Look, we all know the EU has been ahead of the curve on tech regulation. GDPR changed how the entire internet handles privacy. They forced USB-C on everyone (Apple included). The DMA cracked open iOS and forced Apple to allow alternative app stores. The AI Act, DSA, right to repair, repairability scores on phones, and the list goes on. When Brussels moves, the rest of the world usually follows.

So here's what I genuinely don't understand: why has nobody tackled the absolute scam that is "buying" digital media?

You buy a book on Kindle. You buy a game on Steam, PlayStation, Nintendo eShop. You click a button that says "Buy." You pay money. And what you actually get is a "license to use", a revocable permission that can be yanked away from you at any time, for any reason, with zero refund.

This isn't some theoretical what-if. It keeps happening:

Amazon literally remotely deleted copies of 1984 and Animal Farm from people's Kindles in 2009 over a licensing dispute. Yes, they deleted 1984. The irony was not lost on anyone. Bezos called it "stupid and thoughtless" but the precedent was set and nothing structurally changed.

Sony is deleting 551 purchased movies from PlayStation users' libraries in the UK and Europe on September 1, 2026 because their licensing deal with StudioCanal expired. These are movies people paid for. Gone. No refund. No way to download and keep them. Just a message saying "you will no longer be able to access your previously purchased content."

If Amazon has a contract dispute with a publisher, your books can vanish. If a game studio decides to shut down a server, you might not be able to download a game you paid for anymore. You paid for it. It's gone. Good luck getting your money back.

And don't tell me "just buy physical" because that's becoming a joke too:

GTA VI's "physical edition" is literally a box with a download code inside. No disc. Rockstar confirmed this. You buy a plastic case at retail, open it, and find a code. It's functionally identical to buying it digitally, you just got a fancy box for your troubles.

PlayStation announced they're ending all physical disc production for new games starting January 2028. Which strongly implies the next PlayStation won't even have a disc drive. They're not even pretending anymore.

Nintendo Switch 2 has a massive code-in-a-box problem. Multiple "physical" releases, including Bethesda's Oblivion, Skyrim, and Fallout, are just an empty case with a download code. No cartridge. Some of them don't even use the game-key card format, which at least lets you resell. You're buying a plastic shell.

So even when you try to do the "right thing" and buy physical, you often end up with a digital license in a fancy box. The illusion of ownership in a $70 plastic case.

And the brands I mentioned are just examples. This is an industry-wide pattern. It's everyone.

There's a slogan that's been going around in gaming communities and I think it captures the frustration perfectly: "If buying is not owning, piracy is not stealing."

Let me be crystal clear because I know how this sounds, I am NOT encouraging piracy. That slogan is a protest motto from gamers fighting against having access to games they paid for taken away. But there's a real point in there: when publishers kill servers and make it impossible to legally access a game you bought, or any game at all, piracy literally becomes the only way to play discontinued titles. The companies themselves created the conditions where piracy is the only preservation method left. That's not consumers being entitled, it's a policy failure.

So does anyone know if the EU has anything in the pipeline for this?

There's been some movement but it's been pretty disappointing. The Stop Killing Games campaign (started by YouTuber Ross Scott) managed to gather over 1.29 million verified signatures as a European Citizens' Initiative, the biggest gaming-related petition in EU history. But in June 2026 the Commission basically said "nah" and declined to propose any binding legislation. They offered a voluntary industry code of conduct instead, which... yeah, we all know how voluntary industry self-regulation goes.

The campaign has now pivoted to trying to get game preservation amendments added to the Digital Fairness Act, which is expected to be proposed in late 2026. They apparently have support from 40+ MEPs. But it's early and there's no guarantee it'll go anywhere.

There's also the EU Directive on Digital Content and Services (2019/770) which gives some consumer protections for digital goods, but it doesn't address the core issue: it doesn't stop companies from revoking access to stuff you paid for because of licensing disputes.

Honestly, the EU proved with GDPR that consumer rights regulation can reshape the global landscape. USB-C proved even Apple will comply. The DMA proved walled gardens can be forced open. Digital ownership feels like the obvious next fight.

