| Politicians in the EU are saying that it's possible to scan everyone's messages and still call those messages "private." It's the same kind of double-speak we always see from politicians while they take rights away and tell you everything's fine. But that's not the only EU story today. The EU is planning a stealth rollout of a CBDC and other countries are expected to copy it...
| A leaked European Council survey of the views on encryption of member countries showed that Spain strongly supports banning end-to-end encryption, a measure that has been proposed to combat the spread of child sexual abuse material (CSAM), but would end privacy for all citizens.
The proposed law would require tech platforms to scan encrypted communications, something tech experts have warned is not possible without breaking the encryption.
According to the document, which was obtained by Wired, Spain's position in encryption is the most radical. | | So far, more than 100 companies, governments, civil society and academic organizations have joined WEF's Global AI Action Alliance. "Joy to the world" - critics might scoff sarcastically.
But WEF promises to "accelerate the adoption of responsible AI in the global public interest."
|  | | "Ideally, in our view, it would be desirable to legislatively prevent EU-based service providers from implementing end-to-end encryption," representatives from Spain said.
End-to-end encryption ensures that only the sender and receiver can see the content of a message. Even the owner of the platform does not have access to the content.
Of the 20 member countries represented in the survey, 15 support the banning of end-to-end encrypted communications, the report stated.
Poland suggested the introduction of measures that would allow a court to lift encryption and for parents to be allowed to decrypt the communications of their children.
"It is of utmost importance to provide clear wording in the CSA Regulation that end-to-end encryption is not a reason not to report CSA material," Croatia's representatives said.
Romania said: "We don't want E2EE encryption to become a 'safe haven' for malicious actors..."
Slovenia said, "Detection orders must necessarily also apply to encrypted networks."
Ireland and Denmark want messages scanned for CSAM without banning end-to-end encryption, something that is not possible. The Netherlands said that it was possible to scan content on a device before it is sent as encrypted to a recipient.
"There are … technologies which may allow for automatic detection of CSAM while at the same time leaving end-to-end encryption intact," the country's reps said.
Others like Hungary and Cyprus supported the proposal as it would help law enforcement.
Italy, Germany, Finland, and Estonia also do not support end-to-end encryption. Germany said it would not support a law that allows technologies that would circumvent, modify, or disrupt encryption.
Finland told the EU Commission to find solutions to fight CSAM without undermining encryption.
Estonia warned that forcing companies to scan encrypted messages would result in the companies exiting the European market.
Italy said the proposal would "represent a generalized control on all the encrypted correspondence sent through the web."
| | Although Section 230 is celebrated by supporters from various corners and with different agendas as fundamental in guaranteeing a free internet - there is by now no doubt that this legislation has also become highly controversial, while its interpretations are becoming more and more convoluted.
We explore this today.
Become a supporter to help out and get this section, as well as hundreds of other posts, tutorials and guides... | The EU is finding ways to quietly introduce a centralized digital euro. This is their plan.
Watch on YT here.
Watch on Rumble here. | The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) has filed a lawsuit challenging the federal government's efforts to push social media platforms to censor content by people who claim they have been injured by COVID-19 vaccines. The lawsuit was filed by NCLA on behalf of Brianne Dressen and others.
We obtained a copy of the complaint for you here.
The lawsuit notes that the plaintiffs are not "anti-vaxxers." For example, Dressen was reportedly injured by the AstraZeneca vaccine after voluntarily participating in the trial. | One of the censored: Brianne Dressen | Another plaintiff, Ernest Ramirez was not affected by the Moderna vaccine. However, his 16-year-old son died from a cardiac arrest he believes to be induced by the vaccine after five days. | One of the censored: Ernest Ramirez and his son, Ernest Ramirez Jr. | | Some may argue that COVID-19 vaccine injuries are rare, but the lawsuit argues that, while that may be true, those injured have the right to express themselves. Their speech on social media have been repeatedly flagged or removed for containing alleged misinformation.
"The Plaintiffs have all been heavily censored on social media for sharing their personal experiences, exchanging advice, medical research, and support with others who were medically harmed after taking the vaccine," the complaint says.
"For posting about their personal experiences and trying to connect with others in the vaccine-injured community, Plaintiffs' speech has repeatedly been flagged as misinformation or removed entirely. Their social media accounts are at constant risk of being frozen or disabled just for engaging with other users in private support groups open only to vaccine-injured individuals and sharing perspectives the government deems misinformation."
The lawsuit argues that even if their clients were sharing misinformation, "under the First Amendment the federal government plays no role in policing these Plaintiffs' private speech or picking winners and losers in the marketplace of ideas."
|  | The public and media in general are finding out about Microsoft's decades-long MO. Its critics have long since observed that in business, like now in politics, this original Big Tech "terror" has been evasive, obstructive, and generally, "less than sincere" in its actions and intentions.
In this case, reports speak about the realization that although Microsoft three months ago said the right thing - that it was suspending its use of the controversial Global Disinformation Index (GDI), in light of revelations about the nature of this government-backed "disinformation" tracker - what Microsoft actually did, remains unclear to this day.
Microsoft in February announced that it was investigating allegations about GDI and in the meanwhile stopping using the service. The tech giant, according to internal information, did temporarily delete flags whose job was to censor conservative sites for supposed "disinformation."
But there has been no information whatsoever yet from Microsoft about the findings of its investigation, and whether or not the corporation intends to continue working with GDI, writes the Washington Examiner.
This behavior is interpreted as essentially evasive, and therefore, opaque at the very least.
And that is exactly what Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton is advising against in his statements to the press related to the issue at hand.
In addition, Fitton doesn't think investigations of this kind - into the blacklisting of sites based on ideology and/or politics - should be left to tech companies, but instead require congressional involvement.
"Whatever Microsoft said they're doing is not nearly enough because of the government funding. Congress has an obligation to pursue it," Fitton is quoted as saying.
GDI - which is UK-based - from 2020 until 2022 got nearly a million dollars in funding directly from the US government, i.e., a State Department outfit called "the Global Engagement Center," and from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) - a non-profit that's backed by government via congressional appropriations.
Also in February, just as Microsoft was among those who got in the hot seat for their association with GDI, NED said it would stop giving the "disinformation" scheme money, so as to avoid being perceived as doing "work" in the US itself.
(Critics have for a long time criticized NED for subversive political behavior abroad and meddling in other country's affairs.)
Meanwhile, GDI had until May 11 to "provide House Foreign Affairs Committee Republicans with documents about the agency's efforts to fight 'disinformation' and 'misinformation'," - but that is yet to happen. | Reclaim The Net exists because of paid readers. If you can, please help out and become a supporter. Thank you.
| | Thanks for reading,
Reclaim The Net
| | | |
