[HN Gopher] Majority of EU countries support scanning of audio c...
___________________________________________________________________
Majority of EU countries support scanning of audio communications
Author : mdp2021
Score : 45 points
Date : 2023-05-16 18:49 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.euractiv.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.euractiv.com)
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| Obligatory reminder: the goal of mass-surveillance is never to
| prevent terrorist acts or protect the children from predators. It
| is to have a dossier on everyone.
| mikece wrote:
| Do any of the EU countries have a legal history of having the
| right to privacy enshrined in law and custom?
| miohtama wrote:
| Yes. Also in not so delightful way.
|
| https://www.investigate-europe.eu/en/2023/luxembourg-busines...
|
| This is the case that shut down the public access to Companies
| House registry, as oligarch's handyman was complaining access
| to companies ownership data violates the privacy of his
| businesses. Might be a net loss for the society in this case.
| eisstrom wrote:
| You might be interested in Aritcle 8 of the European Convention
| on Human Rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_of_the
| _European_Conv...). It was recently used to declare the UK's
| mass surveillance unlawful (https://dpglaw.co.uk/european-
| court-of-human-rights-declares...)
| cccbbbaaa wrote:
| See also Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental
| Rights of the European Union
| (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf).
| (side note, the ECHR is why European countries have strong
| privacy laws since the '70s.)
|
| The EDPS recently said that under the Charter, the infamous
| "Chat Control" would always be illegal in the EU:
| https://www.euractiv.com/section/law-enforcement/news/eu-
| wat....
| andai wrote:
| Very interesting. Does this apply to the Dutch "dragnet"
| surveillance law too?
|
| https://aboutintel.eu/update-dutch-dragnet-act/
| [deleted]
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| Not that I'm aware of, although East Germany still has Stasi in
| living memory, which gives mass surveillance a tangibley sour
| aftertaste.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| This is a terrible headline. It gives impression that the
| majority of electorate supports this. Or maybe majority of their
| respective parliaments does.
|
| But it's just the executive branch of the EU itself- "A majority
| of the EU Council of Ministers". More or less, each government
| selects a minister to represent them in this council.
|
| The article should really be reporting on how this bill is
| progressing. I am no legal expert, but I believe the EU
| parliament, which is actually elected, could reject it. I am not
| sure what happens if it is found unconstitutional in some of the
| countries concerned.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| > More or less, each government selects a minister to represent
| them in this council.
|
| That's right; but note that the minister they select depends on
| what's being discussed. There isn't really a "Council of
| Ministers" you could list the names of; it changes for each
| meeting.
|
| That is, the C of M is really a council of member governments.
| And what government wouldn't like to have the EU mandate
| maximum surveillance, so when their citizens complain, they can
| just blame the EU?
| FinnKuhn wrote:
| You can see this all the time in German politics. Someone
| says that they don't want to do a thing in Germany and than
| just do it in the EU. The best example would probably be chat
| control.
| jltsiren wrote:
| > I am not sure what happens if it is found unconstitutional in
| some of the countries concerned.
|
| The general principle is that EU law takes precedence over
| national laws, including national constitutions. If a member
| state finds a law unconstitutional, they have a few options.
| They could try to convince everyone else to change the law.
| They could change their constitution. They could leave the EU.
| Or they could just ignore the law and face the political and
| financial consequences.
|
| In some sense, the EU is no different from any other legally
| binding international treaty. It's a package deal, so you can't
| avoid the aspects you don't like. But because treaties are
| between sovereign states, it's always possible to leave them.
| someweirdperson wrote:
| > I am not sure what happens if it is found unconstitutional in
| some of the countries concerned.
|
| I am sure that we are not going to bring those to justice that
| create law that is found unconstitutional.
| ilyt wrote:
| It's sad that "think of the children" is still argument that
| works on some dumbasses.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| It's equally sad that privacy advocates (of whom I am one)
| mostly refuse to acknowledge that CSAM is a real and measurable
| problem, which specifically exploits children's naivete and
| lack of agency. 'Think of the children' should absolutely not
| be the only decision-making criterion, but it should absolutely
| be among such criteria.
| ilyt wrote:
| Sure but it isn't distributed via voice calls on public voice
| networks...
| waboremo wrote:
| We do need better layered solutions here for sure. In the
| same way that we can't "defeat drug abuse" by jailing
| everyone, there needs to be a multitude of solutions at every
| interval to help. While I think privacy advocates are far
| more in favor of even looking for these solutions at all,
| it's also our duty to find and push these solutions because
| ultimately, others will not care. Optics are just too
| horrible, hence how swiftly these things move.
|
| What's interesting is that recently privacy advocates have
| thankfully also recognized that "think of the children" can
| be a legitimate argument, and have been using it to fight
| against horrible solutions. But we really have to move past
| this and find better solutions, it can't be this endless tit
| for tat as "both sides" wind up losing.
| nforgerit wrote:
| You know what would help for real? Social workers, parents
| empowering on things digital, educative initiatives for all
| stakeholders and proper case-by-case prosecution by
| prosecution authorities that are not under-financed and
| overwhelmed. But hey, this way is easier and gives total
| government control into hands of possibly bad government
| actors in the future.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| You're absolutely right, and I've said as much in the past.