What I'd want to see is pretty simple: if it's a license, call it a license. Don't put a "Buy" button when you mean "rent indefinitely until we decide otherwise." Make companies provide offline access or downloadable copies for stuff people paid for. Mandatory refunds when access gets revoked. And if a company is shutting down a service, require them to give users a way to keep what they bought: offline installers, community server tools, something.

I'm really hoping this gets on the EU's radar properly. If anyone here knows of other initiatives, or MEPs who've spoken about this, I'd love to hear about it. This feels like one of those things where if the EU moves first, the rest of the world will follow, just like every other time

so im using the grapheneOS camera on my samsung s21, which has 3 cameras, but it only uses my 1x camera and when i zoom in its digital zoom and not the other camera

any app that uses all of them that doesn't track me and send data to big boy corpos?

One question has been on my mind recently.
Article 15 GDPR gives individuals the right to access their personal data, including CCTV footage where they can be identified. On paper, this is an important safeguard.
However, I wonder whether this right is always effective in practice.
Imagine a situation where CCTV footage is the only objective evidence of what happened during an interaction with employees of an organization. The recording could potentially confirm that procedures were followed correctly—or it could reveal inappropriate conduct or other irregularities.
In those circumstances, the controller is not only responsible for processing the data but may also have an institutional interest in the content of the recording.
If the footage is deleted under normal retention policies before access can realistically be exercised, or if preservation is not triggered early enough, does Article 15 still provide an effective remedy?
I’m not suggesting that controllers routinely act in bad faith, nor am I arguing that CCTV should be retained indefinitely.
I’m simply asking whether the current GDPR framework adequately protects data subjects in situations where the recording may also be relevant for accountability.
Do privacy professionals, lawyers or DPOs think the current system strikes the right balance, or is there room for legislative or procedural improvements?

localsend has been really buggy for me lately and its getting to a point where i want to switch to something else. When i try to send stuff between my pc (endeavourOS) and my phone (samsung s21) it doesn't work, even if they're both on the same wifi connection. It worked before and it was great but now it just doesn't and i'm too lazy too fix it

i tried kde connect but had the same problem

thanks kitties

Ok, so since chat control is now a thing, what platforms are still safe? Also is google safe?

Based on some of the conversations I am seeing on Reddit and X it seems a lot of people have misunderstood what Chat Control I does and does not do - and this is largely down to the misinformation that the European Commission actively paid to push on social media and were pulled up by the Ombudsman for doing so (as it was unlawful).

Chat Control tracks paedophiles: FALSE

- Chat Control does not track paedophiles, in fact it has zero information on paedophiles at all
- Chat Control deals with CSAM (Child Sexual Abuse Material) not CSA (Child Sexual Abuse)
- it is after the fact and is based entirely on reported images from online platforms
- it is not investigative and it does not track paedophiles.

Chat Control protects victims: FALSE
Chat Control literally does nothing for the victims - there is nothing in chat control that provides:
- Support for Victims
- Counselling for Victims
- Research into why people commit CSA
- Prosecution of offenders
- It also removes the option for victims and survivors to report the crimes against them due to lack of confidential communications (see : https://www.thatprivacyguy.com/blog/chat-control-in-9000-words/ )

Chat Control exposes more CSAM: FALSE
-To date most police forces who have commented on Chat Control have stated it makes their job more difficult
- Most of the images discovered with Chat Control are not legally actionable
- Most of the images discovered are duplicates
- It is trivial to avoid Chat Control by making even the slightest change to the image (such as flipping it horizontally or changing the resolution) so it no longer matches known material

Chat Control makes it easier to find CSA: FALSE
- There is nothing in Chat Control that impacts CSA (it is after the abuse has already occurred)
- Synthetic CSAM is being generated at scale by AI Image Generation where no child has been abused and adds an exponential number of needles to the stack, making it MUCH MORE DIFFICULT to find actual CSAM and CSA

