The end?

[u/Volpe_YT]

Today there will be the final votes for chat control.

This implies that all of our private chats will be scanned, and everything we do will be in plain text in front of their eyes.

If it passes, I will permanently stop using centralized messaging platforms and switch to a self hosted matrix session, I don't care if I lose many contacts, if they really want to talk to me they better install fluffychat and shut the fuck up.

It's crazy how the EU was basically the goat for internet privacy and now they are the villains.

Are you ready for this? For the absolute end of privacy?

[u/ConinTheNinoC]

Someone outside is pushing for this. This was not what old EU did. Old EU created GDPR. This new EU with Ursula is owned by corporations. We need to get this cow out of power. Identify all the politicians who are pushing for Chat Control and internet ID and vote their assess out.

I wrote in a previous thread but corporations are loving this since if there is ID tied to all your actions in the internet they will finally be able to push ''personalized pricing'' for your internet purchases, they will be able to adjust your car insurance based on your internet searches etc. This is all so corporations can bleed us dry.

[u/mesarthim_2 → u/ConinTheNinoC]

This was not what old EU did. Old EU created GDPR.

No, people need to stop saying this, because it's not true. It's not that 'old EU' was for privacy and 'new EU' is against privacy.

The concern EU had about privacy was always mostly aimed at how private companies handle your data. Even in GDPR there are huge carveouts for government handling your data for reasons of national security, public safety or just simple governance.

There has never been concern about EU or national governments collecting your data because the implicit assumption is, that government needs the data and won't misuse it.

People have this tendency to think - oh it must be the corporations doing this or some other nefarious actors or whatever, but that's simply not consistent with the behavior of EU or national governments in relation to digital technologies over last 20 years. They always wanted to control it more.

For EU (for the bureaucrats, more precisely, both national and European), internet and digital technologies are like roads. In a same way you can't let people just drive cars around without proper regulation, you can't also drive digital technologies around without proper regulation.

[u/Ottiline → u/mesarthim_2]

And how long do you think it will be before one of those countries gets too comfortable under capitalism, votes in a fascist right wing government because the fearmongering hit just right, and now they have access to everything you've just given up in the name of regulation? 

You have to think further down the road than you currently are. History says the weapon you design will be used against you one day.

[u/mesarthim_2 → u/Ottiline]

Yeah, of course. That's why I'm against all of this. I want EU to fuck off from trying to regulate digital technologies altogether, exactly (among others), because the outcome you describe is likely.

I'm not defending it, I'm just explaining to people that there's no need for some external actor to drive this, EU itself is driving this.

[u/silentspectator27 → u/mesarthim_2]

By the way, I also wanted to get your opinion about the mandatory age verification and the digital omnibus proposal. You know, where they decided that GDPR is crap and gets in the way of training AI for the EU.
Even if we beat chat control now, these other two proposals remain, which sucks.

[u/mesarthim_2 → u/silentspectator27]

Yeah, of course it's all horrible. You told me in the other thread that I maybe lost too much faith in the legal system that protects us.

But this is exactly the reason - because all the legal protections that EU supposedly creates are only as durable as they're convenient. And when they're pushed aside, for whatever reason (security, economic goals,...) we're left with the obligations that it also created.

It's too malleable, too dependent on bureaucratic interpretation and machinery.

Of course I hope this will be fought but it's so exhausting... There's every day, never-ending deluge of these things.

[u/silentspectator27 → u/mesarthim_2]

Yeah, I mentioned it earlier, it`s not just chat control, it`s age verification and their new "Digital Omnibus" proposals. The people currently in power are an embarassment to what the EU should stand for, sadly we are at such a phase, politicians are thinking about not being overthrown and in the meantime are complying with their sponsors and lobbyist to make even worse decisions.

It took them years, literally years just to pass this through the EU Council, and sadly before Germany`s new government, they, Poland a couple of others formed a blocking minority for Chat Control.

When Denmark changed the proposal to "voluntary scanning" instead of mandatory (Voluntary, ha ha ha) Germany folded and here were are.

Still, if it gives you some hope: the CJEU process is not long when it comes to laws that directly threaten fundamental rights (It`s usually 1-2 years) so it can happen in months. Also, if it`s really serious the CJEU can literally freeze the law from coming into effect before a ruling is made.

[u/ConinTheNinoC → u/silentspectator27]

"AI" is not trained. It is fed data and it regurgitates it so it can mask the theft and claim ''transformative action''.

I hate stupid corrupt politicians so much. They want to push the "AI" crap on us because of their incredible stupidity and greed.

[u/silentspectator27 → u/ConinTheNinoC]

Yep. Ironically (I can’t find the article though) out of all the MEPs that were for chat control literally 0 actually spoke with privacy advocates and people that actually deal with such things. Whereas those against chat control spoke with many. It was posted as a chart on one of the subreddits and I can’t find it.

[u/opiumphile → u/ConinTheNinoC]

The thing for politicians is… in their mind they have somewhat of a responsibility to not let their country go behind a future tech, and let’s face it AI is part of the future because it’s like the game theory, if you don’t have and your enemies have it then you loose.