| Social work and educational solutions actually have a
| chance of making things better, actually giving children
| the tools and knowledge to protect themselves.
|
| Law enforcement is only a tool for punishment of offenders,
| it in no way "protects children" because the offense has
| already occurred.
|
| Anecdotal example, but this is seems to be the opposite of
| wanting to "protect children":
| https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-06/high-risk-
| paedophile-...
| WinstonSmith84 wrote:
| > CSAM is a real and measurable problem
|
| Well, I'd be curious to see how widespread CSAM is
| altogether, and especially how much WhatsApp, Messengers, and
| others are relevant for abusers. One thing I know about this
| topic is that the offenders are mostly close relatives. The
| thing I don't know, but intuitively, I'd not think that a
| close relative would take the risk of sending compromising
| messages on the smartphone of the victim. Not denying it
| never exists, but what are the numbers we are talking about?
| As neutral as I'm trying to think, it's very very hard to see
| a genuine intention into what the EU is doing
| mikece wrote:
| I tend to ignore "think of the children" pleas from people who
| outsource the education and supervision of their children to
| the state or other "non-parent providers."
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Right it's not like children are ever abused by family
| members.
| andai wrote:
| Alas, we are outnumbered by servants of the machine ;)
| dadjoker wrote:
| What could possibly go wrong?
| mdp2021 wrote:
| > _What could possibly go wrong?_
|
| This could have normally be considered an idle comment.
|
| Unfortunately, in today's world it has become part of a rule:
| "when any trend emerges, ask yourself: what could possibly go
| wrong".
| squarefoot wrote:
| In a few years, every pedophile will be able to create CSAM
| material indistinguishable from reality on their computer thanks
| to AI, therefore they won't need anymore to download it from the
| Internet. When this will occur, the powers that be could hardly
| use the protect-the-children argument to spy on citizens, since
| all material will be virtually created offline. I guess they're
| struggling to have draconian laws passed ASAP also for this
| reason.
| waboremo wrote:
| I don't think this is a good argument as is, because it
| effectively justifies the draconian laws. Basically if they got
| all of them to stop taking actions in real life, and
| exclusively generate content on people who don't exist... then
| the laws have done their job. They've saved people from harm.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| Such material is already criminalised in the UK.
| nico wrote:
| > majority of the EU Council of Ministers seem to favour
| expanding the scanning of private messages to audio
| communications to detect child sexual abuse material
|
| Please think of the children
|
| Oh well
| nforgerit wrote:
| I used to be a convinced pro-European but for me it's getting
| harder and harder to _not_ believe in some kind of plot for
| assuming total control over their citizens. Each and every EU
| regulation concerning "things digital" is pointing to a direction
| where "freedom" is just an empty buzzword used for virtue
| signalling against states like China. I am getting seriously
| concerned about things (not that i haven't been before).
| bjoli wrote:
| And it is almost exclusively the right taking us there. Even
| the liberals.
|
| If you are not to the left (proper left, not USA left) you have
| very few options.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _I used to be a convinced pro-European but for me it 's
| getting harder and harder to _not_ believe in some kind of plot
| for assuming total control over their citizens._
|
| The EU is just catching up to the US:
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A
| nforgerit wrote:
| You mean catching up to government paranoia initiated by 9/11
| which led to 2 unnecessary wars, never seen before government
| surveillance and destabilization of the middle east. Great
| job, let's do the same!
| hulitu wrote:
| It was not initiated by 9/11. 9/11 was just an excuse to
| extend surveillance.
| Yujf wrote:
| It is a difficult thing. Because of it's size, the EU often
| feels unnaccountable to me. Also the news does not focus on who
| votes for what or what their ideas in the EU are but only
| focusses on national level. And then the EU makes decisions
| that I dissagree with and it leaves a bad taste.
|
| On the other hand, I believe the EU has so much potential and
| is a huge benefit overall
| mrtksn wrote:
| Wasn't it proven that the US does this since a long time and
| whistleblowers lives ruined? Obama even has given an apologetic
| speech for it?
|
| I'm not supporting this but if it will happen I would prefer it
| happening openly within a legal framework.
|
| I don't get the appeal for it being done by secret services
| instead of civil services. I guess it's about different
| relationship with the governments.
|
| Yesterday I saw a tweet from Paul Graham calling European AI
| startups to pre-emptively move to the US because of some EU
| regulation draft, today top topics here are about OpenAI
| speaking with the US government trying to scare them into
| requiring licensing to work on AI.
|
| Maybe the contrast between US/EU is not as stark as the
| narrative makes it appear.
| nforgerit wrote:
| Yeah I was always thinking the same. They must be jealous
| about the enormous surveillance power that accumulated in the
| US for over 2 decades.
|
| Thing is: If the strategy is to have total surveillance based
| on an open legal framework then they should actively market
| it as that. I _might_ even agree with that. But given they're
| BSing us with "protect the children" I cannot help but see
| them as bad actors doing stupid/evil sh*t.
| mrtksn wrote:
| [dead]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-16 23:01 UTC)