That's a bit ... off brand coming from you mozilla. How are the governments going to find and censor things you don't like

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/we-need-more-than-deplat... https://archive.ph/ia2z4

I see the link is now broken on their site so perhaps they have thought better. STFU and just make firefox.

obviously in a couple of years they'll try again, but it was blocked aready, right?

Whenever I look at these proposals I am never sure if the people that wrote that law are not aware that you can’t tap one person without making spying on everyone really easy very quickly, they don’t care or they actually want it. Although this seems like a slightly more sensible version of what they proposed years ago (which was essentially adding the government to every chat).

Funny thing is, my private conversations of sexual nature with my 28 years old girlfriend could probably flag "their" system as CSAM. It has happened to a couple of people before from what I recall.

If this passes, just stop using anything inherently insecure. You may want to stop using WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, etc. for private conversations. I already do this.

There are alternatives that will not be affected by this, stick to these. I would give you a list, but I should better be quiet about it.

Why don't we do a trial run first? How about all communication from EU lawmakers is made public. Let's break that encryption.

This is everywhere, in every Western country, somehow all at the same time. Real identities for social media, electronic IDs, electronic currencies run by the government, backdoors in encryption

This is dystopian. Who is behind this coordinated attack?

Exactly what China and Russia want (from the security perspective), and the US (from a economical one).

The opposition to chat control is really missing the point: chat control does not break encryption, the law is about mandating client-side scanning, not weakening cryptography so law enforcement can break it more easily or introducing backdoors. If you say "don't break encryption", they will just respond that this will not break encryption, which is true, but also completely irrelevant.

What we should be advocating instead is the freedom of doing whatever we want with our computing devices, which include rejecting the sort of crap companies and various government like to impose on ourselves.

They aren't really breaking encryption, more like banning it, right?

Let me be reasoned and measured and say fuck the entire gallery of those assholes. I only use Signal now, but I'm fully willing to give that up as well if this goes through and go full GPG-encrypted e-mail with keys exchanged IRL. The only thing I use the smartphone for other than Signal is navigation and OSMand works offline perfectly, I'll just pop my simcard into the cheapest dumbphone I can find and occasionally connect my phone to wifi to download new vector maps.

If the EU, a supposed bastion of human rights, forces this through, what argument do we have when more authoritarian countries demand the same thing from Apple, Google, or Meta?

Assuming there's a tradeoff between safety and privacy (which might be a false dichotomy pushed onto people), I am perfectly fine with the current level of safety. I feel zero need to give up privacy for more safety.

I feel:

- The most danger in my life is from deranged people like some rando homeless person who decides to push me under the subway out of the blue. The second biggest danger is unemployed drug-using losers who might try to rob me in the street. The third danger is aggressive groups of teenagers (which happen to usually be a certain minority where I live) who might try to beat my up because somehow that is how they gain status among each other.

- If I was a woman, the fourth would probably be getting raped. Most probably by an immigrant, usually from a Muslim country. This might be incredibly controversial to US people but in the EU, we hear about these cases regularly. I am not saying every immigrant or Muslim is a rapist. I am not saying they rape at a much higher rate than the native population. This is why I prefaced everything with "I feel" because these 4 reasons are the narrative I see from the media.

Anyway, taking away people's privacy does not help with any of these.

But that's not the point.

The most danger to a politician's life is from:

- Terrorists.[0]

- Non-deranged (sane) people who are so ideologically opposed to the politician's views and actions that they decide the only way to stop them is to attack them physically.

Taking away people's privacy helps with both of these. If performed by a group of people, there's the obvious need to communicate and organize. If performed by a single individual, then he still has to perform reconnaissance and acquire tools, both of which are likely to be done online to some degree.

---

So you see, it's not about people's safety. It's about politicians' safety.

[0]: Terrorism is by definition the intention to cause fear among the population. It was later redefined as trying to affect political change through violence, which is stupid but it serves the purpose of politicians using terrorists as a source of fear, despite the average person being incredibly unlikely to be hurt by one.