[HN Gopher] EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow
___________________________________________________________________
EU to greenlight Chat Control tomorrow
Author : FionnMc
Score : 220 points
Date : 2024-06-17 20:58 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.patrick-breyer.de)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.patrick-breyer.de)
| Lichtso wrote:
| Already was somewhat degraded by the EU parliament:
|
| https://proton.me/blog/eu-parliament-chat-control
| Macha wrote:
| Note the concern is based on historical precedent, that the
| commission can browbeat the parliament into passing it,
| especially considering the recent changing of the guard and
| relatively limited information that many national voters get of
| their MEP's activities in the european parliament because of
| the tendency for EU elections to be decided on domestic issues.
| pantalaimon wrote:
| Sure it's now opt-in. But if you don't opt in, you can no
| longer send photos or videos.
| treyd wrote:
| That seems so arbitrary, where does ascii art fall?
| Almondsetat wrote:
| Probably under the umbrella of "you're not going to
| transmit anything meaningful with an extremely limited
| amount of horizontal space due to the automatic formatting
| of chat bubbles"
| nine_k wrote:
| ASCII art porn vs CSAM pictures and videos: what do you
| think has a higher chance to involve e.g. child abuse?
|
| Preventing the spreading of CSAM is one of the key ideas
| behind the regulation.
|
| I wonder what happens with pictures sent as base64 text
| blobs though.
| walterbell wrote:
| EU Poetry Party
|
| Welcome all ye bards!
| linuxandrew wrote:
| Signal Foundation has already said they would leave the EU if
| Chat Control goes ahead.
|
| https://mastodon.world/@Mer__edith/112535616774247450
| wafflemaker wrote:
| Thanks to hn crowd, who explained it's not super difficult (and
| not going to lie, summer $500 discount), a Google pixel phone,
| soon running GrapheneOS, is on it's way.
|
| Can GrapheneOS prevent detection of somebody sideloading
| Signal?
| Wytwwww wrote:
| Probably not but you still need to have someone to someone to
| communicate with even if you manage to install it. If you
| can't get it on the mainstream app stores it will just be a
| niche app for "privacy nerds" and drug dealers (in the EU at
| least..)
| pantalaimon wrote:
| All the drug dealers are on Telegram already, they need a
| hassle free way to communicate with their customers.
| dirigableuser wrote:
| Customers as a voluminous body of users can't be
| underestimated as a solid block of shade for the
| whistleblowers and journalists
| amelius wrote:
| Will you convince all your friends and family to start
| running GrapheneOS?
| elric wrote:
| That's an interesting thread ... they claim they won't be
| compliant, which I applaud, but what will happen is that
| unwitting Signal users will end up being targeted by law
| enforcement. There are already precedents of people with
| "secure" phones or encrypted messaging apps being targeted,
| such as the Sky ECC case.
| pantalaimon wrote:
| If Signal can't be installed or updated via the App Store
| anyone, that's already enough to exclude 99.9% of all users -
| no need to involve law enforcement.
| Wytwwww wrote:
| > will happen is that unwitting Signal users will end up
| being targeted by law enforcement
|
| Seems like a good thing. If nothing else works at least that
| might bring some attention to this nonsense..
| bbarnett wrote:
| "Signal, unwilling to implement easy to build software to
| comply with EU regulations, likely due to fiscal concerns,
| has shown itself placing profit far above the care and
| concerns of our next generation, our children, and the
| pedophiles that prey upon them, such heinous creators of
| child porn." signed EU press release.
|
| And so, 96% of people now think Signal is evil.
| Wytwwww wrote:
| > And so, 96% of people now think Signal is evil.
|
| The overwhelming majority of people living in the EU
| won't really care or even notice this new
| law/directive/(?) because they don't really pay any
| attention to what the EU is doing but yeah for most of of
| the remaining ones that will probably suffice.
| nine_k wrote:
| Quoted in major tech press first, and then in non-tech
| press if the case becomes prominent enough to get to
| national news, would have a serious poisoning effect.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Signal isn't big enough to play that game.
|
| They'll just be blocked from the app store for EU users and
| their user base in the EU will drop to near zero within a year.
| ggm wrote:
| In the spirit of Erlich/Simons, if you define zero relative
| to current users, what % do you think will depart, and what
| does "zero" look like.
|
| Hint: I'm taking Simons' role in this: They won't drop to
| zero.
| issafram wrote:
| You think 99.99% of Signal users are all in the EU?
| diego_sandoval wrote:
| I think it would be feasible for Whatsapp, Telegram and
| Signal to form a coalition that pledges to withdraw from any
| country or market that tries to pull these shenanigans, such
| that the sum of them is big enough to play that game.
