15 ms·
EU now one step away from reviving private message scanning rules
- ChrisArchitect 2mo ago[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48819008 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48819008
- vaylian 2mo agoDifferent news source. But same topic.
- ChrisArchitect 2mo agoWelcome to share the url over there. Duplicate discussion.
- Cider9986 2mo agoI feel like this one should not be removed because people want to continue discussing and that's easier on a newer thread.
- ChrisArchitect 2mo agoEasier? You mean easier to duplicate? No need to split up the discussion. There's the link, welcome to continue discussing over there, instead of pushing the news back in front of the rest of those who may not have missed it.
- sndgndgndgndy 2mo agoStop trying to shut down discussions that you don't like.
- 37374848 2mo ago[flagged]
- PowerElectronix 2mo agoTough week for euros. Cars that record your face while driving and now apps snooping on communications.
- vrganj 2mo agoBoy, do I have news for you: https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/model3/en_us/GUID-EDAD116F-3C73-40FA-A861-68112FF7961F.html https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/model3/en_us/GUID-EDAD116...
- artisinal 2mo agoPerhaps in the future cars will not only record your face but also listen in for hate speech. Most cars have SOS and GPS modules so calling the police if someone in the car shouts a slur is just connecting some code together.
- shevy-java 2mo agoWell, it is some kind of social control. People who conform, have more rights than those who reject fascism.
- Z0rp 2mo agoCar could also become judge and executioner. Swift justice is just one curve away
- ThrowawayTestr 2mo agoDrive you straight to prison
- artisinal 2mo agoIt is cheaper for the government to just lock the car doors for the length of your sentence. Saves them space in prison. You are allowed to use the McDrive twice a day. The windows will drop 8 centimeters, enough for a Big Mac.
- shevy-java 2mo agoSlaves also have no right to privacy. This EU variant is doomed to failure.
- inigyou 2mo agoThe Chat Control 1.0 rule is simply that organisations like Meta are allowed to scan messages if they want to. In other words your Facebook messages are not private from Facebook. Surely we already knew and expected that. Chat Control 2.0 is the worrying one because it mandates scanning and bans E2EE. These two things should not have both been given the same branding.
- Cider9986 2mo agoThe name "Chat Control" is great because it implies a lockdown on free speech and the exact consequences that are going to happen to everyone.
- AshamedCaptain 2mo agoI think the name is meaningless to the average layman, therefore useless. Something like "(private) chat police" would probably transmit what this is about but is not as catchy.
- SpicyLemonZest 2mo agoI think that framing would be much more vulnerable to companies saying "no no, there's no human reading your chats, we just want to apply these fixed filters".
- inigyou 2mo agoThat's suitable for Chat Control 2.0. Applying the same name to v1 just muddies the waters, probably intentionally..
- Cider9986 2mo agoAgreed.
- chronogamous 2mo agoNot everyone. Politicians and all their communication are to be excluded, for they have decided it is obvious that we can trust them. It's just the rest of the world that is considered untrustworthy. This also absolves them from having to go through a trial period of having the software tested on themselves, so they will never have to know about any ridiculous false positives. Or worse: all the stuff they communicate which they never considered to be problematic - it would have been so nice if they had at least had such a trial run, for say, about one or two years, with anything that is being flagged open for anyone who wishes to see. The problem with this software is at the very core of why any sane person should reject it; a company like Thorn has no incentive whatsoever to actually come up with something that would work properly, especially since the target demographic that is to be monitored, is European. No worries if some firmware update bricks a massive amount of devices. Good for business. And I bet the US Government would also prefer if they prioritized having the backdoors work properly for listening in, over having the software scan properly (taking all the cultural and linguistic differences across the continent into account) just so that it will be capable of actually flagging what it is (for now) meant to flag. Having your entire infrastructure of digital devices augmented with surveillance software is a bad idea in itself, but it's sheer madness if you're having this done for the whole of Europe, by using an American software endlosung/solution that was pushed by a Hollywood-actor who was so genuine in his motivation to save the children... truly impressive show of tears for someone who had the chance to save a number of girls from his predatory co-star a long time ago, like, to save them for real, yet he chose not to intervene... Years later, he's with Thorn, but still what he knows best is acting, so instead of focussing on actual victims, he's acting as if he gives a toss about present day children, knowing full well he is selling a dodgy technology using horror-scenarios they actually invented themselves for this very purpose. In subsequent years this has led to an actual increase in number and variety of perpetrators in the field of sexual abuse and/or trafficking of minors - where it was quite a niche field in crime before - niche and overall way more predictable, making it possible to prevent quite a bit of it, too. Thanks to the fearmongering and constant need for succesfull detection of victims (as it is the metric they've used for years to keep the people providing them with money and power excited about the project) it has become much more problematic. The efforts of groups like Thorn have so effectively spread these horrorstories by pushing them as 'news' using so many newsoutlets, that this in itself caused a whole new demographic of messed up people to act them out, making the horrors a reality. All this should be enough for anyone to know that, if you're totally hellbent on having a thing like chat control implemented, doing so by choosing to stick with software sold by these people or anyone from their circles will be disastrous.
