zlacker

>>pabs3+(OP)
The anti-privacy movement in Europe is really concerning. In particular as general population don't really care about it, we are going toward some major shifts. I'm wondering though how this radical turn was initiated and if some lobbies are pulling the strings behind the scene...

>>Tyyps+b5
> In particular as general population don't really care about it

> if some lobbies are pulling the strings

Sure looks like it. Many people don't understand the consequences of the ChatControl proposition (backdoors for governments into all messaging apps) [1].

Politicians insists it is only about protecting kids from predators online, but see for example Sweden:

* Police and secret police will have this access for swedish citizens.

* Secret police have an agreement with NSA about data sharing (see Snowden).

* NSA will end up storing all my DM:s.

* Another country also have an agreement with NSA about data sharing.

* This other country will find out about my sexual orientation or political beliefs the moment I board a plane to their country.

All of this will be outside of control from my country or the laws of my country (Sweden), that is supposed to protect my free speech [2] and anti discrimination laws [3].

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_to_Prevent_and_Comb...

2: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/sven...

3: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/sven...

F*k Ylva Johansson:

> Research by several newspapers led to allegations of questionable connections between Johansson and her staff and companies that would benefit financially from her proposal, including Thorn and WeProtect.

> Johansson rejected the accusations as being untrue, true but not illegal and as not even being accusations.

> Her claim to have given data protection organizations the same access as to the backers of her proposal was rejected as untrue by several organizations and members of the EU parliament. Johansson reacted to growing rejection of her proposal by ordering commercial advertisement on Twitter paid for with EU funds. The advertisement was criticized as being misleading and illegal according to the EU's rules for targeted advertisement. [4]

4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ylva_Johansson#Surveillance_of...

>>0point+c8
Agreed. Although to be the devil's advocate for a moment: Governments can currently easily tap email, and phone tapping is more feasible at scale due to machine transcription. So the apps gave use a temporary safe haven, which may get compromised by Chat Control. And before email we had mail, handled directly by the government, although reading mail is more difficult without leaving traces.

>>edg500+P9
> And before email we had mail, handled directly by the government, although reading mail is more difficult without leaving traces.

This is the source of some massive disconnects between people and their governments, I think. They had some permission, which we basically agreed on as a society, when their tampering was obvious and/or limited in scale (just due to practical constraints). We gave our consent to be governed with those constraints in mind.

Nowadays they are continuing without those implicit constraints and they don’t want to have the conversation about implementing new explicit constraints. This isn’t the deal we agreed to, really, it is just what they can get away with without permission. You can rule over a populace without their permission, of course—it’s just very different from the sort of pleasant (albeit never perfect) relationship that willing populations and their elected officials have had recently.