The agreement follows more than three years of disagreements
    • slazer2au@lemmy.worldEnglish
      20·
      4 days ago

      Of cause not. There will be provisions slid in at the last possible moment excluding MPs. And their aids. And their sugar daddies i mean donors

  • aramis87@fedia.io
    19·
    4 days ago

    To voluntarily “opt out”, you’ll have to click through five different pages of confusing legalese, on each page looking for the light grey link on a white background, only to find the final link dead. You’ll have to fight Google’s AI in order to get a working link. Eventually, you’ll find the page.

    The final link to preserve your privacy will have five double and one single negative; the “confirm your decision” button will have three more that appear to contradict the earlier question; and the “are you really really sure” message will contradict both.

    The final message will say “Thank you for your submission. Please allow six to eight weeks for your request to be processed. While we will comply with your request, we cannot guarantee that our fifty partners will also abide by your wishes. Have a nice day!”

  • basic_user@lemmy.worldEnglish
    16·
    4 days ago

    This whole thing is so infuriating. It just won’t go away and in the end we are all going to be surveiled no matter what. Privacy will be gone and it’s just disgusting. Peter Hummelgaard and whoever puppeteers him needs as much negative attation about this case as possible. The media is hardly covering it at all. Fight for your privacy!

  • nyankas@lemmy.mlEnglish
    8·
    4 days ago

    As this version of the law is completely voluntary, I don‘t think it will change anything. Secure chats won‘t implement it, because it‘s practically impossible, and insecure chats won‘t implement it, because there‘s absolutely no profit in it.

    It‘s still completely unnecessary to have a law like this, as it won‘t help with anything. But at least it doesn‘t force any messaging applications to either break their encryption or leave the EU.

    Also, as this is proposal is finally put into law, there‘s one less battle to be fought by privacy activists (for now).

    So all in all: The worst has been successfully averted, I think we can celebrate that. But the next privacy invading proposal will come soon enough.

      • nyankas@lemmy.mlEnglish
        2·
        3 days ago

        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.

      • ExLisperAEnglish
        1·
        3 days ago

        This guy is exaggerating.

        "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.