• Tja@programming.dev
    6·
    1 hour ago

    Ok, the website says that Germany already opposes it. Is that outdated or what? I don’t want to spam MEPs if they already agree with me.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      12·
      47 minutes ago

      Spam them regardless. You want them to stay where they are and to argue firmly. Especially coming from Germany when talking about the evil of the surveillance state.

  • Corridor8031@lemmy.ml
    52·
    2 hours ago

    srsly considering to vote for a party against the eu next election.

    whats the point if it is just oppression. Conservatives ruining the world.

      • Corridor8031@lemmy.ml
        1·
        23 minutes ago

        sry i am not aware of any, or atleast any pary i have been intrested in till now was anti-eu

        but conaidering i am very left and am having these thoughts, i would hope that if this really gets approved, that either my local party changes their stance / atleast advocates for strong eu reforms Or that a smaller new one changes its stance

        ofc voting right wing is not an option

  • Tattorack@lemmy.world
    33·
    5 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
      27·
      4 hours 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
        85·
        4 hours 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

        • Tattorack@lemmy.world
          3·
          55 minutes ago

          You absolutely are ahead of the fascist game, so far ahead that your billionaires are funding European fascists and emboldening them.

        • SaneMartigan@aussie.zone
          7·
          2 hours ago

          Mate, USA is way ahead in fascism. EU isn’t openly disappear / deporting people yet. EU has healthcare, mostly.

        • this@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          7·
          2 hours ago

          Only one? Do all if the bootlickers in the house and the senate, as well as JD vance not count?

        • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
          3·
          1 hour ago

          While we have problems here in Europe and they’re concerning, the US really has this shit on a whole 'nother level. The NSA more or less has ALL the data that enters or exits the country and probably most of what goes around public networks (so just about any ISP) within the country. Your Lemmy instance is hosted in France and from your comment I infer that you’re American (so likely situated in the US), so most likely the communication between you and the instance is all recorded and stored at 33 Thomas Street. They’re just storing everything so they can decrypt it if quantum computing breaks existing algorithms. Then there’s all the tooling the CIA and NSA have built to spy on everyone who has any even somewhat insecure smart device.

          Denmark is trying to legislate all this into happening, the US just ignores legislation when something actually disagrees with their spying

          • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            3·
            1 hour ago

            Barring civilians from using encryption and software deemed dangerous is a new level imo. These are the tools we have to fight this stuff, maintaining those rights is a big deal.

            • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
              3·
              40 minutes ago

              Oh I agree. If encryption becomes illegal I may actually move to another freaking continent. I have nothing to hide, but I am still not willing to compromise on privacy and security.

    • gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      11·
      4 hours 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

  • olenkoVD@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    7·
    5 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?

    • falcunculus@jlai.lu
      4·
      1 hour ago

      Yes you should, and it would be even better to use it as a template to write it yourself.

      MEPs will pay more attention to messages that seem genuine and from their voters rather than mass-produced by foreigners.

  • Zagorath@aussie.zoneEnglish
    9·
    8 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. ↩︎

    • ObliviousEnlightenment@lemmy.world
      1·
      26 minutes ago

      We could also require isps to educate and aid parents in protecting their kids, sending guides and offering to send a guy to set it up, ect. Perhaps with a legal penalty for the parents for failing to do so if their kid actually is harmed somehow. Then the onus is where it belongs, which makes it harder to justify this kind of shit

    • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
      2·
      54 minutes ago

      parents should be put in charge of their own kids,

      So convenient that governments and their corporate masters take such a keen interest in watching our kids, after making all their parents spend most of their lives at miserable jobs.

    • twack@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      6 hours ago

      Or we just sell anonymous age verified serial numbers at gas stations like prepaid phone cards.

  • HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.orgOP
    1091·
    13 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.