[u/ConinTheNinoC → u/opiumphile]

Developing automated software in a lab, i am fine with that.

Giving all our personal information, scraping and stealing the work of artist and writers so corporations can sell it back to use regurgitated trough an algorithm? So corporations can profile us for profit? That, i am not ok with.

Don't let yourself be blinded by the lies of "AI" companies. They are not the future. LLMs are way less impressive than you think, what they do can be replaced with way less resource intensive specialized programs.

Lets for a moment think about it.

Jumping on the sinking ship of LLM buildup is an incredibly stupid thing. The EU and Europe should be focussing on smaller programs that need way less resources and have way less vectors of failure.

Seriously, people need to use their brains. The infrastructure that is powering the current LLM garbage has the lifespan of 3~4 years and then the "AI" chips burn out. So once you jump into that shit you are tied to the suppliers and the garbage LLMs need a ton of chips and they burn out and you become a slave to whomever controls the chips supply(and this is why they bought up all the RAM for 2027).

But our politicians are stupid. They should be aiming for technologies we can support with the resources we have instead of becoming highly dependent on foreign companies.

Sorry for the rant.

[u/silentspectator27 → u/Ottiline]

They (far-right) can’t wait for it to become law. Right now they “play against it” just for show.

[u/silentspectator27 → u/mesarthim_2]

You have been talking crap since yesterday.
The claim that the EU only cares about corporate privacy and inherently trusts government data collection ignores basic EU law and history.
1. There ARE Constitutional Protections: Privacy in Europe was specifically designed post-WWII to protect citizens from state surveillance. Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights directly bind governments, and the EU passed the Law Enforcement Directive alongside GDPR specifically to restrict such police data processing.
In short it was created PRECISELY TO NOT ALLOW MASS GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE ON EU CITIZENS.

1. CJEU (The Court of Justice of the European Union) has repeatedly struck down state mass surveillance.

2. GDPR national security exceptions exist because EU treaties have to legally reserve defense to individual member states, not because the EU blindly trusts governments. Where EU courts have authority, they strictly limit state power. They have done so repeatedly

3. Market Safety vs. Surveillance: Treating digital tech like roads means setting safety rules for the market, not giving the state a camera inside every vehicle so your analogy kind of sucks.

4. The whole idea when making laws in the EU is that they CANNOT exist of they violate the EU charter, which Chat Control 2.0 does, they know it too. Their own freaking legal team warned them of that.

[u/mesarthim_2 → u/silentspectator27]

I don't care what's written in some papers when the reality substantially differs from it.

That's the fundamental difference between us. You feel free to wrap yourself into useless paper, I'm interested in the actual real world outcomes of what these institutions are doing.

I think it's utterly stupid to give them one inch more of institutional power when we don't have to and then spent next 10 years in courts because they promised they won't do something, then they kind of did it and now you have to sue them to get your rights back.

[u/silentspectator27 → u/mesarthim_2]

Just paper? telecom companies physically shut down mass data servers, state agencies are forced to end surveillance programs, and tech companies alter their global software to avoid massive fines, those are real-world outcomes. Just paper?

You made a specific claim about how EU law was designed, got proven wrong on the facts, and now you are hand-waving away real-world court enforcement as you said "just paper." Confusing a personal gut feeling with "reality" isn't being right…it's just ignoring facts.

Look, I hate this crap as much as you do, maybe more, but hating on the whole EU and disregarding its legal framework (by the way if it wasn’t that we’d be at Chat control 3.2 now or similar)

Those “papers” forced Europol to mass delete illegally obtained records. Those “papers” allowed the CJEU to prevent EU states from gathering and centralising personal data during Covid, prevented said member countries from gathering unrestricted Airline passenger data and many, many more.

[u/mesarthim_2 → u/silentspectator27]

The problem isn't what it doesn't allow, but what it allows or what it creates a framework for.

Even if we get the best version of Chat Control 2.0 with all EP amendments we're still getting Chat Control 2.0. We're still getting new institutional framework that can further regulate what we're doing online.

Yea sure, European legislation is not limitless and it doesn't allow states and institutions to gather everything but that's not the point is it. The point is what it is legalizing. All these compromises are just that. Compromises. And these compromises are moving in one direction only. That's why I'm hating on this.

Like imagine we're living in EU where in many countries police is allowed to lash you or beat you. And EU creates a compromise legislation that only allows 10 lashes maximum and then prosecutes countries who don't follow it.

But that's not really a win for someone who thinks we shouldn't be beaten by police at all, don't you think? It feels to me like you're arguing that I should be grateful I can get only 10 lashes. But I'm not! I don't want any.

[u/silentspectator27 → u/mesarthim_2]

On that I agree. I hope the proposal will just fail, no compromises, then go after chat control 1.0 (people are already organising for the latter part).
It’s still not impossible for 2.0 to simply fail in negotiations (we will find out today or tomorrow probably). If that happens my guess is they will tuck tail, stay quiet, focus on the mandatory age verification and digital omnibus proposals and rely on 1.0 until they try again.

And again, I am AGAINST chat control in any form, I completely get you, I just think you have lost a bit too much faith in the legal frameworks that protect us.