Follow

It's better to provide a real-world example understand how dumb the EU's argument for is.

Their argument is basically that they have to implement client-side checks on all the messaging apps to protect children from abuse.

Besides the sheer absurdity of the implementation of client-side checks for *all* the available apps out there, while not reducing people's privacy and not creating a backdoor that malicious actors will be eager to exploit, and besides the macroscopic contradictions in the EU's position (first they called E2E encryption a civic right, then they push for client-side checks on those E2E-encrypted chats), it's appropriate to provide a real-world example.

Most of the domestic abuse doesn't happen online. It happens within the domestic walls.

If we follow the EU's logic, it's therefore appropriate to push everyone with kids in the EU to install surveillance cameras and mics in their homes (you know, to ensure that they don't abuse their kids). Or maybe keep the doors of their houses open so authorities can immediately intervene in case of abuse.

In other words, is it allowed to drastically lower the bar for privacy and security for everyone for the benefit of a minority, without first considering if there are smarter solutions to solve the problems of that minority? Just to name a few: invite parents to pay more attention to what their kids do online, or establish a European emergency line with specialists immediately within reach in case of reports.

@blacklight yet the same normies would be most appalled if someone would for example hack that said camera system or went into their apartment and took away their TV. we can see how those Jokers are now having all sorts of comittees in the EU because Pegasus, but only because their buddies and jurnalists had it installed on their phones. they are scared that their shady deals get exposed. If we have nothing to hide then why do many wealthy people have offshore accounts?

@blacklight I think that this Pegasus thing has became such a big deal because it was targeting important people and we assume that all of those materials were processed with high priority. In case of general monitoring people think that authorities dobnot have the capacity to observe all of us. Let's be real at this point they are so understaffed did you're probably right. But this is basically a false sense of security.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

A platform about automation, software architecture, data science and tech.