14 ms·
Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
- coffeebeanHH 2mo agoOh its this time of the year again.... Fucking right and conservative folks. I really hope Uschi von der Ehrm Leyen doesn't have to make her chats public..
- worldsayshi 2mo ago> Is scanning mandatory? - No — voluntary. Voluntary for whom? The service provider? Can I opt out of getting scanned? > Does it touch encrypted messages? - No. End-to-end encrypted communications were never scanned but providers could deploy client-side scanning under this law. So it circumvents e2e encryption? --- How would these laws prevent me from just side loading my own open source client?
- cbg0 2mo ago> How would these laws prevent me from just side loading my own open source client? They do not.
- xiphias2 2mo agoYou need open hardware and open software at that point and you won't be able to use government identification as they depend on closed source parts of the Android ecosystem. Also you need identification for side loading apps at some point. Non of these laws stop you from opting out of surveillance, but altogether it gets so hard that at some point you get more suspicious and tracked if you do all this than if you don't do any of these.
- cbg0 2mo agoAssuming these concerns were real you could just turn the app into a website.
- kailpa1 2mo agoI don't understand how Bulgaria supports the idea while most of its representatives are allegedly against it. How does that work?
- schnapsidee 2mo agoThat's down to how the EU works. These kind of decisions are made in multiple governing bodies. There's the council, which is made up of representatives from member states governments and the parliament, which is made up of directly elected MEPs. The national government of Bulgaria's position isn't necessarily in line with Bulgarian MEPs.
- mbmbn 2mo agoWould these measures have prevented, for instance, the generalized Rape Gangs they had in the UK and that were hidden by the authorities to keep some weird idea of social peace?
- BeatrizPerez 2mo ago[dead]
- phtrivier 2mo agoSo, ChatControl 1.0 (the volontary, limited one that expired and is being revived) has been active for about 2 years now. Concretely, are there documented examples of abuses ? Are the checks & balance sufficient ? I understand ChatControl 2.0 goes way beyond, be it goes "beyond" enough that it does not get a majority in parlement, and can't move forward. But for CC1.0 we don't need to imagine anymore - we have 2 years of application. Is that enough to evaluate ?
- HenryVV 2mo agoProbably not enugh found to reason for its existance thus 2 more years are needed lol. I mean lets be honest here, if they actually would have real success with baseless things like this it would be public, unless it is not for what it is sold to the public obviously
- rixed 2mo agoSo many messages about child safety in the press and even here... Who cares about chat control when they already have mind control.
- kvgr 2mo agoWhat i found the most fascinating, is that they say its to protect children. But when you look at real child abuse cases, there are huge gaps in sentencing, policing and protecting kids in all countries. Where i live child abuser will get lower sentence than someone who sold weed. There is a lot of real police work that can be done, honey trap pedos on roblox, infiltrate public whatsapp groups to check and monitor for soliciting. Actually listening and responding to child abuse. Work with schools. But this just requires real work. They don't want to do real work. And at the end, it will get thrown out by some senile corrupted judge. They just want total control.
- Closi 2mo agoIt's 100% about control - it's the same in the UK. Last year it was about having to scan your face to verify your age to access porn (to protect the children). They said: It's not about control, it's about protecting children. Last month the same government announced they will use the same technology to prevent access to Youtube and Twitter without giving over your ID and confirming who you are... Still under the 'protecting the children' banner.
- luciana1u 2mo ago[flagged]
- TZubiri 2mo agohttps://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2022:209:FIN https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2022...
- iamyemeth 2mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
- testhest 2mo agoThings like this is why I no longer support the EU at all.
- HenryVV 2mo ago[dead]
- zyxzevn 2mo agoBecause of the excessive growing corruption in the EU, their politicians have decided to restrict all opposition. This corruption is hidden behind double-speak, demonization and censorship. Even putting people in prison who talk about the crimes that they endured. Instead of using the criticism to improve the system, the corrupt system starts to attack and forbid the criticism.
- pocksuppet 2mo agoThis just says Facebook is allowed to scan for child porn though?
