this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2025
313 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

73967 readers
3694 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
313
A "political blackmail" – the EU Parliament is pressing for new mandatory scanning of your private chats (www.techradar.com)
submitted 4 days ago by schizoidman@lemmy.zip to c/technology@lemmy.world
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/45880359

  • The EU Parliament is pushing for an agreement on the child sexual abuse (CSAM) scanning bill, according to a leaked memo

  • According to the Council Legal Service, the proposal still violates fundamental human rights in its current form

  • The Danish version of the so-called Chat Control could be adopted as early as October 14, 2025

The nations welcoming and supporting the Danish proposal include Italy, Spain, and Hungary. France also said that "it could essentially support the proposal."

Belgium, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Slovenia, Luxembourg, and Romania currently remain undecided or in need of a review with their local parliament.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

You say you live in Russia. What good does that right do if your holy leader decides that he doesn’t like what you posted online and sends you to the front in Ukraine or into a Gulag? Are you going to tell the military police that they can’t touch you because you got rights?

It'll just be a violated right. As that's treated always.

And you don't seem to understand that when "right" is treated as a thing separate from "law", arguments functional against "law" are not arguments functional against "right".

But even in a precedent-based system: Precedent means jack squat if the country’s leadership doesn’t care, as seen by the US.

Which doesn't change if it's a right or not. It's in the word. You are either in the right or in the wrong. If you're in the right, that doesn't guarantee you anything in the physical world. That's the point of such an entity.

And having these “rights” means absolutely nothing in real-life terms if there’s no mechanism to enforce them or get any benefit from it.

Wrong. Having a common frame of reference means a lot as a precondition for other things.

Say, having a program supporting some Kademlia-based protocol doesn't guarantee you to find other nodes supporting it, or to find a file or other resource you look for on them, or that someone won't block it. But it's better than if people can't agree on any protocol, but, suppose, MS and Apple can.

I think you shouldn't treat things you don't understand so arrogantly.

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Are you seriously applying your half-knowledge about programming to legal and philosophy?

You are so lost that you don't even know which topic we are talking about and still think that your arrogance has any basis in reality?

This is pidgeon chess, and you are a delusional pidgeon.

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

You may think whatever you want, you don't even need to have negative feelings about it.

But you've got no clue at all.

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

The Dunning-Kruger is strong with you.

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 14 hours ago

Yeah, and not with the guy who after saying something outta their ass went straight to insults.

Also why do you care? If you don't, why did you write this?

Also Dunning-Krueger is strong with everyone, that's what follows from that study.

If you mean that you have achieved something in some specific thing IRL and think I have no similar achievement, then (suppose you're right, most likely true) your achievement is in that specific thing only, and doesn't make you one bit more qualified to talk about anything else.