[HN Gopher] European Commission prefers breaking privacy to prot...
___________________________________________________________________
European Commission prefers breaking privacy to protecting kids
Author : gnufx
Score : 260 points
Date : 2022-05-11 15:19 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.lightbluetouchpaper.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.lightbluetouchpaper.org)
| grnmamba wrote:
| This is the true face of the EU. Anyone who opposes it will be
| branded as a child molester. Even if the parliament rejects this
| proposal, the next power hungry authoritarian can simply try
| again, until eventually one parliament will pass it.
|
| You can be either in support of total surveillance, or in support
| of abolishing the EU. There is no middle ground.
| aasasd wrote:
| If you replace 'EU' with 'US' in that comment, its internal
| logic and validity does not change whatsoever.
|
| So: "You can be either in support of total surveillance, or in
| support of abolishing the US. There is no middle ground."
|
| I would also guess that you could substitute the EU with any
| single EU country with the same result. Abolish Germany,
| abolish France, abolish Italy, abolish all parliaments, there's
| no middle ground.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| > This is the true face of the EU.
|
| Why is it so popular to bash EU here over non sequitur?
|
| is it jealousy or simply anti EU people not being able to mouth
| their opinions among their EU peers in Europe because they
| would be laughed at?
| fhajl wrote:
| The EU exists to facilitate commerce and allowing Eastern
| European workers in order to drive down wages.
|
| It exists to give jobs in Brussels to the right people (who
| often failed in domestic politics).
|
| It exists to rein in Germany and the Deutschmark.
|
| It does not exist for you.
| macinjosh wrote:
| It couldn't possibly be because the EU is incredibly
| problematic. /s
| grnmamba wrote:
| Is that a rhetorical question?
|
| I'm bashing the EU because they are trying to create a
| surveillance state.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| > I'm bashing the EU because they are trying to create a
| surveillance state.
|
| If that was true, we would all be worried.
|
| Have you ever thought that your paranoia is not proof of
| anything?
|
| Meanwhile:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Un
| i...
|
| https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-security-agency-
| spie...
|
| I am still worried about facts, especially those carried
| out by agencies working secretively under practically no
| control by the people, that sometimes also spy on those
| same people they are sworn to protect.
|
| Anyway, EU is not a State, so EU can't technically build a
| surveillance State.
|
| EU is not the NSA.
| DontMindit wrote:
| EU and NSA, same actors, different starting conditions
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| > EU and NSA, same actors, different starting conditions
|
| that's frankly one of the most ridiculous things I've
| ever read in my entire life.
|
| Care to explain what's your rationale behind it?
|
| Where's, for example, the European Snowden?
|
| Where's proof of EU spying not only allied leaders, which
| is already bad enough, but the citizens of the country
| they work for?
| Abroszka wrote:
| EU has nothing to do with it. Just look at UK, outside the EU
| still doing the same thing. It's a global trend. It's more or
| less irrelevant what kind of country you live in, people are
| pushing to end E2E encryption.
| AlbertoGP wrote:
| > _Even if the parliament rejects this proposal, the next power
| hungry authoritarian can simply try again, until eventually one
| parliament will pass it._
|
| Indeed, in the words of the previous President of the European
| Commission:
|
| " _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._"
| https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jean-Claude_Juncker#1999
|
| The current President of the European Commission has been a
| long time advocate for Internet control:
|
| " _However, in the digital community, her posturing for the
| EU's top job has caused concern. In 2000, when Von Der Leyen
| was Families minister, she advocated for the mandatory blocking
| of child pornography online via a list of offending websites
| managed by police authorities. Germany's Pirate Party claimed
| that the law would lead to censorship of the internet._ "
|
| " _The outcry that resulted was dubbed the 'Zensursula'
| scandal, blending the German word for censorship ("Zensur") and
| her name ("Ursula"). The move was eventually repealed after it
| being challenged broadly, including a petition that had
| garnered tens of thousands of signatures._ "
| https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/digital-brief-...
| hkwerf wrote:
| I can finally wear my Zensursula t-shirt again!
|
| https://www.getdigital.de/zensursula.html
| sharken wrote:
| We can't have nice things it seems.
