[eska]

As both a lawyer and a software engineer, I don't understand why big tech and EC want to scan messages, if they actually want to combat online abuse.

They don’t want to combat child abuse, they want to improve their advertising fingerprints.

[deltoidmaximus]

I'd say this is more about being able to identify and crush any nascent political movements that threaten the status quo in their infancy, but no reason not to let the implementers wet their beak to get buy in.

[surgical_fire]

This is bullshit. No "nascent political movement" spread with user-to-user end-to-end encrypted messages. People spread their shitty opinions as loudly as they can on public platforms. Those already scanned.

[fwn]

> Microsoft accused of leaking data of Dutch civil servants working on tech laws to US government

https://cybernews.com/tech/microsoft-dutch-data/

This is precisely the type of surveillance that can be achieved by breaking encryption or by placing local control agents on devices.

A chat control mandate massively empowers big tech and the US government hosting those corporations.

[surgical_fire]

This is actually the correct answer.

I don't think the concern here is scanning messages for "incorrect political thought", when people willingly yell their shitty opinions through Twitter/Reddit for maximum exposure. It's not like people are discreet with this shit.

What huge tech companies and the comissioners they lobby with actually want is more avenues of data collection, particularly people that they can't reach as easily.

The ad money gotta flow.