Danish Minister of Justice and chief architect of the current Chat Control proposal, Peter Hummelgaard:

"We must break with the totally erroneous perception that it is everyone's civil liberty to communicate on encrypted messaging services."

Share your thoughts via https://fightchatcontrol.eu/, or to [email protected] directly.

Source: https://www.ft.dk/samling/20231/almdel/REU/spm/1426/index.htm

@chatcontrol We must break with the totally erroneous perception that it is technically feasible to outlaw encryption.
@ondra @chatcontrol they're not outlawing encryption. Chat Control is to be implemented BEFORE encryption (or after decryption) 💀

@stooovie @chatcontrol They'd essentially have to in the end, though. There's a ton of encrypted communication tools already out there, including their source code. Mandating "chat control" would mean that anything that allows end-to-end encrypted communication between people would become illegal. What about the non-EU versions that won't comply? S/MIME or PGP encrypted mail? Etc. It all has to be banned as well, right?

As @qbe just wrote: https://chaos.social/@qbe/115208564779298861

cube (@[email protected])

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] they can't. They would have to basically outlaw non-approved apps to be installed or used on any computer in Europe. Cory Doctorow has talked about this multiple times; authoritarians and Capitalists would love to put the Turing machine back into the proverbial bottle … but it doesn't work like that. You cannot exclude a Turing machine from doing "a specific thing". You cannot subtract features from a Turing machine, because it has only one feature: turing-completedness

chaos.social
@ondra @chatcontrol @qbe the govs can put so much pressure though that services we can actually get people to use (Signal is at the nerdy end of that spectrum) will a) buckle down b) leave EU. So essentially this debate is pointless. I'm sure there will still be secure protocols without the intrusion of CC, but good luck getting people to use them

@stooovie @ondra @chatcontrol granted, the EU can force companies operating within EU to comply. But that just means that specifically the "criminal communication" which CC were supposed to catch, would immediately move to the dozens of already existing open-source E2E messaging solutions.

So CC would only work in the way that they specifically claim it wouldn't; to create a broad surveillance machine.

For anything else, they would have to take away our general computation, which they can't.

@qbe @ondra @chatcontrol I agree, yes. My point is NOT that Chat Control is no big deal, on the contrary. It's a huge fkn deal, and burying heads in the sand with "no worries, there will always be means to securely communicate" is missing the point
@stooovie @qbe @chatcontrol Oh if that's how you understood my comment, then that's definitely not the message I wanted to convey. I'd love them to finally give up these futile attempts. I'm not taking it lightly and had written to my representatives to oppose this.
@ondra @qbe @chatcontrol thank you for that yeah. Maybe I misunderstood. I get that sentiment ("there will always be SnikkitySnak running on Tails OS, so no big deal") a lot on here.
@stooovie @ondra @chatcontrol yeah, my point is not a "well, I will always have secure communication so I am disinterested in this discussion". My point is that this entire endeavor is foolish and should be mocked and exposed as stupid and ineffectual, if not plain evil.
@stooovie @qbe @ondra Patrick even spoke about Minecraft ! MINECRAFT! One thing you could argue is roblox and even then I don't agree with full on age verification on EVERYTHING (besides the ones under the age of 13, 13 year Olds won't be able to access app store to those apps. The same for 16 year Olds for 16 year Olds. Imagine a 16 year old not be able to use the school whatssap group.. or the family group..)