|
| Overall EU is a good idea, but total surveillance is a scary,
| scary concept that must be avoided at all cost, even at the
| cost of EU as concept.
| jotm wrote:
| Oh please, that's like saying "you either become rich or kill
| yourself". Ridiculous.
|
| This kind of shit pops up everywhere, not only the EU. I have
| no idea what tf is driving it, probably the same thing that
| turned many countries into dictatorships.
|
| Human nature, really, but how these assholes always get into
| power is a mystery to me.
| DontMindit wrote:
| N.VV.0 or whatever name you want to give them. Its world
| wide, its coming and theres no escape
| harabat wrote:
| Related from yesterday:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31329368 (300 comments)
| davidkunz wrote:
| Always the same argument to open doors for mass surveillance.
|
| https://youtu.be/RybNI0KB1bg
| ephbit wrote:
| Totally off topic ... I am to a certain degree curious what
| video hides behind this link. Maybe I'd even want to watch it.
|
| But at the same time I am too turned off by the fact that I'd
| actually need to visit the link just to learn the title of this
| video to actually do the click.
|
| Ever felt the same?
| this_is_eline wrote:
| Nothing new. People in general prefer giving up their privacy for
| 'safety'.
| jotm wrote:
| They'll give it up for convenience or a dollar, too.
| coldtea wrote:
| If that was the tradeoff, it would be worth it.
|
| This is giving up their privacy for nothing in return, or
| worse, negative restrictions on their political freedom and
| freedom of expression.
| pc86 wrote:
| Speak for yourself. Privacy and freedom are more important
| than security to many, many people.
| coldtea wrote:
| Sounds good, doesn't work.
|
| Security and freedom are "platonic" ideals. None of those
| exists in the abstract, as a real world thing, and you
| can't find one without the other in the wild (in a Disney-
| like world, maybe, but not in the real world, in the
| presense of others, that is people that want to deprive you
| of either/both, and can benefit from doing so).
|
| Trivially speaking, if some thugs can just come and beat
| you with no police or legal resources available to you, you
| don't have either pricacy or security. Both are at their
| mercy.
|
| You could of course defend yourself, but then you're still
| getting your freedom through security: it's just that in
| this case you're obligated to cater get that security on
| your own.
|
| So, we trade some freedom (giving state the ability to
| enforce laws, have police) in excange for security. And
| vice versa.
|
| But in any case, my point above was different: that what
| TFA descrives is not a tradeoff between privacy and
| security, it is giving up privacy for no real benefit. If
| anything, losing encryption costs in both privacy AND
| security.
| jaywalk wrote:
| When people say "privacy and freedom are more important
| than security" it's in regards to privacy and freedom
| being curtailed _by the government_ in order for _the
| government_ to provide security. Don 't be absurd.
| Kim_Bruning wrote:
| Privacy is a form of security though (security for your own
| thoughts and actions in the own home, and in, on, and near
| your person). At the very least it is a domain that
| strongly overlaps with security.
|
| And good security is what gives you the safety to be free.
|
| If you want to sacrifice freedom for security, you might
| end up putting the cart before the horse.
|
| And of course sacrificing privacy for security is at best
| balancing 2 different kinds of security. You're not
| necessarily gaining security.
|
| In this case it means that there's no guarantee that
| children will actually netto be safer if people can scan
| private communications.
| hexo wrote:
| In our country, privacy is protected by constitution.
| a-dub wrote:
| rather than playing all these games later trying to catch and
| track it, i can't help but wonder if it could be better halted by
| training kids early on when and how to get help to stop it before
| it's produced.
|
| otherwise it seems it will just be this technological cat and
| mouse game that destroys privacy rights and empowers bad actors
| to plant it maliciously (swatting 2.0).
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| At least for The Netherlands, this is what _used_ to happen
| (and I still hope it is). School educated on various topics
| regarding power dynamics in relationships and the problems that
| can spawn forth from it.
|
| Of course, some teens are going to get tempted and do stupid
| things either way. Imagine the least innocent thing you know
| about your peers back in those days, many will have likely been
| tempted to go off the deeper end in some way. It's difficult to
| give children safety _and_ privacy when they actively seek to
| dare themselves and one another, not heed warnings, etc.
| a-dub wrote:
| wait, what? they taught children pedagogically about how not
| to be manipulated or controlled in a general sense?
|
| what an incredibly enlightened idea! was it any good? did it
| work?
