[pbasista]

> they still managed to not listen to anyone who knows anything about encryption and online safety

Why do you assume something like that? Do you actually know the arguments that the parties in favor of this kind of regulation are presenting? And can you dismiss them based on objective facts?

> The goal they are trying to achieve is good

That is what should be, in my opinion, the basis of this discussion. Assume good intentions and try to work out with the parties involved to achieve the goal in a reasonable way. This is the way, I believe.

Hand-wavingly dismissing other party's arguments would be in my opinion disingenuous.

[rstat1]

>>Why do you assume something like that? Do you actually know the arguments that the parties in favor of this kind of regulation are presenting? And can you dismiss them based on objective facts?

The moment anyone brings up the whole "just put a backdoor in that only we can access" despite years of people who actually know better saying that's not possible, is the moment when any further arguments become moot and not worth any further engagement or assumptions of good intention.

That's the single argument all these stupid "chat control" like proposals are based on.

[pbasista]

> just put a backdoor in that only we can access

Who is arguing for a backdoor? Do you actually know what are the proposed technical approaches or are you making assumptions?

> people who actually know better saying that's not possible

What is not possible?

> all these stupid "chat control" like proposals

For example here, you make your argument by stating that these proposal are "stupid". There is no effort that I can see to even try to understand where the other party is coming from.

And that is an issue, in my opinion. I think that a productive and honest conversation about a complex issue like this one requires empathy with the other party's position.

[rstat1]

>>Who is arguing for a backdoor? Do you actually know what are the proposed technical approaches or are you making assumptions?

The 14 EU countries pushing for this policy to become law. Do you actually know the proposed technical approaches or are you just making assumptions?

>>What is not possible?

See my previous comments. I made it quite clear.

>>For example here, you make your argument by stating that these proposal are "stupid". There is no effort that I can see to even try to understand where the other party is coming from. And that is an issue, in my opinion. I think that a productive and honest conversation about a complex issue like this one requires empathy with the other party's position.

In situations such as this your empathy is misplaced. It should not be with the bureaucrat seeking access to your private conversations under the false pretense of "keeping you safe" from w/e today's boogeyman is. It should be with the people who's safety is bolstered by the ability to have private conversations.

If you don't understand why this sort of stupid chat control policy is bad then there is no productive or honest conversation to be had.

[codeptualize]

I'm not assuming anything, I work in software development. In this industry we spend ungodly amounts of time and resources to attempt to keep data safe, and create systems like the ones proposed to flag and handle malicious activity of many kinds. I think I know quite well how hard it is, and how easy it is to get it wrong, with potentially very real consequences.

The only things being handwavingly dismissed are the collateral damage, side effects, very real risks, and concerns about the effectiveness of the proposed solutions.

[mvanbaak]

> Why do you assume something like that?

This is very easy to answer. Just look up what all the responses were, for all the times this kind of stuff was proposed.

[hobs]

After the 10th time you assume good intentions and they still try to do the wrong thing, are you a fool or a helpful patsy?