Olives @olives@qoto.org

No, Nadine wasn't the one who was really railing against end-to-end encryption (although, honestly, she probably doesn't like it either). That was the British Home Secretary Priti Patel (who is also no longer part of the Cabinet).

I don't think people actually realize just how toxic and destructive Nadine Dorries was to British Internet policy and the discourse around that. She's not even part of the Cabinet any more.

Copilot? I think Microsoft really missed an opportunity here. They could have named it Skynet, lol. #ai

https://edri.org/our-work/temporary-eprivacy-derogation-companies-like-facebook-must-never-indiscriminately-scan-peoples-private-messages/ Given the allegations against them, I'm more concerned about Google's conduct, particularly that from 2019 / 2020, than that of Facebook. That said, I saw parents complaining a few years ago about Facebook's censorship algorithm being over the top. It's also been reported that Facebook has the same issue which Google did when the Ninth Circuit ruled the Fourth Amendment was violated when Google didn't bother to check the matches prior to sending them off.

"If despite all the concerns raised, the legislator still deems these measures to be essential and effective, then commercial entities should be required to implement them."

I don't really agree with this principle. A regulation which restricts when they can do this might help to check their power, however, "forcing" to surveil only really shifts the power from Big Tech to Big Government. That is probably not the only problem with that. It's kind of like a check and balance (although, I don't expect these companies to particularly look out for people's expressive or privacy rights).

It is also worth mentioning that some courts will not accept evidence that involves mass surveillance, as that is seen as a violation of people's rights, and that might even result in criminals getting away. This mainly applies to the "chat control 2.0".

No, it is not "saving the children" this time (names like this are usually a red flag for that), instead it is supposed to "save the women".

https://reason.com/2024/02/12/protect-act-could-require-removal-of-all-existing-porn-online/ That doesn't sound good, it also still seems unconstitutional.

https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/12/dutch_insurers_breast_cancer/

"Dutch health insurers are reportedly forcing breast cancer patients to submit photos of their breasts prior to reconstructive surgery despite a government ban on precisely that.

That sounds pretty bad but it gets worse: These insurers keep losing their copies of these highly intimate pictures, one way or another.

Some insurers don't use secure websites and/or other means of electronic communications to transfer these very sensitive photos, according to the Netherlands public broadcaster NOS. Patients reported that their insurance companies have lost their photos, and denied their requests for reconstructive surgeries following a breast-cancer diagnosis."

#privacy #netherlands