this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

58424 readers
4221 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Moritz Körner, Member of the European Parliament, disclosed the decision on Twitter. Swedish publisher SVG said, “The question was removed at the last moment from Thursday’s ambassadorial meeting in Brussels”.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dojan@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I’m still fucking mad the Left voted yes for this. Campaigning on a no and then turning their coats immediately after the elections. Disgraceful, and I hope whichever party members are responsible get booted.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 0 points 3 months ago (8 children)

Don't make the mistake of thinking that left mean anti-authoritarian. Left or right is an economic stance, and is orthogonal to beliefs surrounding government rights Vs population rights.

[–] oce@jlai.lu 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Left or right is an economic stance

What about the social stance?

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 0 points 3 months ago

Also that. But I'd say that wewbull's point stands that there are more and less authoritarian flavours of that too

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Check out the political compass, which is an interesting way to conceptualize political leanings. I don't think the test is particularly good (I have issues with a few of the questions), but the answer I get is pretty close to where I think I should be placed, so maybe there's some merit to it.

I'm consistently in the bottom half near the center line, and the two major parties in my country are in the top right. I guess that just demonstrates why I fail to see much difference in what I care about in the two major parties, since moving toward either direction is a move away from me.

Anyway, I hope this is a decent demonstration of how the left/right divide doesn't tell the whole story.

[–] uis@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The problem with political compass arises when you understand that political and economic freedoms are in conflict with each other under capitalism.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dojan@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

When I say Left, I mean Vänsterpartiet, not some nebulous coalition. See their stance here.

Chat control was a proposal on an EU level which meant that applications and social media platforms would be forced to scan all of their users messages. The proposal has been put forth by the EU comission as a part of a larger package with the purpose of protecting children against exploitation on the internet. The Left Party considers that the part specifically about chat control wouldn't contribute to the end goals. There are more effective measures that need to be taken in order to protect children.

After significant criticism from us and many others the EU parliament has significantly improved the proposal. They have among other things removed all parts regarding automatic scanning. This has meant that all parties now are in support of the EU-parliament position. The proposal is now on hold among the member states and instead another, temporary law has been extended to counter sexual abuse of children on the internet.

Overall the Left (Vänsterpartiet) campaigns on a position of being against surveillance and the like. The Social Democrats (part of the Left coalition) however is in favour of it, because of course they fucking are. My issue here is obviously that they're lying to our faces.

On a much greater scale I have a lot of issues. For the most part I align mostly with V and MP, but we're talking on a level of like 60-70%, so they don't actually represent my views particularly well. In the grand scheme of things that's also not something I'd expect; I'm rather extreme but I also realise that there's only so much we can do when operating within the system we currently have. Thus I align with the parties that align the closest with the core beliefs I have, V and MP.

One of my biggest icks when it comes to politics is hiding behind children. It infuriates me because it's never genuine. It's never about the fucking children, they're just a convenient excuse because the moment someone criticises a suggestion, you can turn around and say "Oh so you hate children? Are you a paedophile? Why do you support children being harmed?"

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] BlastboomStrice@mander.xyz 0 points 3 months ago

Lets gooooo🔥

(It has happened in the past, it will probably happen again in a few months, but still, its a win!)

[–] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 0 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Wasn't this rejected once already? Perhaps if they wanted to do something useful, they should pass something that says that if something is majority disliked twice or something, then it should be withdrawn and not proposed again for at least 100 years.

[–] MonkderDritte@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Better define some basic human rights as a core tenet and fire repeat offenders, because they are a danger to the population.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (3 children)

They will keep trying again and again and again. The assault on privacy has been going on for decades and it will never stop.

[–] Dasnap@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

You've gotta defend for an infinite amount of time, but they've only gotta succeed once.

[–] dactylotheca@suppo.fi 0 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Yep, and as I pointed out in another comment in this thread, Chat Control isn't the only piece of legislation like this that's in the works.

Considering that the extreme right just won big, I have no doubt that one of these fascist surveillance packages will go through. Yeah, at first it may be used for catching criminals, until it isn't

[–] melroy@kbin.melroy.org 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Actually it was the Left wing that mainly voted yes for this. Just saying.

[–] PonyOfWar@pawb.social 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Source? In Germany at least that's not the case, it's mainly the conservatives who push for it. In the original vote, only the greens clearly opposed it. Later on, SPD (center-left) and FDP (liberal) changed course to also oppose it. Couldn't find results for other countries though, so I'm genuinely curious.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The labels get confusing especially between countries, but left and right are normally viewed as being economic policy classifications, but you can have authoritarians on right and left and all need to be fought.

[–] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I don't think that's accurate, there's a social axis from left to right too.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I think of authoritarian as being up and down, and social and economic views as left and right. Check out the political compass if you haven't. It would be nice if it was 3D with economic and social policy being separated though.

[–] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I've seen the compass, but in real life conversation when people say left or right they don't exclusively mean economic views. For example, access to abortion or LGBT rights are generally seen as supported by the left and opposed by the right.

You're right it's reductive, and really there are many dimensions to political thought.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Exactly, and I try to point people to things like this to try to break that left vs right thought. I hope it helps someone.