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 2mo agoIf so-called "tech" companies are allowed to have control over internet users' communications ("chat control"), where control over communications lies _exclusively with the company, not the user_,^1 then it stands to reason that governments, among others, may influence how that control is exercised Unlike governments, generally, the companies may use control over communications for any purpose. For example, a surveillance-based advertising services is one purpose that we know about. The companies can collaborate with any party; it may be another another company, it may be a government. The company can utilise surveillance data collected and/or its ability to throttle and censor communications to further any purpose. The parties with whom the company collaborates may potentially use the data for any purpose Unfortunately for users, the company is not required to disclose with whom it collaborates nor the terms of such collaborations. Hence users have no way to verfiy. Users of these "free services", have few, if any, rights against the company This situation is preventable. What enables it to exist is user "consent" to ceding control over their private communications ("chat control") to so-called "tech" companies 1. This is accomplished through granting the company total control over the client software, e.g., "automatic updates'. The company effectvely (a) blocks chat participants from using their own client software and (b) forces chat participants to use client software controlled by the so-called 'tech" company. This software is provided for free and primarily serves the company, not the user, advancing the company's commercial interests, e.g., surveillance-based advertising services, at the expense of the user's privacy and security interests This fact was summarised in a submission that reached the HN front page yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48792203 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48792203
- coffeebeanHH 2mo agoExcuse me, you have to vote a majority against something that only a bunch if suckers want? If they want a new law they should have a majority to get it. Shitshow in brussels.
- kotberg 2mo ago[dead]
- HenryVV 2mo agoAs long as they can introduce mass surveillance lol as if anyone up there actually cared about any of the arguments they feed to the populus lol. Uh children makes ppl loose all reason lets use that as argument. Then we can take their freedom of speech since we already can restrict information access and soon everyone will dance around our whim. Meanwhile evil actors don't even care bc they prolly have their own networks and whatnot. This will just lead to the torture of innocents. But hey as if they'd cared. Not like they ever have or will admit any fault anyway.
- ChrisArchitect 2mo agoRelated today: Chat Control passed first round in EU Parliament https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48819008 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48819008
- olejorgenb 2mo agoChat control 1.0 "A temporary derogation from the ePrivacy Directive that allowed (but did not require) providers to scan private messages of unsuspected users for potential child sexual abuse material." Does that imply it's currently not allowed? EDIT: apparently not enforced at least: "Chat Control 1.0 expires The legal ground for voluntary, indiscriminate scanning ends. Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Snap state they will continue scanning private messages regardless. "
- rsynnott 2mo ago> Does that imply it's currently not allowed? Not for the last few months, no; Chat Control 1 expired.
- closuregarden 2mo agoYes, the derogation expired on 4 April 2026.
- latexr 2mo agoThey just voted to reinstate it, and it passed by a narrow majority. https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/195338 https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/195338 They did id sneakily. https://www.politico.eu/article/president-vs-parliament-roberta-metsola-overrides-meps-bid-force-child-abuse-law/ https://www.politico.eu/article/president-vs-parliament-robe... As I understand it, there will still be another related vote on Thursday, so call your representatives!
- inigyou 2mo agoThis should not be put in the same category as Chat Control 2.0. Doing so severely dilutes the brand Chat Control.
- rwq-askh 2mo agoEU politicians spend more time on chat control than on the reopening of Hormuz or EU energy security. It is a complete joke.
- embedding-shape 2mo ago> EU politicians spend more time on chat control than on the reopening of Hormuz I thought I'd heard it all here on HN, but expecting EU to clean up after the US shooting itself in the foot with a completely unnecessary war probably comes somewhere in top 5 easily.
- joe_mamba 2mo ago>but expecting EU to clean up after the US shooting itself in the foot Please don't pretend to misunderstand a point just to manufacture the opportunity to reply in bad faith. Nobody in EU is saying the EU should clean up others' mess around the world, people are just saying the EU should be busy building domestic capacity and capabilities to insulate itself from the issues caused by others around the world, such as securing domestic energy supplies so that the next time USrael blows up the middle east, the EU can just eat it no issue indead of being at the mercy of foreign oligarchs for overpriced energy. US is so monetary rich and energy rich that they can afford to blow up the middle east every 10 years with little domestic consequences for them, and still have enough gas to drive their Ford F-450s Super Duty to Walmart, heat their pools and AC their homes, without leading to national unrest, but EU is so energy starved that securing energy independence should have been a national security issue for the past 20 years already, not since 2022. And not just energy, EU is exposed in other areas as well (SW, AI, semiconductors, lithium batteries, agriculture, manufacturing, defense, etc), and again, it will only wake up in panic mode at the 11th hour when US or China twists their arm in some spontaneous international dispute. But politicians instead of focusing on preemptively securing these vulnerabilities BEFORE shit hits the fan, are too busy focusing on controlling people's privacy, which is what EU citizens and commenters here are criticizing.
