← Back to context

Comment by order-matters

1 day ago

I think their point is that you lose some battles in a war, chat Control 1.0 is a battle that was already lost. While it is still worthwhile to make an effort to retake lost ground there, that can be done strategically and through habitual effort and does not demand immediate attention the same way an imminent threat of losing new ground would be

13 comments

order-matters

Reply
dgellow  1 day ago

> chat Control 1.0 is a battle that was already lost

That’s not true, the previous instance of it expired, and the parliament rejected it. It wasn’t already lost, it was actually a win for people against the proposal

  • inigyou  1 day ago

    I can't actually think of a good reason that the law should prohibit a company from having the option to automatically scan private messages for CSAM. Can you?

    Certain implementations may fall afoul of data protection laws however.

    • AngryData  1 day ago

      Because they shouldn't be scanning private messages indiscriminately no matter for what. Lets rephrase it and look at it from "private companies will scan their users private messages for evidence of crimes and report people to police." Where is the limit here? I think it is naive to assume this will stop at csam and will soon be used as a judicial bludgen to extort random citizens for petty crimes that in any other case nobody would ever care or know about.

      6 replies →