Search Explore

    • vaylian · 1 hours ago

      Different news source. But same topic.

      • ChrisArchitect · 1 hours ago

        Welcome to share the url over there. Duplicate discussion.

      • Cider9986 · 1 hours ago

        I feel like this one should not be removed because people want to continue discussing and that's easier on a newer thread.

        • ChrisArchitect · 14 minutes ago

          Easier? You mean easier to duplicate? No need to split up the discussion. There's the link, welcome to continue discussing over there, instead of pushing the news back in front of the rest of those who may not have missed it.

      • PowerElectronix · 1 hours ago

        Tough week for euros. Cars that record your face while driving and now apps snooping on communications.

        • artisinal · 1 hours ago

          Perhaps in the future cars will not only record your face but also listen in for hate speech. Most cars have SOS and GPS modules so calling the police if someone in the car shouts a slur is just connecting some code together.

          • shevy-java · 1 hours ago

            Well, it is some kind of social control. People who conform, have more rights than those who reject fascism.

            • Z0rp · 1 hours ago

              Car could also become judge and executioner. Swift justice is just one curve away

              • ThrowawayTestr · 57 minutes ago

                Drive you straight to prison

                • artisinal · 46 minutes ago

                  It is cheaper for the government to just lock the car doors for the length of your sentence. Saves them space in prison. You are allowed to use the McDrive twice a day. The windows will drop 8 centimeters, enough for a Big Mac.

              • yubblegum · 52 minutes ago

                Why do you think this is only going to be in Europe? This will be the global norm modulo some astroid hitting earth or civilizational crash.

                The trajectory is crystal clear: access to information (AI), control over personal finance (CBDC), privacy of personal communications (handful of big tech MITM in everything), metered social interactions (today China, tomorrow the world over).

                • ButlerianJihad · 47 minutes ago

                  You say that like it’s a bad thing

                  • john_strinlai · 30 minutes ago

                    i am interested in hearing why you think it is not god awful

                    • RIMR · 30 minutes ago

                      I mean, I get that these things are typically matters of opinion, but if you value things like freedom and privacy, these things are objectively bad.

                    • spwa4 · 23 minutes ago

                      Until the sun grows in a final blaze of glory and burns all Qurans at the same time for 100 million years?

                  • mito88 · 1 hours ago

                    the children... :)

                    • Cider9986 · 1 hours ago

                      It's not particularly effective with school shootings in the USA.

                      • joshuat · 40 minutes ago

                        what about...

                    • mito88 · 1 hours ago

                      test

                      • andrepd · 50 minutes ago

                        Cars sold for the past years already record and transmit all your movements and telemetry, I'm sad to say.

                        • sscaryterry · 44 minutes ago

                          Honestly, it is mostly a reaction to how society has evolved, for the worse. Rock and hard place.

                          The worst thing I have to hide is knowledge about my intentions, none of which are bad/illegal/immoral.

                          Scan away, I'd rather try to protect my children, other children from unscrupulous characters.

                          • haywalk · 4 minutes ago

                            > The worst thing I have to hide is knowledge about my intentions, none of which are bad/illegal/immoral.

                            Correction: None of which are bad/illegal/immoral _right now_. The "I have nothing to hide" crowd will surely change their tune the moment any of their data starts to be used against them.

                          • honeycrispy · 19 minutes ago

                            Maybe they should pause on being such snobs towards American politics to take a long hard look at themselves.

                            • varispeed · 10 minutes ago

                              I wait for mandated methane sensor in everyone's anus.

                              • shevy-java · 1 hours ago

                                Slaves also have no right to privacy. This EU variant is doomed to failure.

                                • inigyou · 57 minutes ago

                                  The Chat Control 1.0 rule is simply that organisations like Meta are allowed to scan messages if they want to. In other words your Facebook messages are not private from Facebook. Surely we already knew and expected that.

                                  Chat Control 2.0 is the worrying one because it mandates scanning and bans E2EE.