- embedding-shape 2mo ago
- cynicalsecurity 2mo agoTo everyone who wants to dismantle the EU: this is not the solution. Dismantling the EU is like burning down your own house just to get rid of flies. The UK left the EU and implemented its own version of chat control - Online Safety Act - without any transparency or real opposition. The right solution is the political fight. Europe is our home. We must keep it in good shape by getting rid of anything that makes it worse - like Chat Control.
- modo_mario 2mo agoI was a big EU federalist but now it seems just a tool for liberal authoritarianism pushed by the established parties. >Europe is our home. At the same time parts of my country feel less and less like home if at all and those politicians really hate adressing it.
- Insimwytim 2mo agoDismantling the EU is like burning down your own house I'm not an expert, but isn't "your own house" should rather be your country in this analogy? It ought to be still there without some bureaucratic institution on top of it.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- patcon 2mo agoJust think "neighborhood", no? This seems like splitting hairs... And to what end? to take a shot at EU supra-national structure? ("What, you don't ally to your country?" kinda shade.) -- Canadian
- zoobab 2mo agoAge verification for 'appstores' (debian repos?) is inside ChatControl v2.
- pbkompasz 2mo ago> Supreme Court allows Texas to require age verification for mobile apps
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- terabytest 2mo agoAs a EU citizen I’m at a loss for what to do about this. I feel that they’re going against any average citizen’s interest. What can we do to make them stop?
- LaurensBER 2mo agoShort-term, follow the steps on the website and contact your political representative to explain to them why it's such a bad idea. Long-term, switch to another messenger app that's opensource and truly E2E encrypted. That also shows why this is such a foolish proposal. The truly scary people are not on the "consumer" chat apps anyway and most certainly will be the first ones to switch to another communication channel if this passes. If this will have any effect it'll be that some, "dumb" criminals will be caught.
- raverbashing 2mo agoThe irony is that those questions can only be legally questioned when they're approved (and sometimes have a defined implementation) Then there's the whole kerfuffle about how to actually implement this So the thing that comforts me is that it's a dumpster fire all the way down and I'm sure there will be plenty of legal complaints about it
- 73738384 2mo ago[flagged]
- drnick1 2mo agoVote for parties that oppose this nonsense. In the meantime, install Linux on your desktop/laptop, and a free Android variant on a compatible phone. Use Signal, and urge your family and friends to do the same.
- grg0 2mo agoUse the submission form on the site to email your representatives.
- Zufriedenheit 2mo agoThey claim to protect consumers and privacy and then push this creepy surveillance state.
- petcat 2mo agoAt this point I think it's obvious that EU is in turmoil. They're struggling to come to grips with the idea of a Russian invasion on their eastern borders, and simultaneously USA pivoting to Asia and not willing to front their defense after 40+ years of imploring them to do so themselves. They've outsourced nearly every critical component of a large sustainable society to the rest of the world: Russia, USA, China, India. But at the same time, their politicians can't do anything because the minute they suggest that they might have to start cutting pensions and public welfare, and all of these different things in order to start supporting national industry and defense, they lose support immediately.
- martimarkov 2mo ago[flagged]
- petcat 2mo agoWhy don't you tell me what you know about this topic
- bluebarbet 2mo agoThis comment adds zero value. Make a point if you have one.
- delichon 2mo ago[flagged]
- lou1306 2mo agoSaying that AfD "is an opponent of chat control" is like saying its more-or-less direct predecessor advocated for vegetarianism.
- kvgr 2mo agoAFD is reactonary party, russian trojan horse, that just feeds on the Germanys government total failure to listen to its peoples needs. Russia has of course a stake in using E2E, to communicate with their paid actors. But that does not diminish peoples right for privacy. We have a lot of info about russias mingeling but we still do nothing about it. No private chat needed.
- bcye 2mo ago> Political groups are factions of the Parliament, while parties are alliances of national parties at EU level, funded through the EU budget. Neither the group in the Parliament nor the lawmakers will face any consequence if ESN loses its status as a European party. It’s important to note the lawmakers stay in office even if the European party is banned. Europe is also not the US and from my knowledge it seems that this is the only party suspected of not complying with values. There are many many more parties that they are not trying to ban.
- arjie 2mo agoI don't understand. How does it affect encrypted messages? It seems like either you need: 1. allow MITM decryption by a privileged authority 2. require all devices doing E2EE have a non-user-modifiable piece of functionality to scan on-device The second is the Apple style on-device CSAM scanner? I have to say that I do sometimes think about it while taking a photo of my baby playing in the bathtub - photos like my parents have of me which have been kind of nice to see later. It would be a pity if I had to have a separate analog camera just for baby photos because then I'd need to learn the whole developing film stuff.
