The Internet Watch Foundation, the group, funded almost entirely by big tech, who pushed for this vote to be held under emergency procedure, is already at work lobbying for the end of E2EE [1].

In a couple years time, Chat Control 2.0 will come about, and the same tyrants will use the EU admission [2] that there is no evidence that suspicionless scanning of private communications has led to an increase in criminal convictions or in rescued children to argue that we need to go further, and break E2EE.

[1]: https://www.iwf.org.uk/resources/end-to-end-encryption-and-k... [2]: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...

▲

Ruphin an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Why would big tech be in favor of having to scan message content? It puts more regulatory requirements in place on their activities. Would they not be in favor of _less_ regulation so they can provide services to their users with fewer legal considerations?

If big tech _wanted_ to they could already backdoor their encryption and scan the message content, they don't need regulation to do that. The only thing that changes with regulation is that they now _have_ to, which cannot possibly be in their favor.

▲

belval an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> Would they not be in favor of _less_ regulation so they can provide services to their users with fewer legal considerations?

Regulatory capture. If the handling of user messages requires constant scanning and there are enough rules that you need a team of lawyers, then only Google, Meta and Apple will be able to afford it.

	▲	omnimus 41 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Also without chat control they would have to follow much stricter eprivacy directive laws that makes many of their monetisation strategies ilegal. It's briliant really... instead of trying to dismantle privacy regulations you push for new regulation that overrides them and make data mining users even mandatory.
	▲	inglor_cz a minute ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I cannot imagine Musk simply submitting to this sort of EU demand, and he has enough hue-and-cry capability on X to maneuver other tech firms into very uncomfortable positions in the same regard.
	▲	elictronic 38 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That is regulatory capture but it really feels like it should be called something else. If the laws are designed to directly benefit it makes sense like with the FAA allowing Boeing to self regulate to the point of killing a few hundred people. This feels more like bureaucratic capture or some other name, where the entity must be so large to interact. It has the same effect and you are not wrong, I just wish it was clearer.

▲

boredpeter an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

▲

ratorx 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Do you have source for IWF funding being by big tech?

Haven’t found anything that breaks their funding down by source and the majority on the UK govt site is from “charitable activities” (https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/en/ch...)