|
You are here |
pxlnv.com | ||
| | | | |
berthub.eu
|
|
| | | | | A quick update - The European Commission and EU member states have been pondering, for years now, if they should force WhatsApp/Apple/Signal/Telegram to scan all our private messages for suspected child sexual abuse material (CSAM). For various reasons it is a horrendous idea to break end to end encryption in this likely highly ineffective way. Variations of the proposal have also included a mandate to perform such scanning of images using AI, and even to also read our text messages to see if we aren't "grooming" children. | |
| | | | |
www.eff.org
|
|
| | | | | The U.K. Parliament is pushing ahead with a sprawling internet regulation bill that will, among other things, undermine the privacy of people around the world. The Online Safety Bill, now at the final stage before passage in the House of Lords, gives the British government the ability to force backdoors into messaging services, which will destroy end-to-end encryption. No | |
| | | | |
www.laquadrature.net
|
|
| | | | | This op-ed follows the publication of our article ?Criminalization of encryption: the 8 december case?. It has been signed by more than 130 individuals and organisations. The full list of signatories is available here. It has been published yesterday on the website of the newspaper Le Monde. Encr | |
| | | | |
blog.cr.yp.to
|
|
| | | [AI summary] The text discusses the legal and ethical implications of government attempts to control encryption and surveillance technologies, drawing parallels between software and traditional forms of communication like books and papers. It highlights historical efforts by the FBI and NSA to restrict strong encryption, the role of the First Amendment in protecting free speech, and the Apple-FBI case as a modern example of these tensions. The text argues that software should be treated as speech under the First Amendment and criticizes the government's attempts to suppress encryption for surveillance purposes. | ||