- khalik 2mo ago[flagged]
- petcat 2mo ago> It would be a pity if I had to have a separate analog camera just for baby photos because then I'd need to learn the whole developing film stuff. Polaroid coming back in business! I would not complain at all if we started reverting some of our lifestyle behaviors back to analog.
- ExpertAdvisor01 2mo agoPlatforms will stop offering E2EE . Didn't Instagram abandon E2EE ?
- 2mo ago
- mikaeluman 2mo agoMost everyone would love to see more work on stopping child sexual abuse. But this is the ultimate "grant me dictatorial powers so I can do good" play. Rather than narrow and specific - it's a broad based law that suddenly touches everyone even though offenders are a small percentage and should be able to be targeted more efficiently.
- attila-lendvai 2mo agoespecially that the guard applying to protect the henhouse seems to have a suspiciously furry tail...
- sneak 2mo agoTechnology is, furthermore, the wrong place to address child abuse of any kind, sexual or otherwise. This is like trying to prevent burglary by working with the factory that manufactures pry bars.
- f6v 2mo ago> Most everyone would love to see more work on stopping child sexual abuse. By the parents. Install parental controls that only allow to message you and closest relatives. Problem solved.
- eunos 2mo ago> Rather than narrow and specific - it's a broad based law Because narrow law is easier to avoid or find the loophole and a single case is enough to induce panic and anger.
- AlexanderHanff 2mo agoI have put up a list of all the MEPs who voted for the urgency procedure yesterday (in breach of EU rules) as well as their voting history on fundamental rights issues and who has been lobbying them: https://www.thatprivacyguy.com/blog/chat-control-the-415-who-failed-you/ https://www.thatprivacyguy.com/blog/chat-control-the-415-who...
- vaylian 2mo ago
- grg0 2mo agoThis website is gold, thanks for all the work.
- shevy-java 2mo agoLobbyists control the EU. So much is clear to everyone now. I think there is no way to fix this system from the inside - it is designed to be abused like that. We need an alternative system.
- budududuroiu 2mo agoEven if there was no lobbying or corruption, the EU is structurally flawed: the Council, which is made up of 27 mandates that were given for local politics, is used by nations to launder their domestically unpopular laws through an EU indirection layer, the Commission has no electoral link (VDL was appointed, when afaik the Parliament should nominate a Commission President), the Parliament, the legislative body, has no legislative initiative, and despite rejecting laws drafted by the Commission, as we've seen, those laws can be forced through indefinitely until the Commission gets the rubber stamp it needs.
- tancop 2mo agoi think a good general rule is anyone with ultimate power over some area (president, lawmakers, supreme court judges) should be elected. thats anyone whos decisions cant be reversed by someone else above them. those who make final but reversible decisions (pm, ministers, heads of military and intelligence) should be directly appointed by someone who was elected. if you allow indirect appointments to important positions you get a corrupt undemocratic government.
- ggirelli 2mo agoSo, I blinked and forgot to check for updates on this and they voted a few hours ago to reinstate this... https://www.heise.de/en/news/Showdown-in-Strasbourg-The-unexpected-return-of-Chat-Control-1-0-11356680.html https://www.heise.de/en/news/Showdown-in-Strasbourg-The-unex...
- wazzup_im 2mo agoIt's funny they thing criminals are using those platforms for discussion
- bonoboTP 2mo agoFunny you think they think that. They just want control.
- smashah 2mo agoWhy do these Epsteinist Occupied Governments think they'll get away with this unscathed. These demons are addicted to destroying freedom.
- michaelmrose 2mo agoHow many child abusers are liable to be detected using platforms that are known to report you when you can google (or chatGPT) how to avoid detection?
- AuthAuth 2mo agoWhen it comes to online actions people ask for way more than reasonable. You dont get to be an invisible, impossible to track, unaccountable hacker man free to roam the internet on equal footing to the rest of the users.
- left-struck 2mo agoThis is a strawman argument. Almost no one who wants to preserve their right to free and open communication without government knowledge or interference, wants that so that they can hack. It’s not about catching hackers or child predators, it’s about government control.
- AuthAuth 2mo agoWhats wrong with government control? We let the government control most aspects of our lives.
- mattstir 2mo agoWho's arguing for that? And why is it not "reasonable" to ask for basic privacy?
- AuthAuth 2mo agoBasic privacy from the government?