Chat Control doesn't impact innocent people: FALSE
- Chat Control has a high false positive and false negative rate - this directly impacts individuals who are wrongfully accused (and we have direct evidence of this already happening multiple times)
- Chat Control monitors hundreds of billions of communications every single day in the EU - with the existing error rates that amounts to literally millions of mistakes on a daily basis, ruining the lives of the falsely accused and their families

These are just some of the issues with people misunderstanding what Chat Control is and what it does - I have a much more detailed discussion on this in my Master Thesis (see previous posts to find the link) - and keep in mind, I am a survivor who has lived this his entire life, had his entire family destroyed by CSA, had multiple successful criminal prosecutions of abusers who abused me and 28 other boys in my school for decades.

I also worked with the police on tracking down people disseminating CSAM online for years (starting in 1992), helped bring down the Orchid Club and I have written 2 Theses on this issue (a dissertation in 1997 and a master thesis in 2023) - I have campaigned against Chat Control for 5 years, have spoken at dozens of EU events on the issue (Parliament, Commission and EDPS) as well as multiple conferences (academic and public).

I absolutely believe that we need to tackle the issue of CSA and the resulting CSAM - but I am also a privacy advocate and computer scientist/lawyer/sociologist and I understand that Chat Control doesn't do what it says on the tin and will simply set back our efforts to protect children by decades because the EU will continue to funnel money into a solution that simply doesn't work and makes everything so much worse from a law enforcement perspective and fundamental rights perspective.

I don't attack Chat Control because I want to protect paedophiles - I attack Chat Control because it is smoke and mirrors - all it does is make a few people rich in the name of victims and survivors whilst literally doing nothing to protect those same victims and survivors whilst simultaneously introducing mass surveillance in breach of established EU treaties and jurisprudence.

Stop listening to the hype and start researching what it really it, what it really does and whether or not it will do what it is supposed to do (hint: it doesn't and there are literally dozens of peer reviewed academic papers explaining why - many of which are cited in my thesis).

This insanity has to end, it will kill more children, not save them.

I see a lot of people talking about Chat Control and looking for more information - in 2023 I completed my Advanced Master of Laws thesis on the legal issues surrounding the derogation which was just pushed through to a second reading last week.

It contains a lot of information on the issues the derogation faces not just technically but also with regards to the EU Treaties.

You can find a copy of my Master Thesis here

Even if they claim it's "only for suspects" — this affects everyone!

Forcing backdoors and client-side scanning into encrypted apps like Signal and WhatsApp destroys end-to-end encryption for all of us.

Experts have warned for years: Once you weaken encryption, everyone’s private communication becomes vulnerable.

This is not protection — this is mass surveillance disguised as security.

Human rights are being sacrificed for total control.

Stand up and fight back!

Join EPATCG – We Fight Together!

I saw that somewhere in europe there was bill passed that makes sure that to login to a platform you need to verify your age with some sort of verified government document then only you can login

This is complete bs. article

hey ekitties, i want a camera app kinda like the blackmagic camera app (havent used it myself but my family member uses it and it looks dope) thats more privacy focused ykyk

im looking to get a clip-on fisheye lens because i just want a cheap and easy fisheye lens for skate clips, but after watching a video about them the guy in the video said and showed that image stabilization makes it look all wonky and stuff but after he downloaded an app (on ios) he could fix it idrk what or how lwk but yk

i suck at explaining stuff 🥀

Author's description: "A free, multilingual field guide to escape Chat Control and take back control of your digital privacy: encrypted messaging, email, VPN, DNS, 2FA, Linux, self-hosting."

Website is open source:
https://github.com/Aurealibe/exitchatcontrol.org

u/silentspectator27 pointed out that the website's claim that "client-side scanning is mandatory in Chat Control 2.0" is incorrect.

This other website highlights the nuance:
https://fightchatcontrol.eu/chat-control-overview

You want to legitimally earn money with you work, contact your collegues & clients, store your files, money? You gotta gift them your ID data. Because EU Comission decided so.

