deleted by creator
I wouldn’t be surprised if they were, people are lazy after all.
If you don’t have anything to hide, then let them have your privacy. If you don’t, well then, you’re a suspected terrorist or child predator.
The logic is impeccable.
Edit: I WAS being sarcastic, but I guess I was getting upvotes from people who like the EU position as well.
Win-win.
I don’t suppose you own curtains?
/missedsarcasm
I
thinkhope they were being sarcastic.
Stupid bastards. I hope Apple and WhatsApp and Signal all just turn off service in the EU. Let the users eat these assholes alive when their apps stop working.
I hope they just ignore them and keep the services running. But I also know that’s not realistic.
Not sure how Signal is going to handle this because they literally built proxies into the app specifically to circumvent this type of legislation.
Apple and Google will put their apps but it’s trivial to just install it from the Signal website on Android. Or basically anywhere else.
Naive. There must be more practical methods to counter child abuse. For example always holding people accountable when they are known to hurt children would be a good start.
Its just pretense. Authoritarians want that data, corps want that data, so they push that legislation.
It’s not about the children.
Criminalization of encryption : the 8 december case
Op-ed: ʻEncryption protects our rights, privacy is not a crimeʼ
The beginning of the “8 December” trial is also the judgement of the right to privacy and encryption
In this case, protecting one’s privacy and encrypting communications is no longer merely suspect, but participates of constituting a “clandestine behavior”, a way of concealing criminal intentions. In several memos, the DGSI keeps on trying to demonstrate how the use of tools such as Signal, Tor, Proton, Silence, etc., would be evidence of a desire to hide compromising elements. And on top of this, as we denounced last June, the DGSI justifies the absence of evidence of a terrorist project by the use of encryption tools itself. According to them, if they lack of elements proving a terrorist intent, it’s because those proofs are necessarily hold back in those much-vaunted encrypted and inaccessible messages. In reaction of such absurd vicious circle, lawyers of a person charged denounced the fact that “here, the absence of evidence becomes an evidence itself“.
deleted by creator
I offer an alternative service to having a wallet. I securely hold on to the contents of it and let you use the cards in it whenever you want, helps protect from theft, etc.
Oh you don’t want to use this service because there’s no need for someone else to have access to your wallet? What are you hiding? Clearly you’d be using the service if you weren’t also doing something illegal.
I’d extend the metaphor further to highlight that there’s no such thing as a secure backdoor, but this is just the same shit police-state authoritarianism we’ve been seeing grow in the UK since Thatcher—surveil fucking everyone, in every way possible whilst they do absolutely anything; because you’re not a citizen, you’re just a criminal or potential criminal.
And we’ve got a load of shitty news outlets making idiots clap every time their rights are eroded, because this time it’ll stop the paedos and terrorists for good. Like all the other times.
Cute how they think that
What’s stopping someone from just sending public keys or something through Signal and encrypting their messages that way? There’s no way to enforce this with such simple loopholes present. We shouldn’t be focusing on breaking privacy and instead invest in helping existing victims in ways that actually matter.
Whilst I agree with your sentiment, this isn’t how end-to-end encrypted chats work. Otherwise, it would be impossible to know the messages you’re receiving are coming from the person you think they are.
I suppose you’re right, but forging that kind of thing would be difficult, also considering the PKI already in place. If someone has their own email server and they sign/encrypt their email, and host their public key on a key server somewhere, it’s highly unlikely that all three would be compromised. and even if that fails, you could just meet up with them and exchange flash drives with keys.
How does this affect people self hosting an encrypted chat service? Would those people be at risk of a police raid or something?
It only applies if there is any profit, even if it is a single ad for a single user.
So not Signal, or…?
It shouldn’t, they are a non-profit foundation that is funded by donations. But take it with a grain of salt.
Acts of authoritarian control always claim to be done “for the children”. They don’t care about children, they want control.
what did you think would happen when unelected elites start appointing Commissioners for Truth?
After all, as many were keen to point out during the EU/Musk row, there’s no free speech in Europe so why should there be private speech?
We value your privacy, as long as we can see it all