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| I suspect it worked in the sense that some teens took
| precautions. I don't believe my classmates had anything bad
| happen to them, but a fair few of them definitely put
| themselves into situations that _could_ have been bad if
| the other party was a little more malicious (power
| imbalance, blackmail, nudes spread, etc.) I also suspect
| that what I heard was only the tip of the iceberg of their
| actual experimentations.
|
| Like I said, some teens are still going to do stupid stuff
| despite being warned. It's difficult to give them both
| autonomy, security and privacy when they won't heed
| warnings. I like to believe not invading their privacy and
| simply teaching them is enough, but some others might feel
| the EU's need to be a universal helicopter parent to be
| justified when the consequences are too high.
| HL33tibCe7 wrote:
| The EU is honestly just so awful when it comes to anything
| relating to technology. The number of insane proposals I've seen
| from them over the years... It's like they've got the worst
| political takes on tech from each EU country and smushed them
| together into a big ball of awfulness.
| thenaturalist wrote:
| Care to share some details?
|
| When it comes to privacy invasion the EU has been a champion in
| curbing massively intrusive corporate practices for years now.
|
| Some of it is awful yes, but other high visibility projects
| have been amazing. I'm glad to be European when I look at the
| insanity that is the American tracking and personal data
| brokers industry.
|
| I recommend a recent John Oliver on this:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqn3gR1WTcA
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| > The EU is honestly just so awful when it comes to anything
| relating to technology
|
| and yet all the scandals about breaking the privacy of users
| for profit or worse didn't come from EU.
|
| Maybe they are not that wrong...
| b-x wrote:
| Their true motives are far from protecting kids. Otherwise, they
| would install security cameras inside all corners in all churches
| in the continent, and, more importantly, enforce bodycam on
| pastors 24/7.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| > cameras inside all corners in all churches in the continent,
|
| Because that's how you protect people privacy, right???
|
| Why not put military personnel in every corner of every street
| and check if people have the "approved by the government"
| tattoo on their wrists?
| b-x wrote:
| > Because that's how you protect people privacy, right???
|
| I'm not promoting such practices. In fact, I was just trying
| to use the legislators logic: if they are truthful about
| their "protecting children" slogan, let them start their
| policing where the predators are most likely to be found
| instead of targeting the entire population.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| > if they are truthful about their "protecting children"
| slogan,
|
| they would try to solve it as they see fit.
|
| legislators are voted by the people, with many different
| ideas. they aren't a caste disconnected by the rest of the
| World.
|
| especially in EU institutions where is much harder to make
| a career over lobbying for some local interest.
|
| Worst politicians in Europe work in national parliaments.
|
| > let them start their policing where the predators are
|
| You mean in their houses, where the vast majority of the
| abuses take place?
|
| Please, don't post simplistic vox populi stuff.
| b-x wrote:
| > they would try to solve it as they see fit.
|
| It seems for them the solution is to destroy privacy for
| the entire population.
|
| > Please, don't post simplistic vox populi stuff.
|
| Please ask this to the European Commision instead.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| > It seems for them the solution is to destroy privacy
| for the entire population.
|
| a bit of overreaction never fails to double back on poor
| arguments.
|
| > Please ask this to the European Commision instead.
|
| as a matter of fact I do.
|
| I participate actively.
|
| Do you?
| seydor wrote:
| The four horsemen strike again. I think i 'll let this one pass.
| People should be inconvenienced enough to learn to use
| uncensorable platforms.
| Ambolia wrote:
| Yes, at this point of the internet, the fact that most people
| have decided to depend on big platforms and not develop
| properly all the distributed alternatives available for many
| years, it's hard to blame anybody except ourselves.
| NoraCodes wrote:
| I don't agree. "Ourselves"? Did I have a choice in my entire
| social network choosing to use Facebook and Twitter? Did I
| have a choice in LinkedIn being my best option for getting
| employment? No.
