cross-posted from: https://discuss.tchncs.de/post/48813307
!!! IF YOU ARE AN EU CITIZEN, PLEASE DO THE FOLLOWING FORM !!!
https://fightchatcontrol.eu/#contact-tool
Be especially sure to select your home country’s permanent representation in the Committee, but selecting everyone the website proposes is a very good idea (and done by default).
Raise your voices and flood their inbox, this might be the last chance we ever get
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.
These politicians really aren’t afraid of those they were elected to represent…
For their sake I hope they stop this FAFO, before more damage is done.@HaraldvonBlauzahn This is the most clear and concise technical summary detailing the dangers of EU Chat Control so far. Thank you.
the way things are going Europeans are gonna have to start fleeing to China to get a semblance of free speech 🤣
Just a question from my ignorance: but is this really enforceable, outside of mainstream apps/services? What happens if someone creates a custom app relying on a custom sever and uses it only among few trusted people?
For the moment, that would not be enforceable in respect to people with technical knowledge. Enforcing it would require authoritarian control and even China’s Great Firewall has way to circumvent it.
On the other hand, this is already far more difficult than you might think. You could not install such an app from a server authenticated with TLS because the TLS keys might be subverted - the certification chain has national institutions as the top certificate authorities. You would also not be able to install such an app on an Android phone because Google has decided it needs developer attestation to install apps in a way accesible to end users. You can run Linux now but if all that is taken seriously, your options to run Linux might become limited. E.g. you already can’t run many banking apps on phones with user-controlled OS software. Railway apps like the German one already don’t work. In future, you might not even be able to use a municipial library’s or bookstore’s website this way.
But more to the point, the real application case for this kind of civil rights is not some nerd kids which want to play DnD or minecraft on their own server or test their self-written IRC service. The real application case is what we see in the US, people being dragged out of their house and disappearing just because of their ancestry, how they look, being poor or the area they live in. They don’t have time to compile software or configure port-knocking protocols.
Somebody has called these systems of “democratic” mass surveillance uncovered by Snowden “Turnkey Dictatorship” . I for sure wish they would have been wrong.
Well… I assume that might be illegal. Or maybe these rules would only apply to public software? For sure it wouldn’t be enforceable, and it would still allow criminals to use it to communicate privately between each other, but it would make it harder to exploit mainstream public apps (e.g.: WhatsApp) to scam or exploit weaker individuals.
mainstream
is the keyword here. Mainstream is really big.
They come for the lions share first. You do nothing because you think you’re unaffected. Then later they will come for you. And nobody will do anything for you either.
Of course, professional criminals like yourself (sarcasm) will find a way to escape the law. But I doubt it’s nice to live on the edge of society like that anyway.
Yeah, criminals are smarter than politicians anyway. And far more knowledge, with respect to technology.
Able, but no reason to.
Just an example: Of course you can use a private email service. You don’t need to give a copy of all your communications to Google Mail or outlook. Or medical data.
But what helps that, if 97% of the people you communicate with (including your doctor) use outlook or gmail, and all messages you write them are kindly stored there “for them”?
“outlaws anonymous communication” - This sends chills down me more than anything else I can remember. The people and organisations that benefit from this can’t be trusted.
The only thing this does is control the law abiding public. Criminals are already breaking the law, and won’t care. It is trivial to build an anonymous communication app. There will always be a workaround.
Anonymity, and free speak should be human rights.
“Outlaws anonymous communication by requiring every citizen to verify their age…”
To me that reads similarly to age restricted websites asking you to verify your age before accessing it, where you just input a date that says you’re old enough and then you’re set. I’ve been 99 years old for the last decade. Given what they’re trying to do, I wouldn’t be surprised if they use more extensive verification measures, but I haven’t read into that yet. If it’s just an age/DOB input, then it’s not really outlawing anything.
srsly considering to vote for a party against the eu next election.
whats the point if it is just oppression. Conservatives ruining the world.
Are there any left eu-skeptic parties?
most of them, I think
Such as?
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
I was against it until I realized they would also ban minors from Roblox.
That’s kind of weird, but it would be awesome to invade the now empty lego game, filled with only adults…
As a parent, I ban my own kids from Roblox. Because it’s my job to protect my own children, not the government’s job to treat everyone like children. This policy would put my children in more danger because they’ll need free speech once they’re adults.
This is one of the many reasons that prohibition doesn’t work. Anything prohibited gets pushed underground and criminalised, but can’t be stopped. The best option, like with drugs, is to decriminalise and educate. Teach kids so they “know” before they become adults, otherwise dangerous stuff is a surprise waiting to burn kids when they turn 18.
they won’t stop until they are deposed.
Everything good at Denmark? Why the fuck are your politicians pushing this into the EU council?
It seemed like such a reasonable country 12 months ago.
Because Denmark holds the rotating EU presidency, Denmark is literally required by treaty to work towards compromise when the council cannot agree. If it wasn’t Denmark doing this work, it would be another country holding the EU presidency doing it.
It’s not really about Denmark - it’s about the entire council agreeing with a compromise the presidency has to seek.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
because when you have fourteen parties there’s bound to be at least a few fascists hiding behind the curtains. the real problem is that there’s not legislation that prevents this dude from retracting and resubmitting it when it looks like it’s gonna fail
if i’m not an eu citizen, what can i do to help
Question for a the Fight Chat Control website: My country’s primary language is not English, do I need to translate the e-mail?
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.
A populace in which it is politically safe to even float this suggestion is weak.
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.
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.
Back in the Merkel-era if Germany opposes it was over.
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.
Denmark not only supports it, it’s the one country that pushes the hardest for it, and did from the start. Which seems weird from my German perspective, because I wouldn’t exactly associate Denmark with a police-state, quite the opposite actually, especially compared to Germany.
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
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
it’s not that they’re ignoring it; is that the legistlation doesn’t address buying it from non-government agencies and probably on purpose.
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.
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.
I think electing him twice should count for something.
that’s fair. lol
At much harder the second time.
Every single swing county supposedly went the same way, there’s a county in New York where Harris supposedly had zero votes- despite locals claiming they did.
Alot of sus
Mate, USA is way ahead in fascism. EU isn’t openly disappear / deporting people yet. EU has healthcare, mostly.
Pretty sure fascist already broke off the UK. While I will agree the US is ahead, it is everywhere already.
This is a worldwide problem unfortunately.
Only one? Do all if the bootlickers in the house and the senate, as well as JD vance not count?
but we still don’t have chat control
Who needs chat control when you have the Patriot Act and PRISM?
Name one world leader except Trump that can make the stock market crash by speaking… :)
We dont have any big leaders in Europe that most people know by name even.
Its all talk about Trump, Musk, Zuckerberg over here too. Like mini America. There is nobody here who is saying anything people care about. We dont even know their names.
You absolutely are ahead of the fascist game, so far ahead that your billionaires are funding European fascists and emboldening them.
our billionaires are also funding the protests again them; one of the walmart heirs is entire responsible for the noking protests.
Cough, Briar, Cough, Cough SSB cough.
Simplex
Will this actually happen with 9 member states opposing? I thought they need every memeber state to support it?
All that means it’s that it won’t become EU-wide, could still become applied in those “Yes” voters off their own initiatives
