EU commission further proving they wipe their asses with transparency and accountability. The COVID vaccine deals were negotiated in secret, four years later and in spite of lawsuits against them they are still fighting tooth and nail to keep as much information as they can secret.
this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2025
152 points (99.4% liked)
Privacy
2480 readers
338 users here now
Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
So, the European Commission has the money to hire a PR department?
Not particularly news, but oh well.
"Once we have a backdoor in all your systems, we'll never ever abuse it. Trust us, bro."
That's not even what they are saying. They are saying that they will not monitor communication, except for the communication they will monitor.
No, they're very clear: only CSAM will be scanned. So if they don't know, they won't scan it. /s
That's doable, though, simply create an official app called "Pedo Chat for Sharing CSAM" and scan only that single app.
Only material... can be detected
Impossible, they have to scan everything to detect it. They are fucking liars.
"Only material that is clearly child sexual abuse will be searched"
Searched in what? All open and private discussions? That is the whole f-ing point!
It's super smart, they will only monitor criminal activity, specifically.
And how, pray tell, will you "search for and detect" child abuse, without the general monitoring of online communications?
They're playing dumb. Search through what?
In short 'we will only spy the bad guys'? Edit, I almost forgot the mandatory 'Think about the children!'
Sure.
For starters...
I remember DNA tests, they were only for pedos at first, then rapists, then violent people, then for suspects...
"We are not controlling the chat, that is done by some obscure programm that scans every single word, picture and other file. For what? Of course only stuff that endangers children and if you do not believe us it means you are probably a child predator 😤"
What i fear is, that if they tell that lie often enough, more and more people will believe it.
Saying something like "It's only a tiny bit controlled." is similar to saying "I'm only a tiny bit pregnant.".
It does not work this way in reality.
You only have a tiny bit cancer
Sorry to say that this doesn't match the rest.
You can have a tiny bit of cancer, that is tiny enough that it does not need medication and is eventually finished by cytotoxic T cells, depending upon other conditions.
That doesn't correlate to things like "tiny bit of mass-surveillance", which is aimed to be an oxymoron.
I'm curious how this will work with GDPR. Will they be allowed to look through my stuff but keep none of it unless it's illegal?
I can genuinely believe that the people putting this forward are clueless enough about the tech to not understand why this doesn't make sense.
Still shouldn't happen.
I can't. The noblemen and church always wanted to control the masses. The only thing that changed is we don't call them noblemen anymore and church doesn't do it openly anymore.
They'll tell you anything to make you believe they're controlling you for your own good.
If they didn't understand what's wrong with the proposal, they wouldn't add an exception for politicians.
That's funny, because the only people who should have their private messages scanned are politicians because in theory they serve all of us and there's no other control mechanism for the masses.
But somehow it ends up they being secretive and our private lives shared with them (and let's be honest, most of the CSAM is from rich people and there's a curious overlap between rich people and top politicians).
Yeeeeah, you'll excuse me if I'm not on board with "representative democracy is bad, actually". Screw that crap, that's how you get Trumps winning elections.
Get chat control shut down by all means, but I have no patience for the tin foil hat paranoia being weaponized to legitimize authoritarians and fascists.
Why are politicians exempt then?
I don't understand this question. Does that impact what I said one way or the other?
Actually, I've been looking for where in the text that exemption is defined. If you have a link I'd love to see it. I've skimmed the proposal but couldn't find it at a glance. I've only seen it mentioned in social media posts.
I heard an interview with Hummelgaard who put it forward this time, and he is absolutely raging clueless.
~~Clueless~~ Misinformed by palantir
So they are going to search everything and allow a computer to decide what is child abuse, then we can just take their word for them not reading and cataloging every other category of people they want to Target. Sending the tips anonymously through their law enforcement information Networks so we would never know or be able to challenge the use of that information. As the USA has done with its NSA illegal spying.
All while their countries are busy illegalizing protest and dissent, first four Israel and climate change and environmental issues, it will be an expanding list.
Haha, so true! XD
Stop entertaining authoritarians, and make physical lessons, Europe!
They can't learn, unless you make physical examples.
Argumentum ad "we're not calling it that."
We gotta spy on everything to detect the bad stuff, but we're only gonna detect the bad stuff! That's different, somehow!
But that is literally the official name used in Germany by government media. ¯_( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)_/¯
Can I ping mastodon from lemmy?
@EUCommission@ec.social-network.europa.eu
Why are there no replies in that thread? In that post you say something that appears to go completely against technological possibility, and people are asking questions. Why are you not replying? What kind of outrach account is this that behaves this way?
In many ways, this is the same as Google/Amazon/Apple claiming they are not listening to voice commands 24/7, when anyone with common sense understands that they have to, to register the initial request too.
I don't trust them to limit it to what they claim they're doing
The distinction there is that they detect the activation command client-side and start sending to server after that. Chat control could technically be implemented in a similar way, where the client decides when and what to send to central processing. Only problem is... do we do all detection client-side then? Or do we let the user activate the detection by saying "Hey Interpol"?
good now stop cooperating with us and ice.
I've not looked into this chat control thing (I did sign the thing opposing it, don't worry), what's it about? Specifically, how would they prevent me using a chat app they can't look into?
It's a stupid thing to go at anyway, chat. Its obvious people will hate it and organize against it. On the other actual pedos will find a way to encrypt it if they know someone could be watching. And on the other other hand they set so many guardrails, it would take a shitton of judges and signatures to actually go and look.
It would make way more sense to put more effort in other places. I think, but I don't know a lot about hunting pedos.
how would they prevent me using a chat app they can't look into?
I dont think they can, unless they get android and iOS to do this os wide. The bigger problem is: will the public care enough to use such a messenger? Will they do it when it becomes illegal to use such a messenger? If not, mass surveillance is inevitable and those sidestepping it for important privacy reasons are easily detectable making them easy targets.
You think they could easily find out people who are using an app they can't check? How?
-
bully OS providers into compliance, Google/Apple knows which apps you have installed and which apps you open.
-
assume anyone using VPN or Tor or similar is suspicious, with deep packet inspection you can get a lot of information - even if it looks like nonsense data, you absolutely can infer patterns if you have enough data.
Pretty much every messenger is built around a central server. Tracing connections to that server is not without hassle but doable with government resources. Now, a Briar-Style P2P Network could work but that has it's own problems. Central servers are popular for a reason.
Decentralised messaging to the rescue!
You need to send a lot of metadata unencrypted for decentralised e2ee to work.
Compare metadata leak between centralised Signal (which goes to impressive lengths to know as little as possible about you) and decentralised Matrix.
That's just not true, you can obviously use encrypted communications all along, even for discovery. Why on earth would you?
Man, fuck webp. Fuck you but thanks for the laugh