|
| I talk about this stuff all the time. I blog [1] about it and
| complain about it to my family and friends until it gets
| annoying. And it _does not matter_ how much individual effort
| I put into this because people have no incentive to change.
|
| 1: https://nora.codes/post/deletefacebook-and-fosta/
| Ambolia wrote:
| Yes, I think it's hard for normal people to use those
| networks because at this point they are unable to replicate
| the network effects of centralized media, as in there is no
| simple way of going from 1to1 communication and build from
| there to many-to-many.
|
| But I think we people who are into tech should have
| coordinated more among ourselves that at least we used and
| helped to grow until they are mature enough for regular
| people.
| fithisux wrote:
| I'm interested though. Any starter guide?
| Ambolia wrote:
| Well, there's nothing properly developed, that's why we are
| still here. The basic building blocks are all there,
| cryptography for privacy and identity. p2p networks for
| data transfer have worked in the piracy world for many
| years too.
|
| What is missing is putting it all together and be able to
| replicate the network effects you get from centralized
| media, like if you are able to reach one person, be able to
| reach in a simple way all of his friends as well (supposing
| they want to be reached).
| Syonyk wrote:
| Matrix, in "few users per server, federated" sort of
| deployments, seems it would accomplish a lot of this.
| hedora wrote:
| Isn't the idea to ban client hardware capable of running
| such software?
| sysadm1n wrote:
| > The four horsemen strike again.
|
| You mean this:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...
| xcambar wrote:
| Thanks, I needed it.
| 0x_rs wrote:
| > _Finally, the proposed Regulation contains safeguards to ensure
| that technologies used for the purposes of detection, reporting
| and removal of online child sexual abuse to comply with a
| detection order are the least privacy-intrusive and are in
| accordance with the state of the art in the industry; they
| perform any necessary review on an anonymous basis and only take
| steps to identify any user in case potential online child sexual
| abuse is detected. It guarantees the fundamental right to an
| effective remedy in all phases of the relevant activities, from
| detection to removal, and it limits the preservation of removed
| material and related data to what is strictly necessary for
| certain specified purposes. Thereby, the proposed Regulation
| limits the interference with the right to personal data
| protection of users and their right to confidentiality of
| communications, to what is strictly necessary for the purpose of
| ensuring the achievement of its objectives, that is, laying down
| harmonised rules for effectively preventing and combating online
| child sexual abuse in the internal market._ (from the proposal)
|
| It doesn't seem to me the document goes very much into detail on
| the effects this will cause for privacy rights, both with its
| application and indirectly, and how it should be implemented,
| despite briefly bringing up encryption concerns from the
| opposition. I can't see this anonymized data collection work as
| claimed due to the sensitive nature of the subject at hand
| (private conversations), and I wonder about the enforcement
| rights it'd allow (imposition of "remedies", fines, periodic
| penalty payments, and "power to adopt interim measures to avoid
| the risk of serious harm") and the importance of rapid content
| deletion for small-to-medium online platforms and personal sites
| as it has been hinted in the past. I really do not trust
| companies to have a privacy minded approach nor I consider my
| government capable of doing so as it does not benefit it in
| practice. (the document does mention strong support from "law
| enforcement authorities")
| Kim_Bruning wrote:
| I get the impression that a lot of police forces are "offense"
| minded, and they are pushing for these kinds of measures. So they
| want way to break into systems and intercept communications.
|
| On the other hand civilians are more "defense" minded, because
| they're not allowed to attack in the first place. So their
| preferred M.O. is to protect systems and encrypt communications.
|
| A lot of governments apparently don't have as large/as
| influentual defense minded departments or units, else we wouldn't
| keep seeing this topic coming back.
| nomendos wrote:
| "protecting kids" is a "way of the devil" done by weak
| bureaucrats towards creating tools for totalitarian control, as
| government can and should not be trusted with anything proactive
| or en mass!
| boredumb wrote:
| Now that covid is waning, we're back to 'the kids' in order to
| allow governments absurd amounts of power over individuals. None
| of these excuses are put forth in order to further the argument,
| it's to create a trap for detractors and be able to label them as
| evil people, killing grandma, hating kids, supporting terror, etc
| etc.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Just for the record, one can believe in Covid restrictions of
| 2020 and also believe this CSAM action is absurd and anti-
| privacy.
