Parliament's position on the proposed law will now be against chat control, but the fight is not over: next we have to negotiate with member states. It's vital we keep the pressure on governments to end this madness.
Technology
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
We won the battle but not the war.
We have to wait and see for eIDAS, let's hope with the changes to eIDAS dead, we'll have at least a few years of the Commission not proposing some dumb surveillance shit
I thought they were on to do something with that article 45 that has something to do with CA certificates. When did they go back and decide not to do it?
That one is a lost battle, alas. We'll have to hack our browsers to make them secure, or download them via VPNs from the US.
It still has to pass the vote beginning of next year.
end-to-end encryption
This wording is concerning, although arguably encrypting a file locally offline then decrypting it again is end-to-end too...
End to end encryption means user to user.
Not a local storage... Your example is just an encrypted storage, there is no end.
a local storage
That's would cut down on the trafficks. Much bit. Many wow.
That's what's concerning, it's implying that this won't be protected.
What this? The user to user or device encryption? From the article, it seems that they stand also against device scanning.
"This" refers to any other type of encryption. Such as encrypting individual files.