                                  These two things should not have both been given the same branding.

                                  • Cider9986 · 32 minutes ago

                                    The name "Chat Control" is great because it implies a lockdown on free speech and the exact consequences that are going to happen to everyone.

                                    • AshamedCaptain · 27 minutes ago

                                      I think the name is meaningless to the average layman, therefore useless. Something like "(private) chat police" would probably transmit what this is about but is not as catchy.

                                      • inigyou · 26 minutes ago

                                        That's suitable for Chat Control 2.0. Applying the same name to v1 just muddies the waters, probably intentionally..

                                        • Cider9986 · 25 minutes ago

                                          Agreed.

                                      • john_strinlai · 22 minutes ago

                                        >These two things should not have both been given the same branding.

                                        the confusion is purposeful, because it is easier to convince people that 1.0 is okay, which makes 2.0 appear like a version bump of the same thing.

                                        • layer8 · 5 minutes ago

                                          “Chat Control”, along with the version numbers, is a naming invented by the opponents, not by the proponents.

                                          • inigyou · 4 minutes ago

                                            and they should not have done that

                                      • pton_xd · 54 minutes ago

                                        I don't understand the EU's position on privacy. On the one hand, they enacted GDPR to give you control over access to your personal data.

                                        On the other, they need access to all of your data.

                                        • ggirelli · 51 minutes ago

                                          Not "access to ALL of your data". Also, as confusing as it might be, it is in the nature of EU (at least IMHO) to not have a clear position over multiple legislatures.

                                          • munk-a · 49 minutes ago

                                            The EU's position on privacy seems pretty consistent to me - they're against your data being monetized by private entities but not against building governmental tools to monitor private entities.

                                            In good faith this could be summarized as "Personal data should be used for public safety but not for profit" - but that philosophy is definitely a strong contrast with the basic American philosophy towards civil liberties.

                                            • watwut · 39 minutes ago

                                              > basic American philosophy towards civil liberties.

                                              Errrr, america does not look like country that cares about that. It does care about liberties of rich companies tho.

                                              • inigyou · 33 minutes ago

                                                Exactly, that is the American philosophy being referenced.

                                            • mhitza · 48 minutes ago

                                              Maybe big tech weren't good a lobbying bureaucrats against GDPR but got better at lobbying in the EU for this. There's also been a slight shift towards authoritarianism in the last decade, which naturally love the possibilities of stricter communication control.

                                              Children protection and russian propaganda are the tried and tested covers at enforcing age verification, message scanning, and probably any future pan-european surveillance network.

                                              • JoshTriplett · 48 minutes ago

                                                I think the position can best be approximated as "companies should not be able to do this, but you should trust your government to do this to you". (That's a bad position that needs to be defeated every time it arises, but it's a consistent position.)

                                                • sscaryterry · 41 minutes ago

                                                  Given the choice of trust between, lets say Amazon/Meta/Google and the EU (or some European government), 9 times out of 10, the EU is the lesser evil.

                                                  • JoshTriplett · 36 minutes ago

                                                    We are not required to pick amongst evils. We could, in fact, say private chats are private and end to end encryption is sacrosanct.

                                                    • sscaryterry · 17 minutes ago

                                                      If you are purist and you don't live in the real world with real evils. I don't want pedophiles to have privacy.

                                                      • john_strinlai · 13 minutes ago

                                                        >I don't want pedophiles to have privacy.

                                                        that is why police already have access to mechanisms to remove privacy from people suspected of being a pedophile.

                                                      • john_strinlai · 16 minutes ago

                                                        what a crazy turning of the tides to see this comment in the gray.

                                                        i suppose the times have changed from when most people on the internet were cypherphunk. now it's common to see people say "i have nothing to hide, please scan all of my communications", unironically invoking "please think of the children".

                                                      • Cider9986 · 23 minutes ago

                                                        You don't have to use Amazon/Meta/Google. You have to use the government.

