The Dutch government released a memo about their stance on #ChatControl
The cabinet is worried about the impact of these measures on fundamental rights, and is not convinced the new "compromise" fix that.
> ... the Cabinet believes that there is currently insufficient clarity about the impact of the proposed measures. The Cabinet's concerns about the protection of fundamental rights at stake, particularly in the area of privacy and the confidentiality of correspondence and telecommunications, and the security of the digital domain have not been sufficiently addressed at this time.
So that's good.
> The cabinet has therefore decided to refrain from taking a position and to actively make this known. The Netherlands will therefore be counted among the countries that do not support the general orientation.
This seems different to me than a no vote, which could be problematic? cc nostr:npub1j970xxntqmx8d986lpndhy2p0ccefczx8teahqvz4uwzt9x8p8zs7j50h9
There seem to be multiple shades of "no" in EU politics which is thoroughly confusing.
The memo goes into more detail about why they're not happy with the proposal:
> Only with regard to the detection of already known material can such an order be executed in a proportionate manner (via hashing technology). Because the government does not support measures that make end-to-end encryption impossible, the only way in which this order can be executed for end-to-end encrypted services is via client-side scanning. The previous government explicitly communicated with the House that it saw this as an option.
I've said before that I consider the previous Minster of Justice Yeşilgöz a threat to democracy and this confirms that.
The letter continues to explain the new administration initially wanted to continue this positive attitude towards client-side scanning. However it seems the intelligence service AIVD intervened:
> Last week, following a new advice from the AIVD, the position regarding the compromise proposal was reviewed. The AIVD warns that ‘introducing a scan application on every mobile phone with an associated infrastructure of management systems results in an extremely extensive and complex system. This complex system also has access to a large number of mobile devices and the personal data on them. This ultimately results in a situation in which the AIVD considers the risks to digital resilience to be too great.’
"digital resilience" is roughly defined as (different government website):
> the digital resilience of government, companies and social organisations. This concerns the ability to reduce risks to an acceptable level by means of a collection of measures to prevent cyber incidents and, when cyber incidents have occurred, to detect them, limit damage and make recovery easier
The memo continues:
> If a detection order is imposed on a service provider that uses end-to-end encryption, the AIVD estimates that detecting child pornography material through client-side scanning poses too great a security risk to the digital resilience of the Netherlands.
> What is clear is that the security risks mentioned by the AIVD with regard to client-side scanning mean that it is very questionable whether the infringement of fundamental rights can be justified, because with regard to this method there is no proportionate measure.
Quotes are Google translated. ht nostr:npub1xtmjmagwqqwcunas89zk8a0da6tkdp3dsw07g9jgvvrnwxrt3lqqrplxd5
Having a national intelligence agency speaking out in *favor* of E2EE is a nice surprise
I use Cromite, it's good. Native ad block and easy button to clear browser data.
These guys call themselves the "intellectual dark web" by the way 🤡
You're welcome James😂
The numbers just kind of make one glaze over at some point. You may as well have said the deficit is a gazillion bazillion dollars and it would have meant as much to me.
Talking tough in public but bending the knee in private. nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx was right again.
Just occurred to me this could be misinterpreted as dumping on Eliza. 😅
I was referring to Elon's proclaimed free speech maximalism.
Talking tough in public but bending the knee in private. nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx was right again.
I've had some minor success with people such as this pointing out cases were we all know the experts either got it wrong or where outright lying / malicious.
A couple of my go-to examples of this are either WMDs in Iraq or bank bailouts. Nobody likes to defend these.
Just point out that they people they're outsourcing their thinking to may not know themselves, or have the best intentions.
But yeah, it's very difficult with people that think like this. 😕
Not much to explain: It's spam. No clear point to it, most likely just someone trolling.
Relay and client devs are working on better spam filtering tools to get rid of it as we speak.
Primal works pretty well to get rid of it for me. Amethyst can also work if you mute the username of the bot "replyguy on wss://"
The biggest issue I'm having right now is that the web app has stopped hiding mutes altogether. Please fix this ASAP, it's extremely aggravating. 🙏
There were a lot of books that were informative or changed my mind on certain topics, but for what changed my life the most I'd have to say "Getting Things Done" by David Allen.
Actually putting what that book taught me in practice really did change my life for the better. First I got all the day to day stuff organized, but the really cool part was what happened after that: I started being much more stoic about "stuff" in general, and way more strategic about what I want.
Learning by touching the stove.
nostr:note1v2cwxvtx97y3aczglugqs7j658udffspel00f2h5z5szqw8wunasgwller
Even assuming Tucker is not just full of shit (big assumption), all you really know is they somehow got wind of that interview. NSA have a lot of ways to wiretap people, so he's just speculating it's through Signal.
The actual E2EE conversations are secure: The encryption is Open Source and well audited, and the apps have reproducible builds on all platforms were that's possible. If anybody claims Signal can read your messages that's BS IMO.
That said, Signal have copped some criticism that they still need a phone number for sign up. IIRC they said want Signal to be a drop in replacement for WhatsApp and to have easy onboarding via SMS. But the paranoid take would be that it's also a easy metadata id for everyone on the app, so you can see who is talking to who, even if you don't know what they're saying.
Personally I'm fine with the tradeoff for being easy to use and normie friendly though. Like, if you are personally targeted by a alphabet agency it's probably not safe for you to use a phone at all regardless of what app you're using.
If you're really concerned about this you can switch to SimpleX, but personally I feel like that's overkill in most people's threat model. Just don't go to Telegram instead, they cast a lot of FUD on Signal's security even though they're worse in every way.
https://mises.org/mises-daily/isaiahs-job
"The line of differentiation between the masses and the Remnant is set invariably by quality, not by circumstance. The Remnant are those who by force of intellect are able to apprehend these principles, and by force of character are able, at least measurably, to cleave to them. The masses are those who are unable to do either." - Albert Jay Nock nostr:note1lrdyf3vxkdxuek8tq33ynsf6eeuw7s40y4tkgn05ssg0gv6u8q4sg9svvy
Isaiah's Job is such a banger. 🔥
Can you use that term for a monogram? Whatever, I just did. 😄
Signal
