Thank you.
Many tried to find false compromises with references to digital IDs. That doesn't work, you just had an example of states demonstrating their desire to invade private communications. States lack the maturity for that.
An infrastructure with state IDs is not possible because we have no privacy protections. I don't want a simple legislative change to put myself and my data in danger.
I works if a small state uses it for digital government services. If it were established in the EU, the fight for privacy would be even harder. So no to state issued IDs as well.
vpShane•4mo ago
Security systems and the ability to transmit data transmissions securely, whether it be a 'chat' or not require this not only due to bad actors, but data integrity.
You know that your data is read only by those who are authorized. While intentions may be good (they're not), at scale it is not feasible to monitor all data, in hopes to stop something bad.
Discord just had its 'required IDs' hacked. We can sit here all day and say why encryption, and secure transmissions are beneficial, but there just isn't one argument I can possibly agree with where everybody's privacy, and ability to speak securely is infringed upon.
This effects everybody globally if you have people you speak securely with in the EU. By backdooring things by default and undermining encrypted technologies, everybody in the world then becomes at risk by whoever gets that data.
Who does actually get that data?
There's a 'dark mission' going on in the EU where data retention and backdoors are becoming a requirement, they're seeking out individuals for hire and giving them missions to compromise and/or obtain compromised systems, nobody knows who they are, what they do, or what they do with the data.
The European Digital Rights had some words on it.
Shedding Light We Address the Flawed Going Dark Report
https://edri.org/our-work/shedding-light-we-address-the-flaw...
Here's their open letter:
https://edri.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Open-Letter-on-H...