[gloosx]

I don't think comparing it to something like camera surveillance inside your home is a good idea.

You kind of own your home – if someone places camera in your property, you can just remove it / obstruct vision / sound etc. If doing that will send you to jail then the level of dystopia around is so big it's irrelevant anyway – you're a slave with no rights and you will do that the shocking stick tells you to do.

Phones are different - you kind of don't own them by default because bootloader is locked so you are not free to execute the code you want on the device, as well as app store exists which it tells you what you can install and what you cannot install. The only leverage they have is to make Apple/Google remove certain apps from the EU stores.

[1718627440]

That's exactly the thing. Legally you own your phones. You are responsible for what they do.

We are now kind of a the crossroad. Either we expand the SaaS model to everything, or we enforce the until-now rules of ownership of the law.

[Thorrez]

You own your home, but there are still laws regulating what you're allowed to do in your home.

[rnhmjoj]

Yes, exactly. This proposal is just free riding on the sadly enstablished conception that you don't really own your device: it doesn't work in your interest but in those of the manufacturer, the developer of the programs you use and, if this becomes law, your government.

If we really want to stop chat control and all the other proposals that will inevitably come after, we should really work hard to try to reverse this. I think asking "don't break encryption, please" is really the wrong way to go about it.

[Kim_Bruning]

That really depends on the phone. There's definitely phones where you can unlock the bootloader. It's not as common as it should be though, for sure.