A Win for Encryption: France Rejects Backdoor Mandate
-
This post did not contain any content.
Teach the UK a lesson
-
This post did not contain any content.
Cryptography is a human right
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
So they havet changed their mind about chat control? You can't say yes and no at the same time.
Different pieces of legislation. This was about the French legislature voting against a national anti-encryption bill. Chat control is an EU-level bill and the French legislature isn't really involved in that, only the French government and France's EU representatives.
-
Cryptography is a human right
Math is a human right
-
Different pieces of legislation. This was about the French legislature voting against a national anti-encryption bill. Chat control is an EU-level bill and the French legislature isn't really involved in that, only the French government and France's EU representatives.
Yes know that it is different instances.
But encryption becomes more and more an hot topic. And the split between EU, government, Law enforcement authorities and the military is concerning.We vote on the "big" parties of our country's and the same party that says no to backdoors I'm the government can say yes in EU and vice versa.
So what I really want to say is if we can't agree on what we want's it's going to result in bad and weird laws. We can't say yes and no at the same time.
I hope you get what I mean..
-
At least they kinda get the implications, with their own Matrix derivative at the government level.
BTW: anyone can use it, it's called olvid , on github , FOSS, matrix based E2E, public funded (no adverts, no corporate ownership), and uses IRL authentication to add contacts instead of using the devices contact lists (by showing each other a generated QR code).
-
BTW: anyone can use it, it's called olvid , on github , FOSS, matrix based E2E, public funded (no adverts, no corporate ownership), and uses IRL authentication to add contacts instead of using the devices contact lists (by showing each other a generated QR code).
I had Tchap in mind.
-
I had Tchap in mind.
DINUM is a lost cause... They keep wasting energy and cash just trowing pasta against the wall. Yesteryear it was olvid, it wasn't popular, now it's tchap... Probably because French politicians are still addicted to telegram for their private conversations despite being warned time and time again.
-
Teach the UK a lesson
That usually doesn't end well with these two
-
Yes know that it is different instances.
But encryption becomes more and more an hot topic. And the split between EU, government, Law enforcement authorities and the military is concerning.We vote on the "big" parties of our country's and the same party that says no to backdoors I'm the government can say yes in EU and vice versa.
So what I really want to say is if we can't agree on what we want's it's going to result in bad and weird laws. We can't say yes and no at the same time.
I hope you get what I mean..
the split between EU, government, Law enforcement authorities and the military is concerning
I find this reassuring. Of course there's the habit to go left and right (not the political sides, just the directions) at the same time but it is also a way to avoid extrems.
I don't want to have an All-in vote for all Europ layers and agencies at once with the lobbies of the music influencing what the armies could do.
If a chat control law passes in Europ, it will have to face the right to privacy.
-
the split between EU, government, Law enforcement authorities and the military is concerning
I find this reassuring. Of course there's the habit to go left and right (not the political sides, just the directions) at the same time but it is also a way to avoid extrems.
I don't want to have an All-in vote for all Europ layers and agencies at once with the lobbies of the music influencing what the armies could do.
If a chat control law passes in Europ, it will have to face the right to privacy.
I understand what you mean and can agree with you to some extent. It is good in that it clearly helps to counter extremism.
The problem I see is when a party can be against backdoors when they talk about elections for the country and then vote yes in the EU. Then comes "defense" – now we are no longer talking about the country but the entire EU, and these are two different things.
I also don't quite understand what you mean by "all-in" voting.
I hope they will take privacy seriously. I don't think they will. Poland has a new proposal that doesn't seem to be liked by the Council of Ministers. If chat control goes through, I believe it will break with previous laws and regulations "for the greater good."
-
I understand what you mean and can agree with you to some extent. It is good in that it clearly helps to counter extremism.
The problem I see is when a party can be against backdoors when they talk about elections for the country and then vote yes in the EU. Then comes "defense" – now we are no longer talking about the country but the entire EU, and these are two different things.
I also don't quite understand what you mean by "all-in" voting.
I hope they will take privacy seriously. I don't think they will. Poland has a new proposal that doesn't seem to be liked by the Council of Ministers. If chat control goes through, I believe it will break with previous laws and regulations "for the greater good."
By All-in, I wanted to refer to poker when the maximum risk is chosen.
Sur, elected representatives have to be trusted. Or we have propose an evolution. For now, I don't know which one
-
System shared this topic on