Such laws are lobbied. Such laws are always double standards. They won't ever protect you or your children. They will protect the ones who collect your data (the owners of Persona, for example, or some greedy Reddit managers). And they already have enough money to afford privacy for themselves, because it is considered luxury now.

My Ticket at Reddit Support:

Chats, followings, and NSFW-art are crucial for my income as an artist. I've been trying to complete age verification for my business art account via selfie across multiple browsers, devices, and network configurations. The Persona check fails every time regardless of setup. I do not want to submit a government ID as an alternative to any third-party service — especially Persona, given the documented privacy concerns around their data handling practices.

Additionally, my account previously had a verified adult Google account linked, which should have already confirmed my age status prior to the Persona requirement being triggered. This existing verification does not appear to have been taken into account.

I am requesting escalation and a working non-ID verification method. Under the Digital Services Act, platforms are required to provide proportionate and accessible verification mechanisms; a broken selfie-verification pathway that forces users into ID submission as the only functioning alternative does not meet that standard. If this is not resolved or escalated within a reasonable timeframe, I will file a formal complaint with the German Digital Services Coordinator (Bundesnetzagentur) regarding lack of a functioning non-ID verification option, and will pursue this through their published complaint process.

-

If you also have this issue, send this to support replacing german DSC with your regional department. At least, maybe it will make them consider alternatives a bit.

So i gave reddit my real age and yea its working with the face Scanner and rhey want my id now

Looks like a law made by SCP 035 (The Possessive Mask)

About a year ago, the Finnish podcast “Uusi Puheenaihe” posted an interview with Peter Sund, leader of the Finnish Information Security Cluster (FISC). The title of the video was ”EU and CSAM: Big Brother is watching” and since it was strongly anti-chat control, it picked up a lot of traction again this week. Yesterday it was blocked in almost the entire EU.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGaQCcwnwb0

You can try opening the video and it won’t load if you’re in the EU. With a VPN connected through the US or anywhere else it plays again.

You can also verify the blocking on Invidious.

https://inv.nadeko.net/watch?v=dGaQCcwnwb0

Blacklisted regions as listed by invidious: AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, GR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK. All 27 member states of EU.

News article in Finnish:

https://www.is.fi/kotimaa/art-2000012135158.html

I've been using sites like privacytools.io and european-alternatives.eu to find privacy-friendly and European alternatives to big tech. But the more I look, the more "Ad" and "Sponsored" labels I notice on the actual recommendations, plus affiliate links everywhere.

I understand these sites cost money and time to run, but it makes me second-guess everything. Am I seeing the best tool, or the one that pays the best commission?

So, two questions for the community:

1. Are there directories that are fully community-run or donation-funded, with zero sponsored placements? I know privacyguides.org says it takes no affiliate money, and goeuropean.org is volunteer-run. Are there others, especially for European alternatives?

2. For anyone who runs or contributes to a site like this: is surviving on donations alone actually realistic?

Would love to hear which sources you trust and why. (First post here, be gentle!)

I came across this article while researching AI governance and found it useful because it clearly explains the difference between the EU AI Act and ISO 42001.

One takeaway that stood out is that the EU AI Act defines legal obligations, while ISO 42001 provides a framework for managing AI responsibly.

I'm curious what others think:

Is ISO 42001 worth implementing if you're already working toward EU AI Act compliance?

Are organizations treating these as complementary, or focusing only on the regulation?

Here's the article: https://vistainfosec.com/blog/eu-ai-act-vs-iso-42001-whats-the-difference-and-do-you-need-both/

I'd be interested to hear perspectives from anyone who's already dealing with AI governance or compliance.

The debate over AI in Europe isn't just about regulation of private companies anymore. A recent Dutch watchdog report raises questions about whether intelligence agencies should be able to train AI systems using bulk datasets that may include information about ordinary citizens, and whether existing oversight and safeguards are adequate.

using revenge rn just wondering if theres anything better

and no im NOT switching from discord since my friends won't switch and its our main source of communication