I have already read that article, and while I think that Patrick does a great job in general, this particular post contains overly dramatic and, in parts, misleading arguments. For example:
The text aims to make the temporary “Chat Control 1.0” regulation permanent. This allows providers like Meta or Google to scan all private chats, indiscriminately and without a court order.".
This is a bit strange. Chats without E2E encryption, especially the ones on Google or Meta platforms, were never private. I think it would be better to raise awareness of that fact and encourage E2E messaging instead of complaining about law enforcement having access to those chats.
His argument regarding age verification is also very weak:
[…] This means every citizen will effectively have to upload an ID or undergo a face scan to open an email or messenger account. […] This creates a de facto ban on anonymous communication […]
This is misleading at best. The implementation details of the age verification are not specified in this proposal. There are absolutely ways of verifying someone’s age anonymously (Privacy Pass comes to mind). It’s totally possible that it’ll be a far worse system, but that’s just not as set in stone as Patrick suggests.
It’s definitely necessary to keep an eye on the further development of this legislature. But Patrick’s Reality Check unfortunately stretches the meaning of the word Reality a bit too much.
"The text aims to make the temporary “Chat Control 1.0” regulation permanent. "
This already passed in 2021. This guy is sensationalizing it like it’s opening new possibilities to tech companies while it’s been a law for 4 years already. If companies wanted to scan messages they would be doing this already.
Age verification and bans for teenagers are a separate issue completely. Many countries are working on this already independently. While I don’t agree with this personally I have to admin there are many good reasons to do it. A lot depends on the details of the regulation and this guy is not a good source of opinion on it. I will try to read it and post a more reasonable take.
https://lemmy.ca/comment/20265924
I have already read that article, and while I think that Patrick does a great job in general, this particular post contains overly dramatic and, in parts, misleading arguments. For example:
This is a bit strange. Chats without E2E encryption, especially the ones on Google or Meta platforms, were never private. I think it would be better to raise awareness of that fact and encourage E2E messaging instead of complaining about law enforcement having access to those chats.
His argument regarding age verification is also very weak:
This is misleading at best. The implementation details of the age verification are not specified in this proposal. There are absolutely ways of verifying someone’s age anonymously (Privacy Pass comes to mind). It’s totally possible that it’ll be a far worse system, but that’s just not as set in stone as Patrick suggests.
It’s definitely necessary to keep an eye on the further development of this legislature. But Patrick’s Reality Check unfortunately stretches the meaning of the word Reality a bit too much.
This guy is exaggerating.
This already passed in 2021. This guy is sensationalizing it like it’s opening new possibilities to tech companies while it’s been a law for 4 years already. If companies wanted to scan messages they would be doing this already.
Age verification and bans for teenagers are a separate issue completely. Many countries are working on this already independently. While I don’t agree with this personally I have to admin there are many good reasons to do it. A lot depends on the details of the regulation and this guy is not a good source of opinion on it. I will try to read it and post a more reasonable take.