this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2024
116 points (100.0% liked)

Europe

116 readers
1 users here now

Europa

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DavidGarcia@feddit.nl 7 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

What's gotten into Germany? Are their politicians sick? Why are they opposing it. Usually German politicians are the ones leading the charge on BS surveillance regulations.

[–] N0x0n@lemmy.ml 16 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Is your government opposing? → Great, but take a closer look at the reasoning: Some governments like Germany e.g. only object to the scanning of encrypted communications, but are fine with the indiscriminate scanning of other private and public communication, with the end of anonymous communication by requiring age verification, or with introducing a minimum age for “risky” communication apps.

[–] DavidGarcia@feddit.nl 7 points 4 weeks ago

there it is

[–] DarkFox@pawb.social 3 points 3 weeks ago

Unfortunately it looks like it's a lost cause in Denmark. Most parties except for the far left are heavily in favour of backdoors or bans on encrypted communication services.

And most of the population "have nothing to hide".

[–] Lokjo@mstdn.social 0 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

@memphis We have our doubts whether chatcontrol is a bad thing or not. We base this solely on the fact that germany and holland are not in favour, while knowing that those countries are heavily under unfluence of american corporations.

In our opinion their social media (fb, insta, whatsapp, twitter etc) is influencing people to think bad about chatcontrol because they would loose profit on it, and so make people vote against it.

Tbh, more security is needed, especially on THEIR platforms.

[–] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

I think that this is a very two dimensional way to look at the issue. Sure, big social media companies don't want to be responsible for what happens on their plattforms, but that doesn't and shouldn't mean that it is sensible to compromise encryption like this. Also, it's not like the already existing unencrypted, public parts of big social media platforms tend to be well moderated.

The argument that I often hear brought up is that this new surveillance capability would only be used when there is a court order, but even assuming that those are always fair and valid, and the police never circumvent due process, it being a possibility would inherently necessitate breaking end to end encryption, making communication less secure.

I don't think that the government should be allowed to secretly listen in on communication in this way, but even if one thinks they should be allowed to, breaking secure communication for everyone doesn't seem like a price that is justified.