|
| The hardest to convince would be Whatsapp, but I think that
| Zuckerberg is one of the few big tech CEOs that still has
| principles, at least sometimes. I think it could happen.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _I think that Zuckerberg is one of the few big tech CEOs
| that still has principles_
|
| "Still"? I'm not aware of a time when he's publicly shown
| any sort of principles.
| diego_sandoval wrote:
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-36187028
|
| Google or Microsoft would just give up data of their
| users at the first request to avoid a ban.
| consumer451 wrote:
| I am so thankful that Signal Foundation exists, and refuses to
| be bullied.
| gpvos wrote:
| True, but it won't make a difference.
| FredPret wrote:
| This is why the roles of the major players in society
| (government, monopolies) need to be circumscribed.
|
| Large organizations will always try to grow in size and power.
|
| We need some sort of human right for digital privacy to make this
| sort of thing illegal.
| delichon wrote:
| > This is why the roles of the major players in society
| (government, monopolies) need to be circumscribed ... We need
| some sort of human right for digital privacy to make this sort
| of thing illegal
|
| The entities that need to be circumscribed need to enforce a
| law that circumscribes themselves? Those incentives do not seem
| to align to form a stable structure.
| FredPret wrote:
| The only way is to have a broad-based idea among the people
| about exactly what is allowed for a government and a big
| business.
|
| There's a strong and widespread expectation among many that
| it's morally imperative for them to be able to elect their
| own government. So any moves by the government to limit this
| will be met by fierce resistance.
|
| If a similar idea existed about privacy, these sneaky moves
| wouldn't be feasible and would leave a bad taste in the
| mouths even of the perpetrators. Unfortunately, many among us
| are of the "But _I 've_ got nothing to hide" persuasion.
| Wytwwww wrote:
| > widespread expectation among many that it's morally
| imperative for them to be able to elect their own
| government. So any moves by the government to limit this
| will be met by fierce resistance.
|
| That's not really true as far as it comes to the EU though?
| The EU parliament has always been a joke with limited power
| (both because of structural reasons and because most of
| it's members are clueless and extremely easy to influence)
| and besides that the EU population has no way to exert any
| direct influence on EU policies (they could do that through
| the council but they'd have prioritize the EU over domestic
| issues when voting in national elections which will never
| happen)
| nine_k wrote:
| In the same vein, EU does not have an idea of sanctity of
| free speech. Various forms of censorship exist in various
| EU members, all for apparently good causes.
| consumer451 wrote:
| Neither does any country if you look closely enough, all
| for apparently good reasons.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_
| Uni...
| ang_cire wrote:
| That's why you need to always ensure authority rests with
| individuals, or the ability to secure against unjust
| authority.
|
| The second your only recourse against authority is to
| politely ask it not to do something bad to you (maybe, for
| instance, on a piece of paper with multiple choice
| questions), you have no real autonomy.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| Free speech absolutists like myself got run over culturally
| with hate speech laws so for anyone continuing on the fight I
| wish you the best of luck.
| FredPret wrote:
| We learnt the value of free speech the hard way, and very
| slowly. Now we need to keep extending such notions to the
| rapidly increasing frontiers that new tech is exposing.
|
| Hopefully with more tech-savvy generations gradually taking
| power, this will happen without too many painful lessons.
| Wytwwww wrote:
| > We learnt the value of free speech the hard way, and very
| slowly
|
| Did we though? Unfortunately outside the US and a handful
| of other places free speech doesn't seem to be valued that
| much, often it's even viewed as a threat (and I'm not
| talking about authoritarian regimes). It's a double-edged
| sword to be fair, enabling misinformation and chaos.
| squigz wrote:
| > Unfortunately outside the US and a handful of other
| places free speech doesn't seem to be valued that much,
| often it's even viewed as a threat
|
| Can you convince me of this? Because it's not my
| impression.
| throwawayfear wrote:
| Canada and the EU certainly don't care about free speech.
| squigz wrote:
| That comment is not doing a good job of convincing me.
| throwawayfear wrote:
| Are you actually open to being convinced or are you going
| to justify every example of those governments compelling
| and controlling speech?
| consumer451 wrote:
| Anti-hate speech got you? What were you trying to say
| exactly? One can go on X right and spew any hate speech that
| one wants.
|
| How about just political opinions? How quickly we forgot
| "free speech zones."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
|
| BTW, I am not for this regulation in any way. I just don't
| see the connection to hate speech.
| dauertewigkeit wrote:
| Hate speech accusations are a bit like being accused of
| rape. Once it happens you automatically get tainted and it
| is very hard to defend yourself in the public sphere, even
| if the accusations are totally unfounded. This is of course
| abused by evil people. Moreover, what counts as hate speech
| can very suddenly alter depending on whoever is in charge,
| and even if the public don't go along with it, it can still
| be used to silence people.
