"the chats of employees of security authorities and the military are also to be exempted from chat control"
So the two major fields where you really want to snoop their private chats to see if they are up to no good, are excempted?
So the two major fields where you really want to snoop their private chats to see if they are up to no good, are excempted?
So, if you self-host [1], you don't need to adhere to the legislation.
But, wait… Are you telling me that security officials are allowed to use not their self-hosted infrastructure, but use public one to send (I assume, based on their exemption) confidential data?
And, as @WA proposed, will be a list of contacts of these officials given to all for-profit organisations?
What a stupid joke it is!
[1]: See third row at https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/#current... .
Not saying it’s a perfect solution, but they might consider it a “95% good enough” solution.
Unless by 'feature' you mean the mandatory scanning?
Their tower dumps contain enough metadata to determine all the people who spend most workdays at office buildings in McLean Virginia. And then, of course, where those people sleep (i.e. charge their phones) at night. It takes positive effort to erase that data, and believe me, it's being erased. The powerful people don't want it to exist.
So yeah, there is already a system for doing this kind of thing. It will be extended. Plebs like you and me don't get to use it.
Good on those powerful people then, because this data should not exist.
https://european-pirateparty.eu/chatcontrol-eu-ministers-wan...
- "Julia uttered a tiny sound, a sort of squeak of surprise. Even in the midst of his panic, Winston was too much taken aback to be able to hold his tongue."
- "'You can turn it off!' he said."
- "'Yes,' said O'Brien, 'we can turn it off. We have that privilege.'"
The bad is obviously that they’re immune to their own legislation.
The good is that it prevents incumbents from using this data as part of their campaign. It would be Watergate all over again.
There is also data that probably shouldn’t be public. Locations and status of missile silos, troop locations, etc. In an ideal world, all of that would be on secured channels that are managed by appropriate entities. In the real world, it seems like a struggle to get troops to stop posting selfies with sensitive data on Facebook; I don’t doubt much more exists in private messages.
I’m also about 95% sure our politicians (globally) are incapable of managing the OpSec of having 2 devices, one secured and one not, and using them appropriately. They’ll forget one or the other exists.
I just also think that it's worth considering that there are some communications where the cost of leaking data is higher than the cost of a very low chance of catching CSAM. These exclusions are overly broad in my opinion (the cost of most of these comms leaking is low to non-existent), but there are good reasons for some limited communications to either be excluded or have an alternative system.
A Watergate scenario weakens shared belief in the government/democracy. Leaking nuclear secrets is obviously bad. Leaking troop locations/movements is also very bad. A prosecutor getting access to communications between a defendant and their lawyer would be very bad.
My preferred solution would be to not have the scanning, for various reasons including that exclusions would either be so broad that practically nothing gets scanned or too narrow and we'd eventually have some kind of crisis.
They're not stupid, and they're NOT example-setters (very few exceptions) - for myself.
#never voted, and very proud of it.
Assuming those claims are true(I know, that is a big ask, but they claim it) what function do exceptions provide unless they are purposely giving those exceptions for the production and distribution of csam by those groups?
More likely their claims of the privacy and/or purpose are false.
They may even be true today. The problem is that if true, it won't stay true.
Interested parties find ways to tap into stuff like this once it exists. Given enough time, they create a legal framework to justify it.
As far as I can tell from the article, the justification for the proposed rules is "won't someone think of the children".
Those two major fields you mention might do well with more oversight in general. But I doubt they are especially prone to dealing with children?
And if the discussion is concerned with what one does outside of work, well, presumably those exempted industries also have time outside of work.
I was merely arguing against this remark:
> So the two major fields where you really want to snoop their private chats to see if they are up to no good, are excempted?
Those two major fields aren't especially prone to dealing with children. (They probably aren't any less prone than eg software development, sure. But that wasn't the point.)
> Those two major fields aren't especially prone to dealing with children.
It is not about arguing that only they should be exempt.
> all fields should be exempt