@wojtek322 made a nice list of 25 questions about the EU chat control law. A very terrible law. One we can't ignore.

Those questions, I've ran them trough Gemini and got them answered. Then, I generated this nice page: https://static.molodetz.nl/chat-con... covering the law.
It's nice informative page, worth a read.

For people who don't know yet - with Gemini you can do a deep research, and at the end of it, you can generate a site like this / a quiz / graphs. It's very nice. What a time to be alive, sadly the EU wants to end that great time.

Edit: i did not even chose the dramatic title. Imagine.

The problem with the UE is that it's lead by Germany. Basically the fourth reich. Member when these cunts starved greece because they were in debt but now we're supposed to borrow billions to buy bombs?

@whimsical

Beside, given YET ANOTHER mayor just got caught sending dick pics to underage boys, I bet the real reason politicians want to flag cp content is so they can add to their collection

Just what I thought... 'Presented as a tool to protect children (...)' right there at the top...

yes... of course. 'The _children_'.

/s

This better !pass.

I read two random paragraphs of this Markov-chain noise:

2.2.1. "A Hacker's dream: The mandated scanning software creates a massive new "attack surface." A single vulnerability could give criminals or hostile states access to millions of devices."

It doesn't. No single specific software is being suggested. Most likely providers would have to develop their own software that interacts with CSAM-hash lists sourced via an API from local law enforcement.

1/2

2/2

2.2.3 "Weaponized Framing: Attackers could manipulate the system to frame innocent people, creating images that falsely trigger a CSAM match and automatically launch a police investigation against a target."

This has always been the case, you can leave an anonymous tip and plant evidence. The Land of the Free also has "swatting" because they made the completely insane decision to conduct raids purely based on citizen reports. Attempting to frame someone like this in the EU tends to lead to a horrific, absurdly expensive trial full of evidence the defendent doesn't understand pretty much exactly like Kafka's Trial. Again, this has been the case forever.

There's also a lot of overlap between your points, some of them are more general expressions of others, some - particularly relating to borders - have precedent you're not investigating.

This is a really lame document that feels like propaganda and does a disservice to the seriousness of the threat this law poses to Europe.

"Mandatory age verification would effectively end anonymous communication, which is a vital protection for journalists, activists, whistleblowers, and victims of abuse."

This makes everyone a victim of abuse by the governments involved. Without anonymity we lose that ability to criticize governments themselves.

@YourMom clearly making life difficult for whistleblowers is the real primary purpose of the law.

@lorentz do you want to say that there is ANYTHING positive about the law?

And yes, the overlap makes sense, because this input also had it. It's a site generated on 25 questions answered.

And yes, it creates a massive attack service, how can't you agree to that. It's one of my biggest concerns. The data will get hacked somehow.

@lorentz making life difficult for everyone. I can't imagine getting fucked harder digitally than this.

It's not prompted to be propoganda in any way.

Reading this compilation is a good idea, where else do you find this all together.

Source of a worried citizen, real questions.

Wow, many views (195) :) I've only spread to a few friends and here. Wow.

@whimsical How do you "hack data"? And what threat does that constitute? Client-side scanning before encrypted transfer means that the client receives a dataset and matches the media against it. The client isn't standard and the dataset is just data, it's probably public data. So what's the risk?

You don't prompt the Markov chain from hell to write propaganda, it does so when the context dictates, which usually means that the topic is a common propaganda talking point. This law certainly is that.

I don't think anything good can come out of any iteration of this law, but shitty AI explainers which don't actually explain anything besides the author's fear don't convince sensible people of anything.

1/2

2/2

There are interesting things to be said about this, for example, it could be connected to precedent about borders like I said, or to other similar laws. It could bring up how in each previous cycle nearly every member state was initially in support of the law before public backlash forced them to retreat, and that it's pretty much the public's job at this point to keep resisting each time until the EU gets bored. It could mention incidents where similar laws were abused by police, of which there aren't many but they were major news spectacles in their time. This document is also the first place I ever read about the notion of a silent automated tip to police that the target isn't informed about, and it's over the fold. If there is a proposal that includes this or any precedent in the EU, that should be marked as a source, especially because it's AI slop. If there isn't, it shouldn't be mentioned, especially not in the fourth block of text on the page.

To me this is just one more static page full of AI slop to clutter up search engines where people look for information that actually comes from some source. The CSS is very nice but I don't think that makes it worthwhile.

It is also the first place I read about AI decisions used as evidence, every other source suggests that the scanning mechanism is used only for filtering user content, and the user content itself is used as evidence. Private mail has always been admissible evidence, and only the means through which it's obtained are changing here. If this is true, you should provide a source, but I'm fairly certain that it isn't, because otherwise every critic would pile on it.

@lorentz I've asked those questions but in hindsight, it was also related to the UK, australian, US proposals and not only the EU. I assume there will be some overlap in reality since all those internet privacy laws are getting pushed through around the same time frame.

The data being hacked was more a concern related to the UK/USA age verification. That data has to be stored somewhere and multiple companies have stepped up to offer this service. If you use discord, facebook and twitter, they all use a different services for the UK age verification so you have triple the chance of being compromised.

I was analyzing the new ToS of matrix and there it is, Cloud flare. Without reading about it before, I just assumed, and there it is. Called it. Cloud flare is bad idea for the decentralization of the internet sake.

Yeah, use the ToS using AI, but without it, who's reading it at all?

@whimsical Yup cloudlflare everywhere

@BordedDev and for what.. And for what.. It's free. Being a bridge for almost all information in the world for free. What's wrong with people.