“War upon end-to-end encryption”: EU wants Big Tech to scan private messages

[Dr. Evil]

“War upon end-to-end encryption”: EU wants Big Tech to scan private messages

Services may have to scan encrypted messages for child abuse images and grooming.

arstechnica.com

Isn't that nice. They are looking out for kids. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[livingston]

“War upon end-to-end encryption”: EU wants Big Tech to scan private messages

Services may have to scan encrypted messages for child abuse images and grooming.

arstechnica.com

Isn't that nice. They are looking out for kids. What could possibly go wrong?

If it only save one child it would be worth it .... right

 

[SomeSoldier]

I thought GDPR protected a person's right to privacy. I know it does. I am fight for a policy change at work because of it.

 

[Uninformed and Compliant]

If they try to pull that shit here, it *requires* that we can require English to be the official language.

Crypto, after all, is just a language that only two people understand.

 

[meketrefe]

So on one side who wouldn't agree with protecting a child right? That is the first thought of most decent human beings.
But for that you have to decrypt all communications and that means stripping everyones of their most fundamental rights.
It is like opening all the drawers in your house hopping someone will get exactly and only what they need but how can we be sure?
We cant and that is why these measures not only are unconstitutional but they are of little or no value.
The claim that all the massive surveillance is in the benefit of national security and some prevention has yet to be proven.
They cannot make sense of the oceans of uncrypted data imagine even asking for more.
Also there is the question whether what we call national security is an equivalent interpretation of what is best for the citizens of that given nation. There should be no difference but it seems that they are totally different and governments actions should be questioned all the time.

 

[99cummins]

“Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

 

[Acer-m14]

If it only save one child it would be worth it .... right

unless its in the womb ..

 

[spat]

So on one side who wouldn't agree with protecting a child right? That is the first thought of most decent human beings.
But for that you have to decrypt all communications and that means stripping everyones of their most fundamental rights.
It is like opening all the drawers in your house hopping someone will get exactly and only what they need but how can we be sure?
We cant and that is why these measures not only are unconstitutional but they are of little or no value.
The claim that all the massive surveillance is in the benefit of national security and some prevention has yet to be proven.
They cannot make sense of the oceans of uncrypted data imagine even asking for more.
Also there is the question whether what we call national security is an equivalent interpretation of what is best for the citizens of that given nation. There should be no difference but it seems that they are totally different and governments actions should be questioned all the time.

Thinking this provision is far more dangerous to the children than any encrypted messages are likely to be.

Historically governments are far more dangerous for kids than parents or friends .

For every kid who is abused or kidnapped, there are a dozen who have been "reeducated" violently.

If you dont think it can happen here, ask an Indian, or a parent who just found out their kid "identifies as" something, but was told not to talk about it with their parents.

 

[meketrefe]

Thinking this provision is far more dangerous to the children than any encrypted messages are likely to be.

Historically governments are far more dangerous for kids than parents or friends .

For every kid who is abused or kidnapped, there are a dozen who have been "reeducated" violently.

If you dont think it can happen here, ask an Indian, or a parent who just found out their kid "identifies as" something, but was told not to talk about it with their parents.

It is not jist the Government fault but they are contributing to the problem by adopting radical views of a small percentage of the population that go against objective standards.
The fault is also in the communities for letting this happen but some are fed up and starting to fight back.
However two different issues. We have to talk about corruption of the education values and system but aside whether mass surveillance on the population can br made legal, ethical and actually beneficial.
Look at how effective that has been to prevent terrorists attacks. Mass surveillance has been a total failure un the US and abroad yet they say they want more.

 

[Acer-m14]

it should be the Govt and Employees of said .. all private messages should be in plain text and available/sent to we the people .. and we the people can ..

you know opt out if we don't want to get them ..