this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2025
108 points (100.0% liked)

Europe

7723 readers
845 users here now

News and information from Europe ๐Ÿ‡ช๐Ÿ‡บ

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

  1. This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
  2. No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
  3. Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
  4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
  5. Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
  8. Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
  9. No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
  10. Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.

(This list may get expanded as necessary.)

Posts that link to the following sources will be removed

Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com

(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)

Ban lengths, etc.

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the primary mod account @EuroMod@feddit.org

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

!!! IF YOU ARE AN EU CITIZEN, PLEASE DO THE FOLLOWING FORM !!!

https://fightchatcontrol.eu/#contact-tool

Be especially sure to select your home country's permanent representation in the Committee, but selecting everyone the website proposes is a very good idea (and done by default).

Raise your voices and flood their inbox, this might be the last chance we ever get

Source

Patrick Breyer's warning about this from 2 days ago

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[โ€“] HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org 5 points 20 minutes ago* (last edited 29 seconds ago)

This would basically shory-circuit the EU's open source strategy which is a cornerstone for efforts to reach some amount of digital sovereignty. It is especially incompatible with using Linux as a end-user or developer - taken at the letter, it would make Linux devices illegal because they are controlled by the user. It would also undermine security and confidentiality of any digital communication, and would have bad effects for digital economic communications in any business settings:

  • Giving more control and legal means to surveillance agencies is just the wrong move in a time where extreme right parties are rising and right-wing movements are increasingly controlling governments. Abuse of this surveillance tech is not any more a hypothetical possibility, we can observe it in the US in real-time.
  • controlling end-to-end encrypted messages is only possible if either the keys/certificates are not secret (which is possible with TLS), or the software on the end-users device is not controlled any more by the user (but perhaps by law enforcement, or companies). This overturns the basis of any FLOSS software system where trust is based on transparency and user control.
  • age verification will typically done by a form of attestation, a highly problematic concept. Again, this would require to run software on the users device which can't be controlled by him or her, which is deceptively called "trusted computing". (Technically, age verification could be done by other means, but this is not what these proposals aim for).
  • in the world of public-key cryptography, which is what TLS , business PKIs, GnuPG, and most other modern systems are based in, encryption and digital signatures are nothing but two sides of the same coin: Who breaks encryption keys necessarily also breaks signature keys. This means it is not possible any more to sign software such as the Linux kernel, or Email clients, or browser packages. Or even banking apps or bootloaders for smart phones. Which means to give control away to the entities, groups or induviduals controlling these keys.
  • Worse, it would also subvert the digital citizen IDs which are a key of the EUs digitalization strategy. The cutizen ID is basically a digital signature. If the ID is really secure and can be used to digitally sign documents, any citizen can generate a strong random key and use it for encrypted communication, which can't be broken. On the other hand, if it is not secure, it does not serve its purpose - what is the point if you can sign important stuff if somebody else can break or subvert the signature?
  • Ironically, this will make computing lot less safe, and also undermine trust in communication networks, because communication where we can't be sure that the communicated symbols are genuine is for humans as worthless as the numbers on fake money. As a corollary, it is also bad for business: All business is based on some amount of trust. Would you do important business with somebody if the only communication channel you have available happens to be a messenger which is a compulsory liar?

To sum up, apart from being destructive to civil rights, this would have massive negative consequences, because the goals are completely incompatible with other important goals.

[โ€“] chrizzly@feddit.org 2 points 12 minutes ago

Mail is out!

[โ€“] dumbadoor@lemmy.zip 2 points 17 minutes ago

I've done my part

[โ€“] Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 36 minutes ago

I will never get tired of this!

[โ€“] saimen@feddit.org 2 points 50 minutes ago (3 children)

Excuse my tech illiteracy, but how is it even possible to scan end-to-end encrypted messages?

[โ€“] Vincent@feddit.nl 1 points 20 minutes ago

You can't, it's no longer end-to-end encrypted. The way proponents say it works is by "client-side scanning", i.e. an app scans messages before they are encrypted. Of course, that just redefines one of the ends of "end-to-end encryption" - instead of you, the scanner is now one of the ends.

So previously, one end of a message trajectory's is where you type it, it then gets encrypted and sent to the receiving party (the other end), who can decrypt and read it. After Chat Control, you type it, it then goes to the scanner, which scans it and potentially notifies a third party of the content, and then afterwards it gets encrypted and sent to the receiver, who can then decrypt it.

Yes, calling that end-to-end encryption is indeed a perversion of the term.

[โ€“] klangcola@reddthat.com 1 points 35 minutes ago

It's not, unless you know the keys.

Keys are created by the software/app made by the service provider, like WhatsApp / Meta or Google. How is the key created, and is a copy sent back to WhatsApp? "Securely" and "No" they claim, and you just have to trust them.
That can change if WhatsApp need to comply with new laws.

Signal is a bit different because of the app is fully open source, so the code can be audited to verify the integrity of the encryption. They would still need to comply with laws or exit that market, but whatever they do would be 100% transparent.

[โ€“] Quittenbrot@feddit.org 2 points 42 minutes ago

By forcing the providers to open their end-to-end encryption.

By scanning directly on your device after you've decrypted the message.

..

Done, but I am so tired of this shit.

[โ€“] Safeguard@beehaw.org 3 points 1 hour ago
[โ€“] Meridula@europe.pub 7 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

My country is already against it, so no reason to send more mails, right?

[โ€“] cazzmaniandevil@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

No, always send more emails. Let them know again and again that we don't want this and they should oppose harder and louder to MEP's from other countries that are not yet opposed. Make them work for us, as is their job.

Edit: sent some emails and even called some of my MEP's as well as the Danish ministry of justice (that was a weird conversation, but satisfying to do)

[โ€“] sp3ctre@feddit.org 9 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Will send some mails again! At this point I want Hummelgaard to cry.