• Tetsuo@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      27 days ago

      What about laws that just concerns them ?

      Because saying no to every law reducing their revenues seems to also be frequently blocked…

      Who the hell gets to decide their own salary beside some lawmakers?

  • NeshuraA
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    27 days ago

    I am so incredibly surprised by this…

    Who am I kidding it was clear from the start they were going to do this. It just further proves that:

    • they know this shit erodes any semblance of private digital communications down to the bedrock
    • this thing being for “the protection of children” is just a front for them to lie it into effect

    At this point I cannot take any politician seriously who would vote “yes” to this surveilance law given the blatant malicious intent behind it.

  • 0x815@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    26 days ago

    And one detail here is that mainstream media don’t report on this. They do as if it didn’t happen.

  • hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    26 days ago

    I already commented this on another post about chat control but I still stand by what I said before so imma be a dick and put the original comment here as well:

    Imagine there’s one phone type with one security level. And now they introduce a second phone. It has less security. Now everyone has to switch to the weaker phone.

    Soooo, now who gets the stronger phones? Government employees? The military? Politicians? Agencies?

    The less the strong phones you give out, the more authoritarian the measure. But the more the strong phones you give out, the higher the chance of misuse or mishandling. You will now have a black market for secure phones, giving them out to criminals. You will now have people with strong phones having a higher right of privacy, giving them more protection against the state itself.

    Now let’s add more factors. Someone loses their stronger phone. We now have a potentially untraceable strong phone. The government is losing control over those. Now you have 5 different tiers of secure phones. But people are people and the more complicated, the more things can go wrong. Now let’s add in slightly more authoritarian states like Hungary. There’s a good chance they will instantly start spying on journalists. Or give opposition parties the weaker phones by accident.

    Now add in foreign agencies. China’s digital government agencies are very efficient. Imagine they get the keys to the weaker phones. Great, now China can effectively monitor 99% of the EU. And now even if an EU member has a strong phone, they just listen in his wife’s phone, and they get the information anyway. Now what about if a spy from North Korea gets the keys and starts finding bank information on the stronger phones? They now have new super annoying ways of stealing billions of dollars from the EU and covertly as well if they do it right.

    As you can see, making some people’s security weaker on purpose is a lose lose game. It never works. There’s way too many cooks in the kitchen in the EU for this kind of stuff to stay in line, and there WILL be misuse, one way or the other.

  • luckystarr@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    26 days ago

    We should call it by what it really is: a power grab by the ruling class, upsetting the checks and balances that were achieved through decades and decades of struggle.