• mox@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    86
    ·
    5 months ago

    users of apps with a communication function would have to agree via terms and conditions or pop-up messages that all images and videos sent to others will be scanned automatically and possibly reported to the EU and the police.

    This is more like coercion than consent.

    And let’s be clear: The goal of legislation like this is not to allow investigating child abusers, which can already be done legally. The goal is to impose mass surveillance on the population, circumventing due process.

        • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          If you have Internet it uses tor and there’s no main server to rely on.

          If there’s no Internet it can use Bluetooth and Wi-Fi locally.

          • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Well I have to admit, those are some pretty snazzy tricks…

            Using tor on a per app basis is pretty cool, I wonder what the security implications are for that? If some, but not all of your traffic is going through tor, I wonder if it’s easier to disentangle somehow… Probably it’s still secure though.

      • Audalin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Very cool and impressive, but I’d rather be able to share arbitrary files.

        And looks like you can only send images in DMs, but not in groups/forums.

      • LordCrom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        99 percent of people won’t care, won’t understand, or just be part of the mindset of why be scared if we have nothing to hide.

        Only us techs will care

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            Because it’s not been free press for a long time.

            Remember when journalism was supposed to be outrageous? That’s not a mark of quality, that’s a rule. If it’s not outrageous, then it’s most likely not journalism.

            It also never reports on wars outside of the agreed upon narrative. There’s time and narrative for everything. That doesn’t happen with free press. There may not be open censorship and coercion, but not seeing something is different from knowing it doesn’t exist.

    • tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      Well, ones that aren’t based on a service operating in the EU, at any rate.

    • ɐɥO@lemmy.ohaa.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      this could finally be a good “reason” to convice some people near me to get into meshtastic

  • BezzelBob@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    5 months ago

    They always hide behind the claim it’s for the children… but how many children have they actually saved from this?

    • tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      5 months ago

      They always hide behind the claim it’s for the children

      Sometimes it’s the terrorists.

      • pirat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        But… Are they then going to catch or protect all the terrorist children?

    • Beaver@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      5 months ago

      They’re probably gonna put parents behind bars for a misunderstanding on their private lives

      • BezzelBob@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        5 months ago

        This reminds me of that time google was scanning photos and reported a man to the police for being a pedophile, turns out it was a father sending a picture to his doctor

  • archchan@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    5 months ago

    If consent mattered, governments and corporations all around the world wouldn’t be pushing to expand the global surveillance apparatus.

    Is this just another Tuesday now? Fuck me.

  • uebquauntbez@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    5 months ago

    I’d vote for testing this mass chat control on politicians and CEOs of the companies that want this mass control. Let’s say for the next 10 years? Or 20? Pretty sure the results will be great. For people, for justice, for democracy.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      That won’t happen. What will happen is that functionality will be there, on paper requiring your consent, but you’ll never know how many times they’ve used it without consent.

      They will read your correspondence, find threats to their power, make sure by soft nudges that those never materialize.

      People saying that USSR was democratic will get to live in one, only without even the ideology of “freeing the humanity, building communism and colonizing space”.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    5 months ago

    As if any chat systems inteded for dubious purposes in the darknet would give a flying f-ck about this law.

  • barryamelton@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Even if you don’t opt in, 99% of the people you interact with would have opted in. So you will monitored as they please.