this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2025
114 points (97.5% liked)

Buy European

7552 readers
746 users here now

Overview:

The community to discuss buying European goods and services.

Matrix Chat of this community

Rules:

  • Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. No direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments.

  • Do not use this community to promote Nationalism/Euronationalism. This community is for discussing European products/services and news related to that. For other topics the following might be of interest:

  • Include a disclaimer at the bottom of the post if you're affiliated with the recommendation.

  • No russian suggestions.

Feddit.uk's instance rules apply:

  • No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia or xenophobia.
  • No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies.
  • No harassment, dogpiling or doxxing of other users.
  • Do not share intentionally false or misleading information.
  • Do not spam or abuse network features.
  • Alt accounts are permitted, but all accounts must list each other in their bios.
  • No generative AI content.

Useful Websites

Benefits of Buying Local:

local investment, job creation, innovation, increased competition, more redundancy.

European Instances

Lemmy:

Friendica:

Matrix:

Related Communities:

Buy Local:

Continents:

European:

Buying and Selling:

Boycott:

Countries:

Companies:

Stop Publisher Kill Switch in Games Practice:

Banner credits: BYTEAlliance

founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
maam@feddit.uk
alex@jlai.lu
circledot@feddit.org
Argyle13@lemmy.world
buyeuropean@lemmy.ca
buyeuropean@feddit.org
Lazycog@sopuli.xyz
meldrik@lemmy.wtf
Sunshine@lemmy.ca
114
Chat Control: EU lawmakers finally agree on the voluntary scanning of your private chats (www.techradar.com)
submitted 1 week ago by maam@feddit.uk to c/buyeuropean@feddit.uk
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] nyankas@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

As this version of the law is completely voluntary, I donโ€˜t think it will change anything. Secure chats wonโ€˜t implement it, because itโ€˜s practically impossible, and insecure chats wonโ€˜t implement it, because thereโ€˜s absolutely no profit in it.

Itโ€˜s still completely unnecessary to have a law like this, as it wonโ€˜t help with anything. But at least it doesnโ€˜t force any messaging applications to either break their encryption or leave the EU.

Also, as this is proposal is finally put into law, thereโ€˜s one less battle to be fought by privacy activists (for now).

So all in all: The worst has been successfully averted, I think we can celebrate that. But the next privacy invading proposal will come soon enough.

[โ€“] Takashiro@lemmy.today 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

This is just the start, probably easier to change an already existing law than creating a new one?

Actually, i was reading the link another user posted , and it seems like it is straight up bad.

[โ€“] ArseAssassin@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Have you considered what might be the point of writing a law that's voluntary to follow?

[โ€“] nyankas@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yes

[โ€“] ArseAssassin@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Perhaps I should've clarified.

There's no such thing as a voluntary law. No one's getting away with murder by saying they didn't feel like following the law that day. The point is to enforce it through legal trickery while everyone involved throws their hands in the air and goes, "Hey man, the law might be a piece of shit, but it's voluntary! No one's forcing you to follow it!"

[โ€“] nyankas@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I have to disagree with the statement that there is no voluntary law. For example, GDPR certifications (Art. 42) have been a thing for years, are encouraged by the EU, but have remained completely voluntary for organizations.

I totally agree with you that it's important to stay vigilant and keep an eye on the further development of this specific regulation, especially as it still has a long way to go before actually becoming law. But I think seeing the compromise as some sort of trickery is purely speculative right now and doesn't really do justice to the activists inside and outside EU organizations who have spent the last few years successfully preventing a mandatory chat control. A lot of the comments here seem very doom-and-gloomy, sometimes almost resigned, as if nothing has been accomplished by protesting these initial proposals. And I think, while there are definitely further battles ahead, it's also a good idea to celebrate and remind ourselves of the accomplishments we've made here.

[โ€“] ganryuu@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)
[โ€“] nyankas@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 days ago

I have already read that article, and while I think that Patrick does a great job in general, this particular post contains overly dramatic and, in parts, misleading arguments. For example:

The text aims to make the temporary โ€œChat Control 1.0โ€ regulation permanent. This allows providers like Meta or Google to scan all private chats, indiscriminately and without a court order.".

This is a bit strange. Chats without E2E encryption, especially the ones on Google or Meta platforms, were never private. I think it would be better to raise awareness of that fact and encourage E2E messaging instead of complaining about law enforcement having access to those chats.

His argument regarding age verification is also very weak:

[...] This means every citizen will effectively have to upload an ID or undergo a face scan to open an email or messenger account. [...] This creates a de facto ban on anonymous communication [...]

This is misleading at best. The implementation details of the age verification are not specified in this proposal. There are absolutely ways of verifying someone's age anonymously (Privacy Pass comes to mind). It's totally possible that it'll be a far worse system, but that's just not as set in stone as Patrick suggests.

It's definitely necessary to keep an eye on the further development of this legislature. But Patrick's Reality Check unfortunately stretches the meaning of the word Reality a bit too much.

[โ€“] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 1 points 1 week ago

This guy is exaggerating.

"The text aims to make the temporary โ€œChat Control 1.0โ€ regulation permanent. "

This already passed in 2021. This guy is sensationalizing it like it's opening new possibilities to tech companies while it's been a law for 4 years already. If companies wanted to scan messages they would be doing this already.

Age verification and bans for teenagers are a separate issue completely. Many countries are working on this already independently. While I don't agree with this personally I have to admin there are many good reasons to do it. A lot depends on the details of the regulation and this guy is not a good source of opinion on it. I will try to read it and post a more reasonable take.