←back to thread

Germany is not supporting ChatControl – blocking minority secured

(digitalcourage.social)
1121 points xyzal | 1 comments | 11 Sep 25 08:59 UTC | HN request time: 0.407s | source
Show context
ManBeardPc ◴[11 Sep 25 09:27 UTC] No.45209514[source]▶
Glad we could delay it for now. It will come back again and again with that high of support though. Also the German Bundestag is already discussing a compromise: https://www.bundestag.de/presse/hib/kurzmeldungen-1108356. They are only unhappy with certain points like breaking encryption. They still want to destroy privacy and cut back our rights in the name of "safety", just a little less.
replies(8): >>45209583 #>>45209689 #>>45209691 #>>45210026 #>>45210110 #>>45210215 #>>45210343 #>>45210669 #
kebman ◴[11 Sep 25 12:17 UTC] No.45210669[source]▶
Is this a good time to plug the creation of chat protocols running over distributed hash tables (DHT) (essentially a decentralized way of creating mini message servers) and with forward security and end-to-end encryption? I made a POF in Rust but I don't have time to dev this right now. (Unless angel investors to help me shift priorities lol...)
replies(4): >>45210893 #>>45212209 #>>45212511 #>>45213632 #
ori_b ◴[11 Sep 25 15:04 UTC] No.45212511[source]▶
No, it's a good time to start lobbying for positive privacy legislation.
replies(1): >>45212576 #
1. raxxorraxor ◴[11 Sep 25 15:10 UTC] No.45212576[source]▶
Absolutely true that we need sensible legislation not based in diffuse fears that endagers data security everywhere.

That said, I think doing both is sensible. Always good to have a fallback and feasibility of such surveillance attempts is part of the political discussion. Fait accompli through pervasive encryption, which some politicians might read as perverse encryption.

That said, chat control isn't the only problem. Removing anonymity through age or general ID checks is the other.