• mub@lemmy.ml
    54·
    7 days ago

    “outlaws anonymous communication” - This sends chills down me more than anything else I can remember. The people and organisations that benefit from this can’t be trusted.

    The only thing this does is control the law abiding public. Criminals are already breaking the law, and won’t care. It is trivial to build an anonymous communication app. There will always be a workaround.

    Anonymity, and free speak should be human rights.

    • Cyrus Draegur@lemmy.zipEnglish
      11·
      6 days ago

      Wasn’t banishing anonymous communication literally what the bad guys in Mirror’s Edge did? And facilitating that anonymous communication was literally the entire livelihood of the protagonist’s faction?

    • zaperberry@lemmy.caEnglish
      63·
      7 days ago

      “Outlaws anonymous communication by requiring every citizen to verify their age…”

      To me that reads similarly to age restricted websites asking you to verify your age before accessing it, where you just input a date that says you’re old enough and then you’re set. I’ve been 99 years old for the last decade. Given what they’re trying to do, I wouldn’t be surprised if they use more extensive verification measures, but I haven’t read into that yet. If it’s just an age/DOB input, then it’s not really outlawing anything.

      • Infernal_pizza@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        8·
        6 days ago

        Except those same websites are now being forced to verify age using photos or government ID which will definitely be required in this case as well

    • sunbeam60@feddit.uk
      111·
      7 days ago

      Because Denmark holds the rotating EU presidency, Denmark is literally required by treaty to work towards compromise when the council cannot agree. If it wasn’t Denmark doing this work, it would be another country holding the EU presidency doing it.

      It’s not really about Denmark - it’s about the entire council agreeing with a compromise the presidency has to seek.

      • verdi@feddit.org
        121·
        6 days ago

        It was voted out, that’s it. Nobody forced the danes to re-introduce the matter, especially when it was done with subterfuge.

        • sunbeam60@feddit.uk
          1·
          6 days ago

          That’s wrong.

          Article 4(3) TEU requires that the country holding the rotating presidency of the council must act in the spirit of sincere cooperation, which means it must act as an “honest broker” and not pursue national interests. This means it must seek to find a compromise if the council cannot agree, which Denmark has done.

          Look, I’m not a fan of chat control. But the blame doesn’t lie with the Danes, it’s the whole of the EU one must blame.

    • possumparty@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      9·
      7 days ago

      because when you have fourteen parties there’s bound to be at least a few fascists hiding behind the curtains. the real problem is that there’s not legislation that prevents this dude from retracting and resubmitting it when it looks like it’s gonna fail

  • termaxima@slrpnk.net
    17·
    6 days ago

    Besides the privacy implications : trying to protect children from grooming by forbidding specific apps, is like trying to treat chickenpox with concealer.

    The real problem is that our society is even producing people who would groom a child.

    But as always, politicians will try to “prevent” crime at the latest possible point in the action chain, instead of going back to the source.

    I dont want to understate the fact that going to the source is extremely hard to do in many cases ; but maybe people would be less disinterested in politics, if we were actually choosing between different treatments - instead of different brands of concealer - to treat our various collective cases of chicken pox.

  • Tja@programming.dev
    31·
    7 days ago

    Ok, the website says that Germany already opposes it. Is that outdated or what? I don’t want to spam MEPs if they already agree with me.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      36·
      7 days ago

      Spam them regardless. You want them to stay where they are and to argue firmly. Especially coming from Germany when talking about the evil of the surveillance state.

  • Sizbang@lemmy.world
    6·
    6 days ago

    Just sent it, thanks for the reminder. Sent it before too an one representative actually responded which was nice.

  • arsCynic@lemmy.mlEnglish
    5·
    6 days ago

    I don’t get it. If an email was encrypted with PGP between a friend and myself, how would anyone else without the private keys be able to decrypt it?

    • Kjell@lemmy.world
      17·
      6 days ago

      They can’t, but that is not the purpose. If the chat control passes then all big services will be forced to leave EU or build in a backdoor. That will give them control over more than 90 % of the population and satisfies their goal. You and your friends are a rounding error. And if you would perform a crime, or are suspected of one, they can use the fact that you encrypt your messages against you.

    • gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      11·
      7 days ago

      All that means it’s that it won’t become EU-wide, could still become applied in those “Yes” voters off their own initiatives

  • olenkoVD@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    8·
    7 days ago

    Question for a the Fight Chat Control website: My country’s primary language is not English, do I need to translate the e-mail?

    • falcunculus@jlai.lu
      7·
      7 days ago

      Yes you should, and it would be even better to use it as a template to write it yourself.

      MEPs will pay more attention to messages that seem genuine and from their voters rather than mass-produced by foreigners.