[asimops]

A secure OS is a prerequisite for secure digital services. We can agree on that, right?

The task, therefore, is to convince enough politicians to establish an independent unit that can address this issue without direct political influence.

Fund the unit with enough money so that it can take care of the cybersecurity and sovereignty of all citizens.

A side effect of this would hopefully be that these politicians would then be digitally literate enough to recognize nonsense such as chat control as such and reject it outright. I hope that most politicians would not really want such omnipotent surveillance tools if they could truly grasp their scope.

[IlikeKitties]

I must sadly inform everyone here that the EU is pozzed beyond recovery in regards to Google. The reference implementation for the euid project is only available for android and ios and uses the play integrity api which makes usage of it on non google-certified devices impossible. https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/eudi-app-andro...

[TeMPOraL]

> A secure OS is a prerequisite for secure digital services. We can agree on that, right?

Secure for who, and from whom?

Remote Attestation and Developer Verification both make Android OS and platform more secure against malicious actors that would want to defeat the guarantees the platform gives, guarantees that enable secure digital services.

Yes, this includes protecting the banking services and DRM media services and advertising platforms from malicious actors like you and me, who pose a real threat to the revenues of the aforementioned players, by:

- Expecting banking to do security right on their own side, instead of outsourcing it to mobile platform and society at large (like with "identity theft" trick);

- Enjoying entertainment and education in ways the vendor or IP owner does not like or can't be arsed to support, and thus not spending extra on the inferior ways that are supported;

- Not looking at the ads.

Same is with Chat Control. Chat Control improves security of the society against threats such as sexual predators who want to hurt children, or citizens who disapprove of how the current ruling class is governing the people. To effectively provide that security, Chat Control in turn relies on a secure OS and platform providing secure digital services - in particular, secure against those malicious actors that would want to circumvent Chat Control protections.

Is the larger picture clear now? Security technologies are not inherently good, they're morally ambivalent. They're "dual-use". It's important to consider their deployment on a case-by-case basis, always asking who is being secured, and what are the actual threats they're being secured from.

[immibis]

> Chat Control improves security of the society against threats such as sexual predators who want to hurt children,

no it doesn't. Chat Control is single-use.

[TeMPOraL]

It does, to some extent. These projects wouldn't have the support they had if they didn't have a plausible way to deliver some improvement along the metrics they market. It's the outsized harmful impact that's usually just left unspoken.

Also, I'm not saying Chat Control is dual-use, I'm saying crypto is. Chat Control actually needs working crypto to be properly implemented.

[exe34]

did you understand and disagree with the third paragraph? if so, could you say in what way it didn't completely answer the question you just asked?