RexSonic

Once again the European Council is going to vote on implementing Chat Control (thanks for bringing it up yet again, Denmark!). A dystopian mass surveillance system which scans all your pictures, texts, and e-mail. As the current expected votes stand, it can still be blocked if Germany decides to oppose, or several countries (representing about 80M people) currently in favor switch sides. Contact your MEPs expressing your concerns with just a few clicks: fightchatcontrol.eu/ If your country is currently in favor or undecided, you can make a difference! Short video explaining (in German, with subtitles): youtube.com/watch?v=cpGSqroL… Many more details here: patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/c… This vote will impact your freedom if it passes (and the EP also passes it, which needs a lower % of votes than the EC). If this automated system detects anything that doesn't conform to what the EU thinks is acceptable, you will be reported to the authorities. This is the online equivalent of "mail privacy" that they are taking away from you. Your privacy ends with this vote. Nothing to hide? You think this system will not flag that hilarious yet wildly inappropriate meme you just sent to your bestie? That picture of your kids enjoying the pool you sent to the family group? That risque picture you sent your partner? Now imagine when (history shows that the question is not "if", always "when") the EU wants to take some more draconian or totalitarian measures? You will no longer be able to oppose. Identifying and rounding up dissenters has never been easier. Even if you believe the EU would never do such a thing, this system is just asking to be abused by other malicious actors. A central authority needs only one breach for your data to become public (again, not "if", always "when"). If encryption is weakened, it is weakened for all, a hacker's dream come true. Everyone involved in building or maintaining this system is a risk factor. Of course, proponents will try to sell you on the system being built in a safe way, but the technical impossibility of "safe" mass surveillance undermines every assurance they might give. No amount of good intentions or careful procedures can overcome the fundamental reality that a backdoor is a backdoor. As for businesses, all your trade secrets are now only semi-secret. One wonders what this will do for security certifications. Would foreign corporations even want to do business with you if they know you can't protect your communications? Imagine trying to compete with a company that has support from people in power. Surely, there has never been a politician that corrupt. History shows that laws that can be abused, will be abused. And politicians are absolutely aware of the dangers a system such as this imposes. In a classic display of "rules for thee but not for me", they have exempted themselves and law enforcement. Why would they need to do this if it was perfectly safe? How could they do this if they feel the needs of those they represent are as important as their own? The vote to implement chat control has failed to pass before, but they are closer than ever to passing it now. This while a YouGov poll indicates a supermajority (72%) of the population is directly opposed. How is this representation? Particularly nefarious is their attempt to frame it as a way to protect the children. Child protection organizations and abuse survivors themselves have come out saying it does very little for that, and they need resources for proven methods like victim support services, investigation capacity, and prevention programs instead. And if you ask me, protecting children from growing up in the dystopian surveillance state they want to create is a worthy goal by itself. It's even right there in the name - "Chat Control". Not "Child Safety Act" - but *control*. They're telling us exactly what this is about: controlling what you say, know, and by extension, ultimately, *think*. This is the Orwellian nightmare "1984" come to life; once again those in power need reminding that story was a warning, not an instruction manual. If this seems over the top: as someone who builds systems for a living, I know that worst-case scenarios aren't just possibilities, they're eventualities. We have to assume that any power we create will eventually be misused. We have to evaluate systems on their potential for abuse, not their intentions.