| > No it did not. A court overturned the law 'a court'? You mean the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Justice_of_the_Europe..., an integral part of the EU. It is trias politica in action and as stated: a correction of a mistake. > If the countries were kept in check by the EU then France would not have tried to ban EtoE recently as it goes against the EU laws. Nonsense. The correction happens after the infraction. The EU processes and systems cannot prevent (attempts of) infractions from happening altogether. > If the EU as a whole was serious about data protection, the Chat Control law would have been dropped a long time ago. It is not a law. It is a proposal. And again: people pushing for bullshit also exist in the EU. The question is to what extent the EU is resistant to that. The Chat Control law is a very typical case of well-intended but misguided "think of the children" combined with "we're old and understand fuck-all about technology". > Tell me how successful is it when it portrays itself as a privacy minded place but it's parliament has tried to pass a law to strip literally all privacy from it's own citizens for the last 3 to 4 years? Those two things can't be right. 1. Is it an actual EU law yet? You pretend as if there is no pushback from anywhere in the EU. 2. Again, it is well-intended but misguided (Hanlon's razor applies). Politicians are confronted with digital CSAM-matters and correctly identify that that is some evil shit and that something needs to be done to combat it. You would do the same. The difference is mainly that these politicians don't properly understand what introducing backdoors to E2E encryption actually entails. Only a subset of those politicians does understand but think that combating CSAM is more important than privacy and an even smaller subset actually wants to abuse the system for data collection. So no, the EU is not 'just the same as the US and willing to sell out everyone in order to get it'. |