Back in 2016, MS was advertising Customer Lockbox as an answer to gov’t intrusion into customer privacy.

Got it. Sorry for the missunderstanding.

I really wonder how long X aka Twitter can operate within the EU. The EU is on a smiliar tracetion in my opinion.

They famously jailed several Microsoft execs when they didn’t hand over some emails a few years ago.

And somehow, thats a good thing? To break the security of communication on demand of the gouverment?

I understand your point. Yes, its nothing new. We have seen limitetion of the freedom of expression in different times and ages.

If you believe my statement to be implausible without video evidence

Sorry, I missed it. I thought you speak about some correspondence between a company and authorities.

Nebenbei, dass die Regierung diese Anschauung vertritt glaube ich dir gern. Darüber müsste man eigentlich einen längeren Text schreiben, aber den liest am Ende eh niemand.

i’d like to invite you to meet our former minister of defence in the current government, Lambrecht, who resigned after referring to the war in Ukraine as an opportunity to have met many nice people in a social media video.

I remember that part a bit different. The speech or address was poorly orated but, as far as I remember, his was a usual rhetorical technice to bring something positive after a negative part. The speech as a whole was a kind of summary of the year.

Same with freedom.

What about freedom?

After all we are not like Russia, China or Saudi Arabia, so those people have nothing to fear…

Oh sure. Your anecode is a very impressive symbol for the state of some discussions here. Maybe, even a bit too good to be strict true.

Could I ask, where and how do you communicate with the German gouverment?

I’m a bit pessimistic about that point. It seems that the main reason why the Internet was less regulated than, lets say, the TV market was the lack of awareness of the old authorities and policymakers. At the latest with the victory of Donald Trump, things have changed. Now the ruling class is beginning to believe in the world-changing power of the flow of (mis)information on the Internet.

Its important to note that it doesn’t matter how you think about this changes in terms of ethics or politics. The mayor event was the change of mind in regards to the internet as such. Before, the internet was seen as something new, yet not understond and/or a place were young people does childish pranks. The innocence is over, at least in their eyes.Unimportant is the question whether you believe the the world-changing power of the internet yourself. Maybe, the idea is even false and the internet isn’t that important. But you have the regulation of it on the political agenda. It takes years to come to a better knowleade. Sometimes, even ages.

I wonder how long this ruling will hold if the EU commision comes around with their own chat control. Before somebody write it: I know that the EU and the Human Rights Court are different institution and doesn’t have much to do with each another.

The Russian state has already left the European agreement, which was the frame in which the court works.

At least, it should be interesting to check the judgment out. Some aspects are really interesting. As it seems, the european court may development a ruling like Bernstein v. United States. That could be interesting since the european continent lackes such a regulation as far as I know.

“I do this for good reasons, trust me” is not a valid argument.

Yes. The problem is, when one country has had a intelligence agency and the other has not, the one with the agency has a advantage. At least, under the same conditions.

I see the tension between a republican (res publica, “thing of the public”) State and the existence of such secrets. The question is if a state without this could exist under the current circumstances. There are a lot room for doubts here, I fear.

I never say that. Thats a straw man-argument.

Sorry, but the cases are too different. The secrets of the government serve a completely different purpose than those of the citizens.

What is a strategy against it?

Yeah, I wouldn’t be too confident in Facebook’s implementation, and I certainly don’t believe that their interests are aligned with their users’.

I’m quite sure, they arn’t. This statement doesn’t mean that I think they have bad intention or something. It’s just, at least for me, obivious that the interest of the users and these of the companies are highly different. This is also the case with other companies and their customers.

Having access to the data means that they will be required by law to provide that data to governments in various circumstances.

A more paranoid person than myself would suspect that any big enough gouverment world simply force the companies to collect and share data.

The metadata problem is common to a lot of platforms.

From the viewpoint of the cooperations, this is a good deal. Enough privacy to keep people on the plattform and still enough data for advertisment.

Meta-Data is a good wordplay here, even if not intended and the correct wording…

I don’t think so.

The postings of a specific individual are not important for great companies. Its the mass. They search for patterns and want to use this patterns for advertisment or to lead your use of the internet. The postings or information of one single individuum may be not even necessary after the analyis. And even if they could use them for some purpose, after 5 years or so, they arn’t current anymore. In this time, there will be 1000s of users who spend their data.

Companies exist to make money.

Therfor, it isn’t a great problem, tbh.

The gouverment my spyy on us just to have as much information as possible to get profiles but companies need you as possible customer. If you never use the side againt, they would not find any use of the data and to store it makes costs. So, they probable delete them after a certain time.

Search engine like yacy. Open scource and p2p.