- pton_xd 2mo agoI don't understand the EU's position on privacy. On the one hand, they enacted GDPR to give you control over access to your personal data. On the other, they need access to all of your data.
- ggirelli 2mo agoNot "access to ALL of your data". Also, as confusing as it might be, it is in the nature of EU (at least IMHO) to not have a clear position over multiple legislatures.
- varispeed 2mo agoThis is a wedge.
- munk-a 2mo agoThe EU's position on privacy seems pretty consistent to me - they're against your data being monetized by private entities but not against building governmental tools to monitor private entities. In good faith this could be summarized as "Personal data should be used for public safety but not for profit" - but that philosophy is definitely a strong contrast with the basic American philosophy towards civil liberties.
- mhitza 2mo agoMaybe big tech weren't good a lobbying bureaucrats against GDPR but got better at lobbying in the EU for this. There's also been a slight shift towards authoritarianism in the last decade, which naturally love the possibilities of stricter communication control. Children protection and russian propaganda are the tried and tested covers at enforcing age verification, message scanning, and probably any future pan-european surveillance network.
- kubb 2mo agoWhen is it coming online? I have seen so many of these headlines that I feel it's always about to kick in, but I never get any closure.
- watwut 2mo agoThis was online already. It is existing law that is being extended rather then expired.
- SiempreViernes 2mo agoSomewhat unsurprisingly too, since the negotiations about a more comprehensive CSAM legislation (the one that now doesn't contain chat control 2.0) isn't done yet.
- spwa4 2mo agoCSAM? You mean the system the Belgian state uses to identify children online? (not even joking https://www.csam.be/en/index.html https://www.csam.be/en/index.html ) Fantastic quotes for services the Belgian government offers: "Make your life easier with CSAM" "CSAM ensures that everyone follows the same rules" "If you are interested in a service CSAM has to offer, please go straight to our Contact page"
- kubb 2mo agoHmm, so… what happened while it was online? Any scandals?
- spwa4 2mo ago2 August 2021. It already was in force, and EU states are presumably using it right now despite that being illegal. Only to protect the children, of course.
- ggirelli 2mo agoHad expired in April. This is a tentative of bringing it back up even though it expired after a number of previous extensions.
- mctwo 2mo agoEach passing day we are moving closer to a dystopian state and nobody is doing anything.
- layer8 2mo agoPeople are doing something (e.g. [0][1][2]). That’s why Chat Control 2.0 hasn’t passed and is unlikely to pass in the foreseeable future. [0] https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/ https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/ [1] https://edri.org/our-work/european-commission-must-uphold-privacy-security-and-free-expression-by-withdrawing-new-law/ https://edri.org/our-work/european-commission-must-uphold-pr... [2] https://freiheitsrechte.org/en/themen/freiheit-im-digitalen-zeitalter/chatkontrolle https://freiheitsrechte.org/en/themen/freiheit-im-digitalen-...
- mattrighetti 2mo agoGive it time. I’ll see you in 5 years
- Nidhug 2mo agoFor my fellow EU citizens, you can contact your representatives here: https://fightchatcontrol.eu/ https://fightchatcontrol.eu/
- sir_brickalot 2mo agoI did.
- rckt 2mo agoI did. Only 1 replied.
- budududuroiu 2mo agoThe Internet Watch Foundation, an organisation funded by almost all of big tech, is already at work pushing for client side scanning next [1], for the children, of course. [1] https://www.iwf.org.uk/policy-work/preventing-the-upload-of-child-sexual-abuse-material-in-end-to-end-encrypted-e2ee-environments/ https://www.iwf.org.uk/policy-work/preventing-the-upload-of-...
- junofan 2mo agoInteresting. It would be easy to detect hate speech client-side too I’d imagine. My phone already listens for certain words.
- anonym29 2mo agoWhy stop there? This system can easily be used to target welfare recipients, immigrants, LGBT+ people, black/brown/indigenous people, pretty much any disfavored group of choice! You're just one election away from "that was during the previous term of office" https://media.mullvad.net/web/chatcontrol2_en.jpg https://media.mullvad.net/web/chatcontrol2_en.jpg
- nekusar 2mo ago[flagged]
- ianm218 2mo agoYour comment doesn’t make it clear why supporting this party would interfere with making a point on mass surveillance. If there is a link could you describe it?
