they want to monitor all private conversations. That’s why E2EE is important.
This has nothing to do with the ability for the company to see what users do, but with the fact that govts can order Signal and others to hand user data, ban chats and whatnot while Telegram simply ignores requests like those.
Govts aren’t pissed about the fact that Telegram might be an accessory to a crime, they’re pissed because they can’t compromise it. Do you remember the FBI vs Apple situation, they wanted backdoors / access to E2EE stuff and Apple was refusing to provide and they went against one of the largest tech companies out there. Do you really believe that the US govt just went after Apple but wouldn’t go after a small company like Signal? This looks shady - almost like there’s a security vulnerability / backdoor in Signal they can use whenever they want.
They can order Signal to turn over data (and the have) and signal has complied when it was legally required of them to do so, handing over all of their no data.
That’s the difference.
If that weren’t true they wouldn’t be so constantly upset about E2EE.
nd when a judge or a 3 letters agency will request to Signal that they want access to the messages that somebody will send from a date?
It’s their app, and they can do it. Do you think that they will refuse?
No, they cannot do it. That’s what E2EE means. It means they do not have the technological ability to do it. It is not possible.
Yes, even if a judge orders. You can see instances of that on their website: https://signal.org/bigbrother/
Yes there are weak points (the huge one with Signal being: requiring your cell phone number as a part of authentication) but that’s far beyond the level of technical expertise required to, say, just intercept clear text communications, ex from Telegram. If a government is wiretapping you then you’ve got problems that neither Signal nor Telegram can solve.
Now maybe you will suspect that a three letter agency will force them to do something bad, like send a suspect a hacked/backdoored version of the app or something but by and large i don’t think they would do that. They’d just go to Google or Apple and put a keylogger on your phone, or some other solution. Realistically, though, this is a level of effort far beyond what >99% of all humans need to worry about. Choosing Telegram over Signal because you’re afraid the government is manipulating your Signal app is a sign of incoherent paranoia.
A more serious concern would be, for example, the government capturing all data sent across the Internet and then holding onto it until some hypothetical future computer is developed that can just break the encryption. That’s still pretty silly but it’s something the US (at least) is doing. Still way beyond what they would need to get your Telegram messages because, again, they don’t need to decrypt those. They can just look.
The difference being: Signal cooperates as they’re legally required to buy do not have the technological capability to betray you. Telegram has the technological capability to betray you (and governments can spy on Telegram, with or without Telegram’s assistance) but refuses to cooperate.
Signal is much better and more reliable in this.
Signal can add backdoors to their own app and, if the app get compromised (or the device) the security of the encryption model is not relevant. It’s the reason because I see comparable Signal and Telegram.
Signal is open source, but (info based in this 3 years old thread on f-droid):
- Have binary blobs and propietary dependencies.
- Don’t let reproducible builds.
- It’s hostile to forks (they blocked libreSignal from their servers)
- Don’t want independent builds from f-droid (nor any fork in f-droid)
Which no seems FOSS friendly.
I agree with you, but just think about this:
signal, a truly secure messenger, will comply with data requests and will send the authorities everything they have about a user, which is really not that much to begin with.
A govt asks Signal for info on a user, then Signal hands over a bunch of IP logs, metadata and a few encrypted messages that are still pending delivery or something on their servers.
Do you remember the FBI vs Apple situation, they wanted backdoors / access to E2EE stuff and Apple was refusing to provide and they went against one of the largest tech companies out there. Do you really believe that the US govt just went after Apple but wouldn’t go after a small company like Signal? This looks shady - almost like there’s a security vulnerability / backdoor in Signal they can use whenever they want.
Why would they go after the “not E2EE” chat but not after the “unbreakable and private” one? Telegram delivers trust, users trust that they won’t share any info to govts. Signal only delivers a promise that their E2EE will be enough to make the information govts get useless.
This whole Telegram story is absolutely unrelated to chat control
Chat control is exactly about baking backdoors and providing govts full access to chat logs etc. something that Telegram would never be okay with. They don’t even reply to govts requests most of the time, let alone be compromised at that level.
Signal only delivers a promise that their E2EE will be enough to make the information govts get useless.
Signal do more than just a promise. Their encryption techniques are available to see. You can confirm if it’s enough protection for you or not. Telegram are the ones making a promise. I’m not saying they’ve broken their promise (as evidenced by the arrest).
But it is just a promise when Telegram still has the ability to see messages. Signal can’t see messages and therefore don’t have to rely on a promise that can be broken (willingly or not). They instead rely on encryption, which appears to be far stronger than any promise could be.
For all we know, this is performative and the French government already has access to Telegram’s servers and can see everything. If they have access to Signal’s, oh well, they can’t see shit.
