[HN Gopher] EU parliament agreement to remove chat control and s...
___________________________________________________________________
EU parliament agreement to remove chat control and safeguard secure
encryption
Author : teichmann
Score : 189 points
Date : 2023-10-26 15:55 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.patrick-breyer.de)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.patrick-breyer.de)
| theshrike79 wrote:
| Just in case people don't read the article: the
| European Parliament's position removes indiscriminate chat
| control and allows only for a targeted surveillance of specific
| individuals and groups reasonably suspicious of being linked to
| child sexual abuse material, with a judicial warrant. End-to-end
| encrypted messengers are exempted.
| thesnide wrote:
| even more: In detail, our position will
| protect young people and victims of abuse much more effectively
| than the EU Commission's extreme proposal:
|
| (...) At the same time, we are pulling the
| following poisonous teeth out of the EU Commission's extreme
| bill:
| SenAnder wrote:
| How does this differ from the status quo? I would assume
| targeted surveillance, without requiring 3rd parties sabotage
| the security of their products, is already a legal law
| enforcement procedure?
| ponderings wrote:
| The EU standardizes a lot of laws that a lot of countries
| should have had already. I'm sure there must be bad examples
| but I've really only seen improvements in action. Countries
| have to part with their idiotic version or give up on their
| idiotic proposals. NL for example had some issues wanting
| forced labor for unemployed people with social support but
| that would be called a job and require minimum wage.
| derefr wrote:
| Doesn't have to be different from the status quo. EU law acts
| upon member countries like the US federal constitution acts
| upon member states: it prevent individual members from ever
| changing their own laws to take _more extreme_ positions than
| the recognized consensus position.
| g-b-r wrote:
| To my knowledge EU Regulations are simply laws that
| overrule local EU countries' laws, so whether it's possible
| or not for local laws to be more extreme only depends on
| such laws being at odds with what the Regulation prescribes
| (but I'm not a lawyer and only looked into that years ago).
| vaylian wrote:
| Correct. But the chatcontrol proposal would have changed
| that. The proposed law mandates untargeted surveillance and
| bypassing of encryption through client-side scanning.
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| The status quo now is that each country does as it sees fit.
| This will unify legislation across the whole of EU and
| basically forbid countries to have laws that contravene to
| this.
| ls612 wrote:
| It doesn't really. Much like the UK, the EU appears to have
| blinked when faced with the loss of both WhatsApp and
| iMessage.
| Condition1952 wrote:
| so, priests, mainly
|
| https://elpais.com/sociedad/2023-06-26/base-de-datos-de-el-p...
|
| If the EU wants to protect the children, they should ban
| religious institutions, first and foremost
|
| "Because of religion's institutional standing, religious
| grooming frequently takes place in a context of unquestioned
| faith placed in sex offenders by children, parents and staff,"
| they found. https://www.ualberta.ca/folio/2020/08/researchers-
| reveal-pat...
|
| in all the major religions, there are groups of people who see
| themselves as doing God's work as commanded by the bible. They
| advocate using the harshest punishments possible. What is
| particularly disturbing about this issue is that religious
| belief is used as an excuse or rationalization for beating
| children. For some people, corporal punishment is given a
| legitimacy that is rapped in faith. The parents who do this are
| convinced they are doing God's work as prescribed in the bible.
| https://www.mentalhelp.net/blogs/radical-religious-belief-an...
|
| A too-passive attitude in dealing with child abuse has rubbed
| off on Muslim communities in Britain, too. I have heard many
| stories at first hand of child sexual abuse and rape, which
| show that the issue is not being addressed at all. Those who
| have had the courage to speak out have been met with reactions
| of denial and shame. Such attitudes mean that children will
| continue to suffer in silence. Sexual abuse of children happens
| in all communities, as has been revealed by the recent Catholic
| church scandal.
| https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/apr/25/middle...
