All falsely flagged communication is. And there will be lots and lots of it, even if it is just a tiny fraction of the total number of messages sent, since the number of messages sent between people is so big. This is the classic problem with statistical methods looking for rare things in large populations which also is why we don't screen everyone for all illnesses all the time - the false positives would do too much harm.
You also will not know if your message is flagged, so if you are ever in doubt about how your message will be categorized, you will have to assume that it will be flagged and sent to storage for an unknown amount of time
If you care about the tiny fraction of the total number being stored by the government, frankly you should care a lot more about all the data being stored by TooBigTech.
Feels a bit hypocritical to accept one and not the other.
Really, I think that the problem with ChatControl is that it is a weapon for surveillance. Not because of the false positive, but because whoever controls it can decide what gets reported. Depending on how a government evolves, that could be very dangerous. And we have examples of governments evolving like this in history.
> If you care about the tiny fraction of the total number being stored by the government, frankly you should care a lot more about all the data being stored by TooBigTech.
And what makes you think we don't?
It's much, much easier to stop new incursions into our privacy than to claw back privacy we've already lost. And it's much, much easier to stop the government from violating our privacy than to stop megacorporations accountable to no one for anything other than profit from doing so.
I think seeing hypocrisy here is being extremely uncharitable.
I guess what I am trying to say is that the population doesn't care. If you want to convince politicians, you have to convince the population.
IMHO there are valid arguments against ChatControl that are not "you see what you allow TooBigTech to do to you? Well with ChatControl you would allow much less to the government. Isn't that terrible?"
A strong argument against ChatControl, IMO, is that it builds a powerful tool of surveillance. Not because "someone fairly random will see false positives", but because someone in power (e.g. a president) could abuse it to maintain their power (e.g. by targetting political opponents).
Where did I write that I thought that was OK? I am writing this on a de-Googled phone, I have hosted my own email for over two decades and I avoid big tech like the plague. Please stop with the whataboutism.
I share your other concern, but I think it's related to the one I mentioned. Suddenly false positives turn into true positives, but for things that were totally unrelated to the initially stated goals of Chat Control.