|
| Equating them is shallow at best and misleading at worst.
| RC_ITR wrote:
| When you're a hammer (libertarian) everything looks like a
| nail (bad faith crisis management to justify to government
| overreach).
|
| The problem is the world _is_ full of crises that need
| government support, the question is which do we want
| addressed?
| pitaj wrote:
| The world is full of crises created by government
| intervention: healthcare, housing, education, etc.
| boredumb wrote:
| One can believe in covid restrictions, but they would be
| naive if they think there wasn't a huge cost imposed on
| individuals and it's not immediately obvious that more
| restrictions meant less disease. Dismissing governments
| ability to utilize fear in order to enact powers they
| previously didn't hold, just because one fear is something
| held more dearly is how all of these things pass. Child abuse
| and covid are both real and both are and were used to give
| government power that most free societies would reject
| outright and without further question if neither existed.
| trasz wrote:
| We have a perfectly good war though.
| dudul wrote:
| The irony is that "the kids" is always the primary argument put
| forward to pass legislations that have little to do with "the
| kids", while the one time we had to worry about "the kids" and
| their mental well being, adults just decided to sacrifice them
| to avoid getting a bad flu.
| antihero wrote:
| Ah yes, love to remember that time the EU tried to break
| encryption to make people wear masks.
| [deleted]
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| Cambridge is not EU anymore.
|
| They should focus on their country.
|
| https://techcrunch.com/2021/06/30/uk-tells-messaging-apps-no...
| rapht wrote:
| As usual, the solution lies in peer-to-peer apps where there is
| no centralized provider that will have any responsibility or
| oversight. Wait... isn't that what infringers already use?
| petre wrote:
| Think of the kids is just another excuse to break privacy now
| that terrorism and covid aren't interesting anymore. I wonder
| what's gonna be next? Russian propaganda and fake news?
| alaricus wrote:
| "Protecting kids" is a load of nonsense. It's just a convenient
| excuse and sounds much better than "we want to read your private
| stuff".
| jotm wrote:
| I don't quite understand, to what end? This is clearly a good
| step towards authoritarianism, but then what? People
| "disappearing" and more population control?
|
| The world sometimes seems so ridiculous I can't believe it.
| hkwerf wrote:
| In the end it may just be about (corrupted) power. Those who
| are in power can use the data they gather through
| surveillance to stay in power, even without "disappearing".
| It's sufficient to be able to identify whistleblowers and
| have that be known in order for fewer people to blow the
| whistle.
| throwaway67743 wrote:
| The only people really thinking of the children are the ones
| not bound by said law and will not be interfered with...
|
| (In case it's to subtle, the actual child abusers or consumers
| of said content)
| fsckboy wrote:
| the headline is horribly biased (could we change it to "think
| of the children!"?) but it seems to me if you want to protect
| children from pedos that you would need to read both of their
| email, so I don't understand how breaking privacy threatens
| children.
| cors-fls wrote:
| Mandating that the takedown go through this agency means
| states won't be able to hire private companies specialising
| in takedowns (and faster). Takedowns take way longer, which
| hurts the children.
| andai wrote:
| >We found that the specialist contractors who take down
| phishing websites for banks would typically take six hours
| to remove an offending website, while the Internet Watch
| Foundation - which has a legal monopoly on taking down
| child-abuse material in the UK - would often take six
| weeks.
|
| [...]
|
| >So it's really stupid for the European Commission to
| mandate centralised takedown by a police agency for the
| whole of Europe. This will be make everything really hard
| to fix once they find out that it doesn't work, and it
| becomes obvious that child abuse websites stay up longer,
| causing real harm.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| > which has a legal monopoly on taking down child-abuse
| material in the UK
|
| So basically a pr stunt from those who left the EU to
| feel better about themselves?
| AlexanderTheGr8 wrote:
| Does anyone know why the EU is doing this? Everyone knows that
| the children thing is a pathetic excuse, but why do they want
| surveillance? I highly doubt that messaging is a big risk to EU
| stability. So why make such an effort?
| pas wrote:
| it's the same as the abortion issue. there are a lot of people
| who honestly sincerely earnestly believe in it. then there are
| those who share this belief but see it as part of something
| bigger.
