8 ms·
One interesting line in the proposal: > Detection will not apply to accounts used by the State for national security purposes, maintaining law and order or mil
by codeptualize 1y ago
One interesting line in the proposal:
> Detection will not apply to accounts used by the State for national security purposes,
maintaining law and order or military purposes;
If it's all very safe and accurate, why is this exception necessary? Doesn't this say either that it's not secure, or that there is a likely hood that there will be false positives that will be reviewed?
If they have it all figured out, this exception should not be necessary. The reality is that it isn't secure as they are creating backdoors in the encryption, and they will flag many communications incorrectly. That means a lot of legal private communications will leak, and/or will be reviewed by the EU that they have absolutely no business looking into.
It's ridiculous that they keep trying this absolutely ridiculous plan over and over again.
I also wonder about the business implications. I don't think we can pass compliance if we communicate over channels that are not encrypted. We might not be able to do business internationally anymore as our communications will be scanned and reviewed by the EU.
- Bairfhionn 1y agoThe exclusion includes politicians because there would suddenly be a paper trail. Especially in the EU there were lots of suddenly lost messages. Security is just the scapegoat excuse.
- p0w3n3d 1y agoOh Harry, don't worry! Everyone can happen to have bloated his aunt by an accident! (quoting from memory), and also I like Ludo. He was the one who got us such good tickets for the Cup. I did him a bit of a favour: His brother, Otto, got into a spot of trouble — a lawnmower with unnatural powers — I smoothed the whole thing over."
- erlend_sh 1y agoThat one line on its own should be enough put the illegitimacy of this proposal on clear display. Privacy for me (the surveillance state) but not for thee (the populace).
- munksbeer 1y ago> It's ridiculous that they keep trying this absolutely ridiculous plan over and over again. There is a certain group of politicians who are pushing for this very hard. In this case, the main thrust seems to be coming from Denmark, but from what I understand there are groups (eg. europol) pushing this from behind the scenes. They need the politicians to get it done.
- codeptualize 1y agoMaybe we should scan their communications for corruption and undue influence. I'm sure it's all above board, so it should be fine if we get an independent group to review them right? (Just following to their reasoning..)
- ThrowawayTestr 1y agoTrolltrace is becoming real
- ulrikrasmussen 1y agoOur current minister of justice in Denmark, Peter Hummelgaard, says "yes" to everything proposed by the police and intelligence agencies. Meanwhile, he has demonstrated no ability whatsoever of understanding the technical challenges of implementing something like this, and he firmly insists on the false claim that it is possible to let the police read encrypted communication without compromising the security model. He also directly spreads misinformation and downplays the significance of this by falsely claiming that Meta and others already scan E2EE chats to show us advertisements. He has said that he wants a crime-free society, and I don't doubt that that is his goal. I just also think he is too stupid to understand that a crime-free society has never existed, and if it is attainable, then it is probably not a very free society. All in all, he seems to be a scared, stupid sock-puppet of Europol.
- johnisgood 1y agoAnd I doubt you achieve it by taking away people's privacy. There are bigger issues that need to be addressed and have nothing to do with E2EE. If they cannot address that, then ...? They just do not seem to care about what they are claiming to care about.
- hopelite 1y ago[flagged]
- throw-the-towel 1y agoAs a Russian whose parents actually remember the USSR, I'm genuinely horrified by the Brezhnev vibes the EU's giving off.
- jacquesm 1y agoAs someone who lived in a country under the russian boot at some point and who remembers the USSR from direct experience, you probably have a lot of stuff to study up on. But be careful on what internet connection you do it.
- FirmwareBurner 1y agoMaybe you could also say why you think he's wrong instead of sending him to brush up on.
- throw-the-towel 1y agoDirect experience of the USSR, in the Netherlands? I must be in the wrong timeline because mine certainly didn't have the Dutch Soviet Socialist Republic! Anyway, it's cute that you chose to respond with a personal attack on me. Looks like you don't have any other argument, and you know it :)
- general1465 1y agoIt is pointless exception. If chat control will pass, everything is vulnerable by design. Or how do you distinguish if WhatsApp is installed on a phone of Joe Nobody or or a phone of a politician? You won't, unless you have some list, which can be leaked and from "do not touch credentials" will turn "target these credentials"
- codeptualize 1y agoHaha that’s a good point, I guess another sign that they really have no clue what they are doing
- eagleal 1y agoThe exception means legally, that category of people, can't be prosecuted even if incriminating stuff were collected through such channels. The next logical step, after a prosecutor or political push, would be for the Highest Order Courts of Member countries to invalidate evidence collected through such channels for those categories of people.
- jeltz 1y agoNope, not in Sweden. Anything can be used as evidence here, even illegally obtained stuff.
- general1465 1y agoYou are looking on it from a wrong perspective. You have access to communications of politicians, military and government apparatus. You can effectively control these figures through extortion (I know about your mistress) or blackmail (I picked up your kids from school today next time I may keep them for a while) Politicians who are pushing these laws are having a feeling that bad things can't happen to them. However they are usually prime targets for bad things happening to them, because they are the ones wielding the power - if you can influence the politician, you can control his power.
- topranks 1y agoIf you read it closely they are not mandating backdoors in encryption. WhatsApp could still have messages end-to-end encrypted. What they would be mandated to do is for the app to send copies of the messages to WhatsApp for their staff to review the contents. This obviously breaks the point of end-to-end encryption. Without actually making it illegal for them to use encryption, or add any “backdoor” so it can be reversed. It’s a weasely way of trying to have their cake and eat it.
- hsbauauvhabzb 1y agoSo… a backdoor?
- DaiPlusPlus 1y agoNot a backdoor, but a built-in snitch.
- WithinReason 1y agoisn't that a backdoor?
- baobun 1y agoTo me, a backdoor is passive. There for someone to enter. What's under discussion here is sonething active, so in some sense worse.
- rightbyte 1y agoBackdoor kinda implies it is not used very much or it would be a front door.
- trilogic 1y agoBut it is available for use. Corruption is not a fantasy but a reality. Usually who reach the top on political scale have seen it all, I mean all. Being polite to describe this reality use cases, (inside trading, political targeting, discrimination, monopoly etc). Who would know, who can stop it, who would dare! What are the protection mechanisms? Are we suppose to hope that the untouchable/s is 100% honest? It feels uncomfortable to say the least.
- philwelch 1y ago“False positives” is the most likely explanation. A common tactic for government agents is to pose as criminals and extremists, either to more effectively infiltrate existing criminal or extremist networks or to run sting/entrapment operations.
- max_ 1y ago> If it's all very safe and accurate, why is this exception necessary? Doesn't this say either that it's not secure, or that there is a likely hood that there will be false positives that will be reviewed? Its all a scam! No one cares about you. They are just setting up the new infrastructure to manipulate & control the docile donkeys more effectively (working class) Unfortunately, they will be successful.
- pyuser583 1y agoI mean national security agencies usually have their own extensive internal monitoring. EU rules typically contain carve outs for national security matters too. This is a bad law, but these carve outs are normal and expected. Carve outs for politicians are a different matter.
- gusfoo 1y ago> If it's all very safe and accurate, why is this exception necessary? Because you'd be massively adding an attack surface on to National Security elements for no benefit to National Security.