new | show | ask | jobs Github

raverbashing 5 hours ago

Exactly this

But people like to sensationalize stuff

This is less worse than the original proposal

Oh and honestly game chat rooms should not be private.

(of course personal 1:1 messages should)

▲

jeroenhd 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This achieves every goal the original proposal achieved, except the wording is sneakier.

Services are obligated to do risk analysis and take appropriate safety precautions against high risk actions. High risk actions include "anonymous accounts", "uploading media", and of course "encrypted messages".

The moment they catch the next random pedo, every messenger app on their phone will be tasked with explaining why they didn't do enough to stop the pedo. They'd better get their business together next time, because otherwise they might be held liable!

There's no law that says you have to hand over arbitrary data to the police without a warrant but when Telegrams shady owner landed in france, he was locked up until his company pledged to "work together with police better".

Don't be fooled by pretty words, none of this optional stuff is optional for any messenger the government doesn't already have the ability to read along with.

▲

raverbashing an hour ago | parent [-]

You're reading too much into this

Technical gotchas are not the same as legal gotchas

	▲	rdm_blackhole 44 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> You're reading too much into this OP is not reading too much into this. You are being naive if you think that this is not the intended goal of this law. Everyone who has looked at this proposal know that the 'changes" made to the latest draft are not real changes and that voluntary scanning with repercussions is the same exact thing as mandatory. If a robber walks into your house and ask you to give all your cash and threatens to break your legs if you don't do it, did you give your money voluntarily or was it forced by the threat of violence? Either something is mandatory and if not done, should be punished accordingly or something is voluntary in which case, then if someone does not do it there are no repercussions. You can't say that something is voluntary and but that there would be repercussions if that thing is not done. It does not make sense. Yet that is exactly what this law says. High risk companies should prevent the spread of CSAM but they are not forced to do it, except that if they don't do it then bad things will happen to them but don't worry it's not mandatory. Those are just weasel words by politicians. Nothing more.

▲

demarq 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> of course personal 1:1 messages should

And what my undersensationalized friend do you understand by the word chat?

	▲	raverbashing an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Maybe read the whole thing and learn the word steelman instead