|
| this last group is the fucking fascist small dick energy
| idiots, who believe in order based on a hierarchy of people,
| classes, races, countries, etc...
| exabrial wrote:
| > to protecting kids
|
| Let's be clear, this has nothing to do with protecting kids and
| everything with backdoors. The idea here is that anyone that
| opposes this can be easily accused of being a child molestor.
| j_san wrote:
| I very opposed to the proposal of the commission - in fact I
| even went to a demonstration today against it. It's a horrible
| privacy invasion and very bad in many different ways, but...
|
| But I think your take is not true. I can imagine that it might
| just be a really misinformed proposal to actually go against
| child abuse. I hope.
| kingcharles wrote:
| I think the poster above you is right, though. If you
| demonstrate against it, it is easy for someone to just say
| "Hey everyone, this person is for kids getting raped."
| pyuser583 wrote:
| Because of course the EU wants a centralized EU-wide approach.
| sysadm1n wrote:
| > And it becomes obvious that child abuse websites stay up longer
|
| Versus
|
| > That is to enable the new agency to undermine end-to-end
| encryption by mandating client-side scanning
|
| This article needs to be clear about what these agencies are
| after: E2E encrypted messaging apps, or 'websites'. Because a
| messaging app is not a 'website'.
| hkwerf wrote:
| It's even worse. In Germany, police and agencies responsible to
| prosecute pedophiles that are active on those websites
| supposedly do not take those websites down, even after they
| gained control, at least in some cases.
|
| > In German:
| https://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/archiv/2021/Kindesmissbrauc...
|
| I remember another article, which I can't find right now, with
| an interview, where a spokesperson explicitly said that taking
| down the sites is not their responsibility.
| jdthedisciple wrote:
| The way I understood it is: both
|
| I might be totally mistaken though.
| work_ta_220503 wrote:
| I'd love to know what percentage of those CSAM numbers are
| inflated by 14-17 yrs old sharing their own pictures (and their
| SOs leaking to someone else w/o permission) versus what most of
| the people imagine when government yells "CP!!!"
| dijit wrote:
| Just so you're aware. That is actually illegal and those teens
| sending pictures to other teens can (and are) prosecuted.
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| This might not be universally true soon. The Netherlands
| proposed changing the law so teens are okay sexting one
| another as long as there is mutual consent and it's not to
| make money[0]. However, it has been stalled for a few years
| now. (I initially thought it was accepted, but now things are
| forecasted to be 2024). I also suspect that despite it being
| illegal, very little action is undertaken while the above
| requirements are still met.
|
| I do not know about other EU countries.
|
| [0]: https://www.mediawijsheid.nl/veelgestelde-vraag/is-
| sexting-s... (Dutch)
| [deleted]
| judge2020 wrote:
| Not the same metric, but related:
|
| > Approximately 200,000 people in 38 states are currently on
| the sex offender registry for crimes they committed as
| children. Some were put on the registry when they were as young
| as eight years old.
|
| https://jlc.org/issues/juvenile-sex-offender-registry-sorna
| jotm wrote:
| Oh no, I saw myself naked in the mirror so many times as a
| kid!
| breakfastduck wrote:
| 70-80% total is the suggested inflation, my guess on that.
| zx85wes wrote:
| I think that's a very conservative estimation.
| aasasd wrote:
| So Apple's snooping initiative produced exactly the result that
| was predicted? The article doesn't quite expand on this, but it
| sounds like the lawmakers and the agency are jolly happy to push
| their own variant of client-side scanning on everyone.
|
| The whole story with client-side scanning resembles Snowden's
| description of NSA's workday: people are so used to the idea of
| surveillance day in and day out that it doesn't occur to them for
| a second that it might not be appropriate.
| Syonyk wrote:
| https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/system/files/2022-05/Propo...
|
| This contains the text of the requirements. Search for "Grooming"
| and you'll find some particularly horrifying chunks regarding
| "scanning of conversations for content." Plus, not only known
| existing CSAM, but also identifying new material. Because don't
| _you_ trust machine learning that can 't tell the difference
| between a cat and a ferret to know what is and isn't CSAM? That's
| a very real path to "You have a photo of your child in the
| bathtub and the police smash down your door."