                                                        Let's not forget that these are the people and laws that are supposed to represent and help you, not the other way around. While private companies have no such obligation.

                                                        • sscaryterry · 18 minutes ago

                                                          Amazon/Meta/Google is sometimes required, nobody in the real world can get away from that.

                                                          > supposed to represent and help you, not the other way around. While private companies have no such obligation.

                                                          Exactly my point.

                                                          • vrganj · 12 minutes ago

                                                            I've moved countries 5 times in my life. I still haven't been able to fully degoogle.

                                                          • liveoneggs · 6 minutes ago

                                                            For now none of Amazon, Meta, or Google can jail you or legally do violence on you, separate you from your family, etc. Your sense of threat is extremely miscalibrated.

                                                        • inigyou · 47 minutes ago

                                                          The one that passed doesn't give them access to anything. It is different from the scary one.

                                                          • bossyTeacher · 29 minutes ago

                                                            It is simple. GDPR is aimed at private entities misusing your data. Keyword private.

                                                            • spwa4 · 4 minutes ago

                                                              Not even that. The government outsources a lot of their functions, so a LOT of organizations have access to extremely private data, where necessary.

                                                              For example, Palantir gets access to "large and diverse (government) databases with Dutch citizens’ data for analysis" (including mental health treatment data) under the GPDR to help police in the Netherlands do terror investigations (from 2012 to 2019). I'm sure you can appreciate the wisdom and privacy-enhancement in that just as much as me!

                                                              There are large lists of private organizations that get access to government data about citizens ... every country has multiple (public and secret ones).

                                                              Oh, they also "failed to mention" this to parliament, and this was only discovered after a journalist got a tipoff and requested financial data about the deal ... for about 5 years. Of course, there was never even the slightest investigation into this.

                                                              https://nltimes.nl/2025/08/22/dutch-police-also-use-controve...

                                                              (paywalled) https://www.volkskrant.nl/tech/ook-nederlandse-politie-gebru...

                                                            • coldtea · 4 minutes ago

                                                              There's no position on privacy. They make whatever laws the corporate laws and elites like, and that furthers their own bureucratic reach. GDPR is a good way to create a "compliance moat" against smaller players, and to give the EU bureucrats more power.

                                                              • joe463369 · 3 minutes ago

                                                                The unquestioned view in certain circles - including here - is that when the EU/UK does something that chips away at people's online privacy, there's un ulterior motive.

                                                                It's entirely possible that politicians just want to do something about CSAM and young people having their mind twisted by social media. The electorate do seem to be keen on some sort of action.

                                                              • kubb · 40 minutes ago

                                                                When is it coming online? I have seen so many of these headlines that I feel it's always about to kick in, but I never get any closure.

                                                                • watwut · 38 minutes ago

                                                                  This was online already. It is existing law that is being extended rather then expired.

                                                                  • SiempreViernes · 22 minutes ago

                                                                    Somewhat unsurprisingly too, since the negotiations about a more comprehensive CSAM legislation (the one that now doesn't contain chat control 2.0) isn't done yet.

                                                                    • spwa4 · 16 minutes ago

                                                                      CSAM? You mean the system the Belgian state uses to identify children online?

                                                                      (not even joking https://www.csam.be/en/index.html )

                                                                      Fantastic quotes for services the Belgian government offers:

                                                                      "Make your life easier with CSAM"

                                                                      "CSAM ensures that everyone follows the same rules"

                                                                      "If you are interested in a service CSAM has to offer, please go straight to our Contact page"

                                                                    • kubb · 4 minutes ago

                                                                      Hmm, so… what happened while it was online? Any scandals?

                                                                    • spwa4 · 19 minutes ago

                                                                      2 August 2021.

                                                                      It already was in force, and EU states are presumably using it right now despite that being illegal. Only to protect the children, of course.

                                                                    • mctwo · 3 minutes ago

                                                                      Each passing day we are moving closer to a dystopian state and nobody is doing anything.