I'm left on some issues, right on some, and disagree with both on others, and I think that's pretty common for most people. However, we only get two realistic options, and they split up issues and "force" you to pick which basket you prefer. I'm worried people will slowly adopt views from the basket they pick since the alternative is needing to pick the other basket.

Anyway, rant over. :)

[–] dactylotheca@suppo.fi 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Doesn't change who's in charge now

[–] melroy@kbin.melroy.org 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I believe all parties in EU are not really understanding technology in general. So I think it's a very bad decision to give these people power over these kinds of rules. They just have no idea what they are doing frankly.

[–] dactylotheca@suppo.fi 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yep, no disagreement there. This sort of mass surveillance is a fucking terrible idea no matter who's behind the wheel

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Grippler@feddit.dk 0 points 3 months ago

Nono, it will always only be used to catch criminals, that won't change...it's what makes someone a criminal that changes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago

Yes. Technically, a similar vote could repeal the law just as easily but there is a history of governments not giving their power away easily; implementing it also sets a precedent and creates technical enforcement options for other governments willing to go through with something similar in the future, or for hackers to exploit because gov-rooted devices will remain in operation for years after the potential repeal.

[–] dactylotheca@suppo.fi 0 points 3 months ago

And "Chat Control" isn't even the only thing like this in the pipeline. There's the so-called "security by design" bullshit (which does the opposite of what then name implies) that's actually even worse than Chat Control and has also been worked on in secret, and which'd include mass scale surveillance of not just photos but pretty much everything, and is much more likely to pass than Chat Control.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cmeio@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Such a rule is basically un-enforceable. Because it is nearly never exactly the same text. So it is always the first time voted on.

[–] Tywele@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What they could do is create a law that protects the integrity of E2EE. At least in this case.

But I guess that will never happen.

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It was protected by the ECHR in a recent ruling. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/03/european-court-human-rights-confirms-undermining-encryption-violates-fundamental

However, Chat Control 2.0 argues that since the spying is done before the content is encrypted, it's somehow ok. 🙄

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PonyOfWar@pawb.social 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Either way they can just give it a new name and change some details to propose it again. Like how they made it "voluntary" this time (but you can only send text if you don't agree).

[–] melroy@kbin.melroy.org 0 points 3 months ago

Damn.. this was almost China 2.0 in EU. This was a close call people... this is not good.

[–] PonyOfWar@pawb.social 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Nice. I guess they didn't expect to get a majority to support it anymore. Definitely a win for now, but I'm sure they'll try again.

[–] Tywele@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 months ago

I guess that realisation came after Germany said they will vote "No"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Find the politicians by name who voted yes for this, and display them in public.

Let the capable open source community then take over going through their phones, since they must be OK with their phones being scanned, right?

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (8 children)

At least some of them were discussion giving themselves an exception from it. So no.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] arymandias@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They are just edging this law till nobody pays attention. Democracy at work!

[–] melroy@kbin.melroy.org 0 points 3 months ago

Indeed, until the next time, where it doesn't have enough news coverage. China 2.0 here we come.

[–] r@piefed.social 0 points 3 months ago

glad it got stopped. hopefully it never will.

[–] EntropyPure@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

From what I understand it was withdrawn as a vote „in favor of the goals of the commission“ was not guaranteed. In part because Germany announced its decision to withdraw support yesterday. Seems to be standard behavior.

[–] MonkderDritte@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Can we please identify the guys always pushing encryption-breaking ideas?

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

And hack their phones so we can see why they want to spy on everyone else's phones

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I have zero doubt that many core proponents of anti-privacy laws are pedophiles — that's why they always add measures to ensure it's illegal to invade their own privacy.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] fuzzy_feeling@programming.dev 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] grue@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

I hate dishonest titles and URLs. In reality, this shit has nothing to do with "child sex content."

[–] MonkderDritte@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Until next try in a few months.

What i read here sometime without source, that secret services since Snowden push for breaking of encryption, seems more and more plausible.

[–] Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago

So I assume that since it was withdrawn, this doesn't set a precedent and it's only a matter of time untill they try to sneak it thru with a different name.

[–] andrade@infosec.pub 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Note the vote was withdrawn, not actually voted against. They're pushing this for a later date because there was no majority.

“The EU Council did not make a decision on chat control today, as the agenda item was removed due to the lack of a majority, (...)

Belgium’s draft law, (...) was instead postponed indefinitely. (...) Belgium cannot currently present a proposal that would gain a majority. In July, the Council Presidency will transfer from Belgium to Hungary, which has stated its intention to advance negotiations on chat control as part of its work program.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] banana_lama@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago

Now put in a law saying you can't do that

[–] LordCrom@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (11 children)

They are just delaying the vote for another time... Hoping that next time it will fly under the radar and there won't be a huge backlash of discontent.

If the vote fail, they just wait a year, rename it, and try again.

Same thing happens in the US. Law proposed that people hate, people organize, start a campaign that fights for news airtime, bringing awareness of the dickery about to happen, and then succeed after a hard battle and many many volunteer hours spent.

In 6 months Congress just renames it the "I love kittens" act and sticks it on a must pass bill.

Fighting bullshit laws is exhausting....

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›