You get filtered every time you go on the internet. You should be used to it by now from the likes of all these big tech companies.
They eavesdrop on everything you do. Or try to so they can make $$
Cry to them about your Freedom!
It’s why most of us make it here to Linux. We value and know the importance of freedom over convenience. How rare freedom is, and how important it is to have these options.
1 Like
Me too and this stuff bugs me more than worrying about laws around encryption that are being talked about and being created to protect people, their privacy and deal with the criminal element!
I just don’t know how to make this any more simple. Good luck, maybe this isn’t a topic you should stick around in since literally every single other person disagrees with you.
from technical standpoint:
Messaging platforms led by Meta’s (META.O) WhatsApp have opposed a provision in the law that they say could force them to break end-to-end encryption.
The government, however, has said the bill does not ban end-to-end encryption.
Instead it will require companies to take action to stop child abuse on their platforms and as a last resort develop technology to scan encrypted messages, it has said.
Tech companies have said scanning messages and end-to-end encryption are fundamentally incompatible.
is where i have to agree… scanning encrypted content is breaking encryption itself rendering it useless, that’s simple the same as sending the message get checked for censored content and encrypt it after this.
One can say that’s okay… same like a real letter government could steam open and check what is in… without anyone knowing about from sender to recipient … But end to end encryption only what it is if it stays encrypted and and can only be unencrypted by the real recipient.
4 Likes
This is exactly what they are trying to do. Nobody is eavesdropping. They want the ability to be able to check the content and if it gets flagged then maybe it gets looked at. How they develop this within their platform is not for me to say.
It’s like crossing the border. If the border agents want to look at my phone i have to let them. If it has an encrypted password or such i don’t have a choice otherwise my phone can be confiscated and or i don’t get into the country or i get arrested or both.
1 Like
but this is the technical issue arising with this laws, also the tech companies say right away it will render end-to-end encryption useless and is not possible without a backdoor.
The idea is good but the execution is faulty.
Encryption can only be opened by exactly that person or group of people it is directed to.
In times where we only had paper and pencil it was simple not possible to open every letter and check it for bad content, but today machines can read every message, everyone on the planet is writing.
And allowing by law to do so, to check for bad content is the wrong way to do it in many ways.
It puts every citizen under general suspicion.
And that’s what people from the more distrusting side complain about.
Such laws should make it clear and detailed about how this will be executed, there must be strong evidence on crime to be allowed to open personal messages.
And there are many other ways to obtain reliable information about the criminal activities of individuals and groups. Aside from simple reading every message of every citizen and scanning it for such information or content.
We shouldn’t demonize anyone, neither the administration nor the critics.
We can try to keep this more technical, what will make the discussion more civil.
3 Likes
I understand this and that is what they talk about.
They do!
And they do this and sometimes it’s necessary to get access to encrypted information.
I don’t think it’s all about big brother watching over me and taking away my freedoms etc. I’m not that paranoid. I believe in fair laws and the reason behind them. It’s not all about me. It’s about everyone who would be affected by some crime and they deserve to have protections if that is feasible. 
Checking the content IS eavesdropping. How can you not see that?
If the content is flagged it would be looked at AGAIN.
1 Like
No it’s not. It’s scanned for certain information.
Like i said if you cross the border an they want to look at your phone you have to decrypt it. Is that eavesdropping… no it’s a requirement in order to be allowed to get into the country.
Edit: Of course that is if they ask you.
Right. Scanned. Looked over. Eaves dropped on. All rendering encryption useless.
also if not it is still possible and technically rendering encryption useless.
It does not mean it is implementing the control of every citizen on its own but with the changes it is technically possible.
And technically it is still possible to permit crime and use encryption against the law, if you are smart you can use pictures to send encrypted messages (only a simple example) you can even use pencil and paper and add encrypted messages into the inc. to bring in science fiction alike example 
The laws will only prevent dump criminals from using WhatsApp or others to communicate about crime.
The price is really high for that little benefit.
1 Like
It’s not impossible and it’s the intent of the law that i agree with. How it’s implemented and what has to be done in order to make it work is not something most of us have control of. I just agree with it in principle whether others do not. For me it’s the fact that countries have got together and have had major discussions about this and have agreed on things that is beneficial for each country and their citizens whether some agree or not.
Or worse, this takes out any chance for freedom of the press.
Imagine a journalist trying to bring forth a story about someone in power, who could potentially use this technology to take out the journalist and bury the story.
Or a corrupt officer.
Or someone on the military.
The real chances of good things being mitigated by this are at least equally as high as the bad things. I would argue even higher.
I do not think people do not agree that it is a good thing to protect citizens against criminals here.
But have critics on how it is executed technically is legit for each of us. That’s something we can all agree with i think.
You’re all over the place. You avoid direct questions I asked that have only one answer that would obviously prove your point dead wrong.
We understand you don’t agree. You don’t seem to understand no matter simple it is made, or the points that are being made. It’s a regular tactic used by people in question/answer situations to avoid incriminating themselves directly. By never actually answering anything specifically, you just perpetuate a circle of discussions instead of answering anything or solving anything. If didn’t know you and you were some new person here I’d swear you were just trolling to insinuate arguments.
Maybe this isn’t the best thread for you.
3 Likes