European Union | European Parliament
results.elections.europa.eu
Official results of the European elections held between 6 and 9 June 2024.

The results are showing up… Now we have to hope for the law to be declined… Already discussed about the chat control law of the EU, here : https://lemmy.ml/post/16469106

  • foremanguy@lemmy.mlOP
    3·
    5 months ago

    That’s why the EU wants to control the chats. They would ask to software producers to backdoor their apps, and Meta Google and Microsoft would be OK with it.

    • Elise@beehaw.org
      1·
      5 months ago

      You mean like a secret power motive? I’ve never sought that in the EU. Would appreciate any references.

      • foremanguy@lemmy.mlOP
        4·
        5 months ago

        Read this how it affects you text : https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/#how-does-this-affect-you

        All of your chat conversations and emails will be automatically searched for suspicious content. Nothing remains confidential or secret. There is no requirement of a court order or an initial suspicion for searching your messages. It occurs always and automatically.

        Intelligence services and hackers may be able to spy on your private chats and emails. The door will be open for anyone with the technical means to read your messages if secure encryption is removed in order to be able to screen messages.

        • Elise@beehaw.org
          2·
          5 months ago

          Hmm I’m not under that impression, at least not from the parliament. I’m unfamiliar with the dynamic between the commission and the parliament but it might be that the commission tends to state what’s possible and the parliament then picks what they want.

          It’s not a backdoor as far as I understand it and it doesn’t compromise e2ee, but a scan on a system you trust. Local or on a server you trust.

          The only issue I personally have is with the error rate. It seems to be at 80%. Personally I would find any level of error a problem. I don’t see any reasonable solution with our current tech.

          • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
            4·
            5 months ago

            By acting as a man-in-the-middle with the ability to read unencrypted message data (absolutely required in order to try to match against known CSAM), this is absolutely providing a backdoor as well as undermining privacy and security. By needing to trust another party, there is now a greater threat surface which is outside of end user control. One compromised account with access to that third-party is all it would take to extract private details from any messages, undetected, whether for sale on there blackmarket or for suppressing political dissidents, that’s exactly where this would go and we know this because state actors have been caught doing it and getting their toolkits leaked to criminals.

            This kind of law doesn’t make children or regular people any safer.

            • Elise@beehaw.org
              2·
              5 months ago

              I think we have different information. What I’ve read showed that the commission had a very broad and extreme proposal just as you just mentioned. I’d definitely not be on board with that.

              However the parliament’s proposal was way more restrictive. If I understood it right it’s the commission that makes proposals but the parliament can react to it and this goes back and forth. The parliament is the one in the end that turns it into law.

              I’m still a newbie in this area because I wasn’t able to vote due to my circumstances until last week.

              As I mentioned before this might just be a standard day at the office for them. The commission makes wide and extreme proposals. Perhaps they even survey that stuff and look at the public opinion and allow time for debate. Eventually they create a reasonable law.