Perhaps in the future cars will not only record your face but also listen in for hate speech. Most cars have SOS and GPS modules so calling the police if someone in the car shouts a slur is just connecting some code together.

I wait for mandated methane sensor in everyone's anus.

Boy, do I have news for you: https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/model3/en_us/GUID-EDAD116...

the children... :)

Cars sold for the past years already record and transmit all your movements and telemetry, I'm sad to say.

Maybe they should pause on being such snobs towards American politics to take a long hard look at themselves.

test

Honestly, it is mostly a reaction to how society has evolved, for the worse. Rock and hard place.

The worst thing I have to hide is knowledge about my intentions, none of which are bad/illegal/immoral.

Scan away, I'd rather try to protect my children, other children from unscrupulous characters.

>These two things should not have both been given the same branding.

the confusion is purposeful, because it is easier to convince people that 1.0 is okay, which makes 2.0 appear like a version bump of the same thing.

Yes but that's how all of these objectionable legislations are introduced - first it's voluntary, then they wait a bit and say "companies aren't doing it, we'll need to make it mandatory".

Easier to push through if the only thing they're changing is "may" to "must".

The name "Chat Control" is great because it implies a lockdown on free speech and the exact consequences that are going to happen to everyone.

This was online already. It is existing law that is being extended rather then expired.

2 August 2021.

It already was in force, and EU states are presumably using it right now despite that being illegal. Only to protect the children, of course.

People are doing something (e.g. [0][1][2]). That’s why Chat Control 2.0 hasn’t passed and is unlikely to pass in the foreseeable future.

[0] https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/

[1] https://edri.org/our-work/european-commission-must-uphold-pr...

[2] https://freiheitsrechte.org/en/themen/freiheit-im-digitalen-...

The EU's position on privacy seems pretty consistent to me - they're against your data being monetized by private entities but not against building governmental tools to monitor private entities.

In good faith this could be summarized as "Personal data should be used for public safety but not for profit" - but that philosophy is definitely a strong contrast with the basic American philosophy towards civil liberties.

The unquestioned view in certain circles - including here - is that when the EU/UK does something that chips away at people's online privacy, there's un ulterior motive.

It's entirely possible that politicians just want to do something about CSAM and young people having their mind twisted by social media. The electorate do seem to be keen on some sort of action.

It seems fairly consistent, doesn't it? CC 2.0 is that the government must be able to access things, and GDPR has a legal basis exemption that is defacto used every time by government entities. The general idea is that private parties cannot consent to things to each other but that residents of a place consent to being governed by the government. e.g. you can't consent to having someone jail you; but you also can't opt out of jail by the government.

Personally, the politics of Europe is really not for me, but I can see why others might find it attractive. In the end, history will show us which path is adaptive.

Not "access to ALL of your data". Also, as confusing as it might be, it is in the nature of EU (at least IMHO) to not have a clear position over multiple legislatures.

The one that passed doesn't give them access to anything. It is different from the scary one.

Maybe big tech weren't good a lobbying bureaucrats against GDPR but got better at lobbying in the EU for this. There's also been a slight shift towards authoritarianism in the last decade, which naturally love the possibilities of stricter communication control.

Children protection and russian propaganda are the tried and tested covers at enforcing age verification, message scanning, and probably any future pan-european surveillance network.

There's no position on privacy. They make whatever laws the corporate laws and elites like, and that furthers their own bureucratic reach. GDPR is a good way to create a "compliance moat" against smaller players, and to give the EU bureucrats more power.

It is simple. GDPR is aimed at private entities misusing your data. Keyword private.

I think the position can best be approximated as "companies should not be able to do this, but you should trust your government to do this to you". (That's a bad position that needs to be defeated every time it arises, but it's a consistent position.)

I feel like this one should not be removed because people want to continue discussing and that's easier on a newer thread.

Different news source. But same topic.