Discussion
Loading...

Discussion

  • About
  • Code of conduct
  • Privacy
  • Users
  • Instances
  • About Bonfire
happyborg
@happyborg@fosstodon.org  ·  activity timestamp yesterday

@je5perl Can you explain very briefly? For example, voluntary by who?

  • Copy link
  • Flag this post
  • Block
Jesper Lund
@je5perl@eupolicy.social replied  ·  activity timestamp yesterday

@happyborg Voluntary for service providers (this is sometimes called #ChatControl 1.0 https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/chatcontrol-1-0-pirates-condemn-extension-by-parliament/)

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
happyborg
@happyborg@fosstodon.org replied  ·  activity timestamp yesterday

@je5perl That's what I thought, so essentially the privacy of a user's device is in the hands of?

I mean, I assume we're talking the very corporations that specialise in violating privacy because it makes them money.

If this is a win, I don't understand something.
#ChatControl

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
Jesper Lund
@je5perl@eupolicy.social replied  ·  activity timestamp yesterday

@happyborg No service provider is doing voluntary detection for end-to-end encrypted services, whereas the proposed mandatory scheme would apply to #E2EE services as well (forcing them to implement client-side scanning).

This is the big difference. It's not the ideal outcome, I fully agree about that.

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
Log in

bonfire.cafe

A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate

bonfire.cafe: About · Code of conduct · Privacy · Users · Instances
Bonfire social · 1.0.0-rc.3.21 no JS en
Automatic federation enabled
  • Explore
  • About
  • Members
  • Code of Conduct
Home
Login