|
| I like this bit, though:
|
| > _The processing of users' personal data for the purposes of
| detecting, reporting and removing online child sexual abuse has a
| significant impact on users' rights and can be justified only in
| view of the importance of preventing and combating online child
| sexual abuse._
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| I assume you meant this piece with "scanning of conversations":
|
| > _As mentioned, detecting 'grooming' would have a positive
| impact on the fundamental rights of potential victims
| especially by contributing to the prevention of abuse; if swift
| action is taken, it may even prevent a child from suffering
| harm. At the same time, the detection process is generally
| speaking the most intrusive one for users (compared to the
| detection of the dissemination of known and new child sexual
| abuse material), since it requires automatically scanning
| through texts in interpersonal communications. It is important
| to bear in mind in this regard that such scanning is often the
| only possible way to detect it and that the technology used
| does not 'understand' the content of the communications but
| rather looks for known, pre-identified patterns that indicate
| potential grooming. Detection technologies have also already
| acquired a high degree of accuracy, although human oversight
| and review remain necessary, and indicators of 'grooming' are
| becoming ever more reliable with time, as the algorithms
| learn._
|
| That whole paragraph sounds a lot more terrifying and
| intrusive. At least they admit the flaws, but I haven't quite
| had the best experience with the EU's way of handling this
| stuff.
| Syonyk wrote:
| That's one of them, yes. I've not had the time to read the
| whole thing today, and probably won't have time, so I'm
| trying to encourage people to dig through it a bit themselves
| and get a feel for just how "But the Children!" it is, as a
| reason to violate every bit of privacy they think they can
| get away with.
| kingcharles wrote:
| This is so 1984. Even if this remotely worked, how would they
| tell between actual minors and adults roleplaying?
| Syonyk wrote:
| Smash down doors, get embarrassed a few times, pass
| legislation to ban "roleplaying as a minor in text
| conversations." Then there's no reason to be embarrassed
| again!
|
| More practically, I would assume "age of the users of a
| device" is a well-derived bit of information available to
| anyone who asks for it with the proper letterhead. Or who
| just helps themselves to it.
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| My initial thought was to give adults an adult service,
| but that also means adults need to provide information
| (which a lot of adults wouldn't be okay with) so they can
| filter the kids out. Then you'd still have to run the
| proposal on every service kids and adults have access to.
| Then on top of _that_ , you still need to filter out
| cases where its just minors, but at the same time you
| can't filter all of them because it might be a case of
| sexual violence between minors.
|
| It's a headache no matter how I look at it.
| causi wrote:
| Legislation of a similar tone is already the law in many
| places. Some places ban pornography of adults with flat
| chests. Some places ban lewd drawings of characters who
| aren't sufficiently curvaceous. Many platforms hosting
| content such as literotica and erotic audio recordings
| ban content that describes or roleplays as minors.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| > This is so 1984
|
| 1984 has never been about this.
|
| It's about the weaknesses of men, that would gladly change
| a reduction of the chocolate ration into an increase,
| because it's their job to lie and alter the past, believing
| they are doing god's work.
|
| Also, in 1984 surveillance is secret, not publicly stated
| in a formal document visible by everybody.
|
| Better examples of 1984 in action: the DDR, the NSA.
| np- wrote:
| > "becoming ever more reliable with time, as the algorithms
| learn"
|
| I mean considering Amazon has put in kajillions of dollars on
| their learning algorithms and yet now in 2022 those
| algorithms still aren't even smart enough to figure out
| trivial stuff, like that I'm probably not gonna buy a second
| air fryer immediately after buying a first one, and stop
| advertising them to me. What hope do we have for this new
| algorithm?