- akimbostrawman 2mo agoPro remigration is a perfectly fine position to hold especially considering most of the remigration would be with people that shouldn't have been allowed to become migrants in the first place like refugees "fleeing" across multiple safe but less well off neighbouring countries who by definition and law should go back at some point but instead got a free ticket to citizenship and all its financial benefits as a results of twisting the definition of this exact word.
- bellowsgulch 2mo agolol, say someone publishes an E2E distributed extension to an existing chat protocol. Are you going to arrest someone for writing code? Are you going to arrest people who use private communications? Sounds like a legislator carve out hot and ready to happen. I get the point, ban E2E, OK sure, but what if some software is designed in such a way that the company doesn't provide it, but it just happens to be compatible with the protocol extension? Are you going to arrest the authors if they don't explicitly ban it? Yeah, right.
- McDyver 2mo agoIt's all coming together: Even if an open protocol was developed and published, and everyone would just use AI to create their own app in order to be private, Google is shutting down that path by preventing "unsanctioned" apps from being installed (not to mention Apple, which already does it). People wouldn't be arrested for writing code, but as it happened in Spain, people with Pixels and GrapheneOS are already treated as drug dealers
- bellowsgulch 2mo agoThe government's worse nightmare: People who own Pixels talking to their family members.
- ggirelli 2mo agoDo you have any references to the Spain thing?
- red_admiral 2mo agoThis is about 1.0, which sounds ok - it basically allows providers a legitimate exception from data privacy laws to scan for CSAM in not E2EE communications. I reckon gmail, iCloud mail and the like already scan attachments for malware and emails for phishing scams, now they can also scan for child abuse. cc 2.0 is a different beast.
- budududuroiu 2mo ago"We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back." -- Jean-Claude Juncker
- MaKey 2mo agoIt's still objectionable with a false positive rate of 50-80%.
- 63stack 2mo agoCan anyone explain something? Since there are so many open source chat applications, what keeps anyone from "just" exchanging a key with someone else out of band, and then modifying the client so that it uses that key to encrypt all communication? I understand that this does not scale to big groups, but surely whoever is pushing this crap must have thought about this? Or is the idea that we will have completely locked down PCs as well ala android and ios so you can't run anything unapproved?
- peterlk 2mo agoNothing is stopping people from doing that. It’s just more inconvenient than other available options. If I were a politician trying to remove private communication, I would first pass something that allows scanning communications, then pass something that allows e2ee messages to be scanned, then make it illegal to use non-scannable e2ee messaging. People could still do it, but now they could be punished if they’re ever caught
- red_admiral 2mo agoWhat is the US legislation on this - I thought providers were already mandated to take action against distribution of CSAM, or is that only for public-facing posts?
- tangenter 2mo agoWaiting to see what the Europeans do. They talked the talk. Let’s see what is the next move.
- hagbard_c 2mo agoSome of 'm have been doing things for decades now, moving to self-hosted services free from the government censors. The harder they squeeze, the more people will move to that server-under-the-stairs or hitch a ride on one hosted by a family member or friend.
- wewewedxfgdf 2mo agoEven if defeated, this is Terminator legislation - it will never stop coming back until it wins.
- Jensson 2mo agoAnd then the anti terminator legislation where people will propose to end this over and over until its ended. EU isn't like USA, you have endless proposals in both directions.
- hagbard_c 2mo agoThey won't scan my messages since I run my own XMPP server and clients using only free software - prosody for the server, Conversations/dino/gajim/converse.js for the clients. OMEMO (the encryption scheme used by 'modern' XMPP systems) uses the same double-ratchet encryption as Signal without the dependency on a central Signal server. Prosody can run on just about anything and is mostly maintenance-free, give it a try I'd say. You'll want to get a domain for it but that's easy and cheap.
- luizamarns 2mo agonice
- Roobotect 2mo ago[flagged]
- klipklop 2mo agoOf course they are. They will boil the frogs slowly until they get the frog soup they so desire. Each time the water gets a little bit too hot (public outrage) they will turn it back down for a bit. Every major global region has this problem. I would tell you the slope is slippery, but I already fell down and cracked my head open. Joking aside, this privacy invasion will keep happening until there are laws passed (a foundational constitution perhaps?) that make it impossible to attempt to even create such laws/rules.
- billynomates 2mo agoThe EU already has exactly that! The Charter of Fundamental Rights is binding constitutional law, and the Council's own lawyers said the CC2.0 would probably be annulled by the CJEU if passed. The problem isn't the absence of this constitutional right, it's that constitutional review is retrospective. Someone has to pass the law, it runs for years, harm accumulates, a case reaches the court, and then it gets struck down.
- hahooh 2mo ago...they were doing it secretely but now they are tired of hiding it.