6 ms·

The Internet Watch Foundation, the group, funded almost entirely by big tech, who pushed for this vote to be held under emergency procedure, is already at work

The Internet Watch Foundation, the group, funded almost entirely by big tech, who pushed for this vote to be held under emergency procedure, is already at work lobbying for the end of E2EE [1]. In a couple years time, Chat Control 2.0 will come about, and the same tyrants will use the EU admission [2] that there is no evidence that suspicionless scanning of private communications has led to an increase in criminal convictions or in rescued children to argue that we need to go further, and break E2EE. [1]: https://www.iwf.org.uk/resources/end-to-end-encryption-and-keeping-your-child-safe-online/ https://www.iwf.org.uk/resources/end-to-end-encryption-and-k... [2]: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52025DC0740 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...

ratorx 2mo ago
Do you have source for IWF funding being by big tech? Haven’t found anything that breaks their funding down by source and the majority on the UK govt site is from “charitable activities” (https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/en/charity-search/-/charity-details/4013804/charity-overview https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/en/ch...)
- NopIdoN 2mo ago
  https://www.iwf.org.uk/membership/our-members/ https://www.iwf.org.uk/membership/our-members/ The top 25 members (£90k+; big tech are here) contributed between £2.25M and £4.37M. The other 110 members contributed between £2.26M and £4.46M.
  - throwaway_5633 2mo ago
    Honestly they have a lot of members including the BBC for some reason, Apple is one of them. It seems like it might just be good practice to support them, it signals ‘we are against child abuse’. Dropping support could lead to some bad headlines. Seems like an NGO that is really good at sales, probably putting some pressure on it’s members rather than the other way around. I get that if you are an ngo that really wants to solve online child abuse you’d want a law like this. It may be mostly the ngo pushing for it, not necessarily big tech. I could be wrong.
Ruphin 2mo ago
Why would big tech be in favor of having to scan message content? It puts more regulatory requirements in place on their activities. Would they not be in favor of _less_ regulation so they can provide services to their users with fewer legal considerations? If big tech _wanted_ to they could already backdoor their encryption and scan the message content, they don't need regulation to do that. The only thing that changes with regulation is that they now _have_ to, which cannot possibly be in their favor.
- belval 2mo ago
  > Would they not be in favor of _less_ regulation so they can provide services to their users with fewer legal considerations? Regulatory capture. If the handling of user messages requires constant scanning and there are enough rules that you need a team of lawyers, then only Google, Meta and Apple will be able to afford it.
  - omnimus 2mo ago
    Also without chat control they would have to follow much stricter eprivacy directive laws that makes many of their monetisation strategies ilegal. It's briliant really... instead of trying to dismantle privacy regulations you push for new regulation that overrides them and make data mining users even mandatory.
  - elictronic 2mo ago
    That is regulatory capture but it really feels like it should be called something else. If the laws are designed to directly benefit it makes sense like with the FAA allowing Boeing to self regulate to the point of killing a few hundred people. This feels more like bureaucratic capture or some other name, where the entity must be so large to interact. It has the same effect and you are not wrong, I just wish it was clearer.
  - inglor_cz 2mo ago
    I cannot imagine Musk simply submitting to this sort of EU demand, and he has enough hue-and-cry capability on X to maneuver other tech firms into very uncomfortable positions in the same regard.
fnord123 2mo ago
This is really strange since the European Commission strongly recommends that staff use Signal[1]. [1]: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26073615-c-2025-5430-2-en-annexe-acte-autonome-nlw-part1-v1/ https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26073615-c-2025-5430...
- Idesmi 2mo ago
  Staff is exempted from mass surveillance.
zrn900 2mo ago
At this point we have no choice but to conclude that the Eu has been subverted by megacorps as badly as the US political system has been.
- int_19h 2mo ago
  Any hierarchical system of governance ends up with sociopaths on top. It's just the nature of hierarchy and bureaucracy that is necessary for it.

ratorx 2mo ago

Do you have source for IWF funding being by big tech? Haven’t found anything that breaks their funding down by source and the majority on the UK govt site is from “charitable activities” (https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/en/charity-search/-/charity-details/4013804/charity-overview https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/en/ch...)

NopIdoN 2mo ago
https://www.iwf.org.uk/membership/our-members/ https://www.iwf.org.uk/membership/our-members/ The top 25 members (£90k+; big tech are here) contributed between £2.25M and £4.37M. The other 110 members contributed between £2.26M and £4.46M.
- throwaway_5633 2mo ago
  Honestly they have a lot of members including the BBC for some reason, Apple is one of them. It seems like it might just be good practice to support them, it signals ‘we are against child abuse’. Dropping support could lead to some bad headlines. Seems like an NGO that is really good at sales, probably putting some pressure on it’s members rather than the other way around. I get that if you are an ngo that really wants to solve online child abuse you’d want a law like this. It may be mostly the ngo pushing for it, not necessarily big tech. I could be wrong.

Ruphin 2mo ago

Why would big tech be in favor of having to scan message content? It puts more regulatory requirements in place on their activities. Would they not be in favor of _less_ regulation so they can provide services to their users with fewer legal considerations? If big tech _wanted_ to they could already backdoor their encryption and scan the message content, they don't need regulation to do that. The only thing that changes with regulation is that they now _have_ to, which cannot possibly be in their favor.

belval 2mo ago
> Would they not be in favor of _less_ regulation so they can provide services to their users with fewer legal considerations? Regulatory capture. If the handling of user messages requires constant scanning and there are enough rules that you need a team of lawyers, then only Google, Meta and Apple will be able to afford it.
- omnimus 2mo ago
  Also without chat control they would have to follow much stricter eprivacy directive laws that makes many of their monetisation strategies ilegal. It's briliant really... instead of trying to dismantle privacy regulations you push for new regulation that overrides them and make data mining users even mandatory.
- elictronic 2mo ago
  That is regulatory capture but it really feels like it should be called something else. If the laws are designed to directly benefit it makes sense like with the FAA allowing Boeing to self regulate to the point of killing a few hundred people. This feels more like bureaucratic capture or some other name, where the entity must be so large to interact. It has the same effect and you are not wrong, I just wish it was clearer.
- inglor_cz 2mo ago
  I cannot imagine Musk simply submitting to this sort of EU demand, and he has enough hue-and-cry capability on X to maneuver other tech firms into very uncomfortable positions in the same regard.

fnord123 2mo ago

This is really strange since the European Commission strongly recommends that staff use Signal[1]. [1]: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26073615-c-2025-5430-2-en-annexe-acte-autonome-nlw-part1-v1/ https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26073615-c-2025-5430...

Idesmi 2mo ago
Staff is exempted from mass surveillance.

zrn900 2mo ago

At this point we have no choice but to conclude that the Eu has been subverted by megacorps as badly as the US political system has been.

int_19h 2mo ago
Any hierarchical system of governance ends up with sociopaths on top. It's just the nature of hierarchy and bureaucracy that is necessary for it.