- keraf 2mo agoThe same governments pushing for this type of regulation are also the ones that fail to condemn high profile individuals involved in the crimes that these regulation are supposed to help fight. Makes you really wonder if it's about protecting the children.
- wavemode 2mo agoYou make it sound as though this is a proposal for legislation in the US...
- keraf 2mo agoThere are plenty of friends of that one famous financier roaming the old continent, who probably won't ever see a courtroom or prison cell in their lifetime, despite a lot of incriminating evidence.
- matheusmoreira 2mo agoIt was never about children. They're just using children as political weapons to justify their 1984 panopticon dictatorships.
- nttylock 2mo ago[flagged]
- nlarion 2mo agoCharlatans and demagogues.
- BatFastard 2mo agoAnyone know how Signal is responding to this? They ARE E2EE.
- choo-t 2mo agoTheir stance is of non-compliance and leaving EU market if Chat Control 2 get into law. https://aboutsignal.com/news/the-end-of-private-conversations-signal-threatens-to-leave-the-eu-if-chat-control-becomes-mandatory/ https://aboutsignal.com/news/the-end-of-private-conversation...
- nnurmanov 2mo agoWake me up in 100 years and ask me what EU politicians are doing. My answer: regulating something:)
- emadb 2mo agoWhat european parties or people are pushing for chat controls?
- lou1306 2mo agoPeople (well, the European Parliament, which is arguably the closest approximation) have clearly and repeatedly opposed Chat Control. The Commission is an expression of _governments_ (and this one in particular is the result of painstaking compromise) and is only loyal to presidents and prime ministers. It has no accountability to the EP, and it shows.
- expedited123 2mo ago[dead]
- MrGilbert 2mo agoConservatives and right-wing. Gives them more control. It‘s a pattern that gets obvious once you see it. It’s so they can hide their own secrets better. In Germany, we have a law that grants you access to information, the "Informationsfreiheitsgesetz“. This was used in the past to uncover morally wrong or illegal behavior, mostly done by the conservative party. This party, as they are currently in charge, is now actively working to change the law, so it's in their benefit.
- u8080 2mo agoThis again, according to https://fightchatcontrol.eu/ https://fightchatcontrol.eu/ for Germany, Chat Contol is generally supported by de-facto left-wing(support immigration, social security, LGBT movement, positive discrimination, progressive tax, worker rights) CDU and CSU (29 of 34 "Yes" votes with 97 votes in total)
- tancop 2mo agopirate parties are usually considered left wing and they all vote against. privacy is a big part of their platform. there is more than one left wing faction in the eu - we got greens (more radical and oppose chat control), s&d (mainstream parties like german spd, mostly support), the left (hardcore socialist/communists) and renew europe (centrist liberals). none of them are completely united on this. far right parties are also against chat control most of the time. christian parties (moderate right wing) support it for moral reasons. its really more of a establishment/alternative issue than left/right.
- marcyb5st 2mo agoHow do they scan e2e encrypted messages? Will they force apps/OSes to have master keys/institutional backdoors to have access to the private keys?
- mattstir 2mo agoThey either just ban E2EE messaging or add a client-side scan of the content before "encrypting" it.
- ranguna 2mo agoThey could make all e2ee chats, group chats. Where instead of a 1-1 chat between two people or many-many chat between a lot of people, they do 1-1+1 or many-many+1, where the +1 is the government. Technically the underlaying company or anyone else still won't have access to messages and e2ee won't be "broken", except for the fact that there's one more party in the key exchange. Or they scan at the edge on the user's device. Either way, both are very prone to false positives and and very much privacy invading.
- marcyb5st 2mo agoGood thinking. Didn't think of that approach. Gonna start sending huge walls of text to DOS them then if this thing lands
- worldsayshi 2mo ago> Or they scan at the edge on the user's device. So then the user can "just" install their own client.
- alkonaut 2mo agoI'd be willing to accept this: Scan on end user's devices, but never transmit the result of that. Only report it ON the device itself to the user. A false positive when you send a pic of your naked kid to your spouse might show a warning icon asking you if you are sure you want to send it. Also: for minors (Who is a minor not determined by some central age verification, but by me specifying in the Apple/Android family settings who my kids are) you could make sending certain things it blocking or subject to parent approval. E.g. if my daughter is tricked into sending nudes, it's something that's handled the same as if she wants to install an app or visit a specific web page. No encryption is ever backdoored. Anything beyond this, e.g. reporting any user actions, would be allowed only through a court, just like any wiretapping always was.