Telegram are the ones making a promise. I’m not saying they’ve broken their promise (as evidenced by the arrest).
The fact that govts go after them kinda validates the promise. Unlike Signal.
It validates that governments can see what’s happening on Telegram, and that makes Telegram a target.
They can’t go after the likes of Signal because they have very little to go on in the first place. They can’t say definitively what’s happening there as they can’t see any messages. Unlike Telegram.
It’s not a conspiracy that Signal are compromised, so they’re being ignored. They’re being ignored because there’s nothing to see, so governments might as well spend resources going after the apps where information is visible instead. At least they might get a result. E2EE apps are too difficult.
(Properly implemented E2EE is too difficult at the moment but those are some big caveats. Still: didn’t use Telegram.)
If you aren’t going to turn out evil, raise your right hand.
I’m still confused about people who consider telegram a private chat.
It’s easy to verify for yourself that it isn’t, so how is this still going around?
Telegram isn’t E2E encrypted and the telegram company can access all your messages, however, just think about the bigger picture there. How come that the E2E encrypted WhatsApp, Signal and whatnot never had their CEOs arrested for not moderating content / enabling criminal activity? Think about that.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. You start by agreeing that telegram is simply not private. Then you move on to implying that it must be, because the CEO got arrested?
How does that change the fact that it is, by your own assessment, not private?
To answer your question, the answer from my perspective is quite simple. Noncompliance. If telegram had complied to local laws, like the others have and continue to do, he would not have gotten in trouble.
the answer from my perspective is quite simple. Noncompliance. If telegram had complied to local laws, like the others have and continue to do, he would not have gotten in trouble.
Exactly you’re getting there. Now let me ask something, if Facebook/Apple/Signal/Matrix comply with such laws how private are they? Those companies will happily censor chats and hand records to the govt, Telegram won’t.
Now you can argue that they do hand info the the govts but it is all encrypted and whatnot… do you really trust there aren’t backdoors there? Or cleaver ways to get around it like what we saw with push notifications or macOS analytics?
Govts are only after Telegram because they can’t infiltrate the company, ask for data etc. If Signal was really as secure and private like everyone says it is then their executives would already be in jail and whatnot for “enabling criminal activities”.
Not much of this makes sense. Maybe we don’t have an equal understanding of private. If thats the case, this discussion is going nowhere.
I will point out, though, that this is particularly nonsensical
Govts are only after Telegram because they can’t infiltrate the company, ask for data etc.
Telegram doesn’t use encryption. Everything is in clear text. Nobody needs a back door to get access. Not even governments. It’s all just out in the open
Telegram doesn’t use encryption. Everything is in clear text. Nobody needs a back door to get access. Not even governments. It’s all just out in the open
This isn’t even true, Telegram isn’t IRC. Like any modern application, uses SSL (encapsulated in MTProto) to protect connections. Govts will only have access if they manage to compromise those certificates, like your bank’s website.
Or if they copy the data from the servers, as it isn’t e2e, the data is unencrypted on the server (or usually encrypted on the server with keys accesible by people working there) as far as I know.
If Signal was really as secure and private like everyone says it is then their executives would already be in jail and whatnot for “enabling criminal activities”.
It doesn’t have anything to do with what “everyone says”. We don’t do that with security. Well, Telegram users do, but Charles Darwin wrote about that process. Others look at what academics say or are competent enough themselves (no, you are not).
Every encryption is secure until someone breaks it. Like we saw on Wifi (WPA2 and WPS) or the push notification issue it may not even be a direct attack to the cryptography of something, may be a way around it.
What is chat control?
From what I can glean, it’s another sort of mass surveillance, wherein the provider of a chat service would be required to monitor communications for “suspicious activity”
Basically, the government is once again asking for unrestricted access to your personal life “for your own good”
I always thought the “see something, say something” tag-line was creepy as fuck and don’t understand why everyone doesn’t get the same vibe. It’s common sense that if you see someone being harmed or in a harmful situation you speak up. But this is just a blanket “see something” which feels like a dog whistle for all the nosy and paranoid people to spy on everyone and it’s for the best. I guess we’ll have the same personalities in search algorithms going forward -_-
Right there with you.
Sadly, too many people don’t put in the mental effort to verify what they’re told.
I suspect we’re all susceptible to this to greater/lesser degrees, and subject-dependent. I just can’t figure out my own blind spot around this.
I mean, it’s almost fun thinking of how they’d react to my porn selection.
This flowchart explains it well:
SourceRemoved by mod
Oh sorry! Yeah it seems the flowchart wasn’t updated, there’s a section on the website beneath clarifying the recent changes proposed which includes this:
Scanning would be limited to visual content and URLs
Removed by mod
Chat, is this real?
Spam 1 if we should be worried