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| It just showcases either the ones making the decision are
| naive or they have an ulterior motive. They tried to
| justify it with the following footnote:
|
| > _For example, Microsoft reports that the accuracy of its
| grooming detection tool is 88%, meaning that out of 100
| conversations flagged as possible criminal solicitation of
| children, 12 can be excluded upon review and will not be
| reported to law enforcement; see annex 8 of the Impact
| Assessment._
|
| Of course, anyone could poke a dozen holes in this
| statement. "Possible", so there still needs to be a ton of
| review. Microsoft reporting on _its own_ detection tool.
| Etc.
| bliteben wrote:
| Maybe they aren't optimizing for conversions but instead
| for running out budgets? Amazon often has anti-consumer
| practices, that likely evolved that way because it improves
| bottom line, you'd think how hard they make it to search
| reviews or to filter reviews for a specific version of a
| product would be simple fixes, but likely testing has shown
| those things decrease sales.
| skummetmaelk wrote:
| 95% of men aged 20-30 will be flagged for telling their
| equally aged friends to "suck their dick".
| [deleted]
| usrn wrote:
| A lot of people are going to start using XMPP/OMEMO.
| judge2020 wrote:
| No reason an XMPP client wouldn't be forced to include
| this as well. Reminder that iMessage and Signal are
| encrypted communications but are surely a target of this
| sort of lawmaking.
| usrn wrote:
| With XMPP though you can use a smaller FOSS client on a
| desktop PC. iMessage and Signal force you to use a recent
| closed source client on a phone.
| t0bia_s wrote:
| Try Molly for Signal on Android.
| rdl wrote:
| I thought most of these proposals were around doing
| device-local analysis and reporting (I suppose specific
| clients might not, but if they can mandate this at the
| device level, and make it default on iOS and Android,
| they're going to get almost all users.)
| uoaei wrote:
| Device-local, yes, but I thought it was only for apps
| under Apple's direct purview, ie, iMessage.
| causi wrote:
| _That 's a very real path to "You have a photo of your child in
| the bathtub and the police smash down your door."_
|
| There's also the simple fact that the reporting of CSAM
| involves someone _seeing_ CSAM. You see it and then you report
| it so it gets removed. Does the copy in your browser cache
| incriminate you? I can also imagine someone deciding they need
| to save it to forward to the police, whether or not that 's
| useful.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| > You have a photo of your child in the bathtub and the police
| smash down your door.
|
| Reminder: Europe is not US.
|
| Nobody can smash your door here without proper authorization
| from a court.
|
| And even then, they would knock.
| belter wrote:
| You have it here on pag 7
|
| "...Thereby, the proposed Regulation limits the interference
| with the right to personal data protection of users and their
| right to confidentiality of communications, to what is strictly
| necessary for the purpose of ensuring the achievement of its
| objectives, that is, laying down harmonised rules for
| effectively preventing and combating online child sexual abuse
| in the internal market..."
|
| For all effects, today the 11 of May, is the day the EU tried
| to remove the right to privacy in communications in the name of
| protecting children. From the hundreds of measures and police
| actions they could take them seem to think this is the most
| important.
| breakfastduck wrote:
| Why do you like that?
|
| They can focus on ONE justification which is 'acceptable'. But
| one justification is all they need. They don't need more than
| one for total access.
| Syonyk wrote:
| Just the brazen "Yeah, privacy and stuff are important, _But
| the Children!_ " phrasing of it. They're not even trying to
| pretend it's anything but an excuse anymore.
| sharken wrote:
| This is no different from the outrage with Apple and
| client-side scanning of your device.
|
| Yes, we should absolutely do everything we can to protect
| the children. But losing our privacy is not and can never
| be an acceptable course of action.
|
| There is a frighteningly short distance from giving up
| privacy due to CSAM, to a full-blown surveillance state.
| DontMindit wrote:
| Ironically this law will put the childrens futures at
| enormous risk
| cleandreams wrote:
| This article basically says the approach is bad because it does
| not have optimal efficiency. That is the wrong view. This
| approach is giving an agency with legal power and money the scope
| to address the problem. Any efficiency issues can be worked out
| over time. What is important is that people who traffic in child
| sex abuse images or consume or create them will face more real
| legal obstacles and consequences.
|
| I disdain the chorus of pedophilia excuses that seems to be
| taking place in this thread: it's grotesque. Just so you know.
| DontMindit wrote:
| We will soon have robot dogs patrolling our streets and barking
| at us while we scream in anguish out of our windows for food if
| this becomes law. Any rebellion or resistance will become
| impossible forever once we cant communicate in private. You do
| realise this?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-11 23:00 UTC)