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| It seems like this is a proposal, but it hasn't been adopted
| and it's not clear this coalition will prevail. It's hard to
| tell because the language of the article makes it seem like a
| "done deal", but I'm less optimistic.
| greatgib wrote:
| The proposal looks equilibrated in my opinion.
|
| I think that it is a good example of why voting for Pirate party
| representative might make a difference with law changes designed
| to help citizens.
| atoav wrote:
| At least on the EU level, this certainly had its merits.
| Additionally I think having good informed representatives like
| that can even have a bigger impact than their seat alone,
| because they can often influence the opinion of other
| representatives around them.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| This is great news, I hope this will be the end of the stupid
| E2EE ban attempts, for a few years at least.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| More discussion a few days ago:
|
| _EU Chat Control Bill Postponed_
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37982655
| arlort wrote:
| To add context to the link, this isn't a repost, just related.
|
| The post linked is about the Council (think US senate or
| Bundesrat) not having enough votes to pass the text (they're
| still looking for internal compromises)
|
| This post is about the European Parliament's committee
| examining the draft (well, one of the 5, but LIBE is the lead
| one)
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Yeah, meant that it was Related, a lot of related discussion
| in there
| WA wrote:
| > _We safeguard trust in secure end-to-end encryption. We clearly
| exclude so-called client-side scanning, i.e. the installation of
| surveillance functionalities and security vulnerabilities in our
| smartphones._
|
| What does "exclude" mean in this context? Should client-side
| scanning be allowed or not?
| arlort wrote:
| > Should client-side scanning be allowed or not?
|
| That's up to you if it "should" (personally, no, horrible most
| likely illegal idea)
|
| Patrick has been a pretty vocal opponent of the draft so if
| he's content that's good
| andersa wrote:
| They're trying to say it's not going to be required, and also
| they don't like it.
| attah_ wrote:
| On the one hand this makes me very happy that democracy can
| actually work things out (and quite well at that)... but on the
| other hand i'm still horrified people seriously tried to push the
| original proposal. Not sure what i feel summing up the two.
| SahAssar wrote:
| My takeaway is that the EU as a whole is somewhat responsive to
| public feedback but it is still too far removed from the people
| and our will.
| attah_ wrote:
| Too far removed or just too technologically inept? Not only
| was it technologically impossible; but they keep wanting to
| do things to people's online life that everyone that would
| never fly in offline life. It's like they think technology is
| somehow an optional extra, or even a passing fad that doesn't
| deserve the same rights and safeguards.
| dotandgtfo wrote:
| I feel like it's pretty obvious the bill wouldn't pass. It's
| just so off-base from all other EU tech policy. Banning end
| to end encryption is both ineffective and practically
| impossible. And sending "CSAM" (in a lot of cases
| teenagers/young adult nudes) to a presumably American tech
| company for manual screening is just so unequivocally wrong
| on a privacy level.
|
| It seems like a lot of money went into making this get to the
| vote. My impression is that lobbyists have worked for this
| through the European commission - which is distasteful as it
| should never have been proposed. But it never stood a chance
| in the parliament. There seems to be checks and balances.
|
| I have to credit the great work of people like Patrick Breyer
| and everyone who has demonstrated and organized across the EU
| these last months. Passivity leads to the worst outcomes.
| richarme wrote:
| I think you're probably right, but sometimes I wonder if a
| bit of distance can be a good thing. Perhaps a slight
| distance can make populism less viable while still being
| effective at representing the low-pass filtered will of the
| people in a sense.
|
| And perhaps the lower public mindshare might help insulate
| against people with ambitions but not people's best interest
| at heart. Or this is crazy talk, not sure which one it is :)
| moogly wrote:
| Hmm, call me a cynic but this sounds a bit too good to be true.
| What's the catch?
| pmontra wrote:
| > Security by design: In order to protect young people from
| grooming, internet services and apps shall be secure by design
| and default. It must be possible to block and report other users.
| Only at the request of the user should he or she be publicly
| addressable and see messages or pictures of other users. Users
| should be asked for confirmation before sending contact details
| or nude pictures. Potential perpetrators and victims should be
| warned where appropriate, for example if they try to search for
| abuse material using certain search words. Public chats at high
| risk of grooming are to be moderated.
|
| The "publicly addressable" part is feasible and already
| implemented by many messengers.
|
| Asking for "confirmation before sending contact details" is
| feasible but easily circumvented as is my mail is joe at example
| dot com.
|
| Asking for "confirmation before sending [...] nude pictures" is
| where it gets interesting. How without scanning every file one is
| about to share?
| 9dev wrote:
| > Asking for "confirmation before sending contact details" is
| feasible but easily circumvented as is my mail is joe at
| example dot com.
|
| I'm pretty confident this is a task where LLMs will shine.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-10-26 23:02 UTC)