| consumer451 wrote:
| I am not directing this at you, or anyone here, truly.
| However, this XKCD always come to mind whenever I hear
| the topics of hate speech and free speech mentioned
| within proximity of each other:
|
| https://xkcd.com/1357/
| Dig1t wrote:
| OP specified "culturally", ie people who stand up for free
| speech regardless of its content are painted as alt-right
| bigots, even if they only care about preserving the right
| to speak freely.
|
| I'm also in this camp and have been down-voted into
| oblivion many times for just saying something like "I
| disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death
| your right to say it".
|
| It's not fun to be a defender of truly free speech because
| you get painted into the same camp as the bad guys.
| hot_gril wrote:
| It's illegal in a lot of countries.
| godelski wrote:
| Because frankly free speech absolutists got hijacked by
| people who have no intention of creating free speech (such as
| Musk). And frankly, many of the arguments are not meaningful
| to normal people or to those opposing it. You have to talk to
| your audience. And in this case it is recognizing that most
| of laws controlling speech has not been aimed at those
| universally hated like Nazis, but rather those who have
| little power, like minorities. People think there is a free
| lunch here, but it just doesn't exist.
|
| So the free speech absolutist groups got infiltrated by those
| that wanted to dog whistle and (almost) never tailored
| arguments to those who were strongly opposed; and worse,
| those who need free speech the most.
|
| The same often goes for encryption. And we have to deal with
| adversaries that are willing to straight up lie and promise
| things that sound nice and sound accurate (things that follow
| when using basic logic but don't if nuance is incorporated).
| There are no universal optimas, things with no
| downsides/costs. But most importantly we have to tailor
| arguments to audiences, not expect them to be just taken and
| understood like we do. The priors are different and their
| objective functions may be different as well. So often people
| will argue what they think is most important to fall of deaf
| ears because people don't consider that thing important (at
| least in context).
| hot_gril wrote:
| Yeah and there are even worse things that haven't been
| internationally banned.
| seydor wrote:
| > We need some sort of human right for digital privacy to make
| this sort of thing illegal.
|
| That's how you get another level of super-government, i.e. one
| more tyrant in the chain
|
| Historically the circle breaks only with revolution and
| violence .
|
| Maybe checks and balances would work as a system, but the EU
| has neither
| squigz wrote:
| > Historically the circle breaks only with revolution and
| violence .
|
| This sort of rhetoric is dangerous.
|
| > Maybe checks and balances would work as a system
|
| It does seem to be working well in America.
| hanniabu wrote:
| > This sort of rhetoric is dangerous.
|
| For governments.
|
| > It does seem to be working well in America.
|
| They say ignorance is bliss.
| diego_sandoval wrote:
| Circumscribed by whom? The government is notoriously bad at
| stopping itself from abusing power.
| chgs wrote:
| The largest organisations are the trillion dollar ones we
| interact with every day, not the eu or even the German or us
| governments .
| belter wrote:
| EU is, and always was, a compensation job for failed national
| politicians at their respective national levels. It's the trade
| horse for allowing your party buddies to take over the government
| jobs.
|
| EU politicians should keep their over inflated salaries, and
| stick to what they are good at. Meeting with Google and Microsoft
| lobbyists at the best Brussels luxury restaurants.
| lxgr wrote:
| > Meeting with Google and Microsoft lobbyists at the best
| Brussels luxury restaurants.
|
| Are you talking about the same EU that just passed the DMA?
| That must have been some really nasty food poisoning then!
| Wytwwww wrote:
| At least far as it comes to privacy Apple and even FB, MS and
| Google to an extent share the same interests as their users,
| unlike the EU bureaucrats who just seem to be salty because
| they are unable to exert control over society and justify
| their existence (they might pass some decent policies while
| they are it that's just mostly a coincident..).
|
| If Chat Control goes ahead long-term that will outweigh any
| benefits DMA might have.
| shortsunblack wrote:
| DMA, like any other regulation that preceded it, was severely
| lobbied down. It happened in spite of EU. There is too great
| of a democratic consensus for it to be completely ignored. Do
| not get this wrong.
| matricaria wrote:
| Are they even enforcing DMA? My WhatsApp still doesn't have
| Third Party Chats.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| EU was established to provide mutual economic and military
| security in Europe on a federal model following WW2, and it's
| done very well in that aim. Of course it's not perfect, but
| shallow takes like the one above provide nothing of value.
| moffkalast wrote:
| > Only Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria and Poland
| are relatively clear that they will not support the proposal, but
| this is not sufficient for a "blocking minority".
|
| Ahem what? Last I checked any EU country can veto anything on its
| own.
|
| > Belgian EU Council presidency
|
| It's Council of the EU, not EU Council, that's the heads of state
| who don't have any legislative role. But the Council only does
| inter-country treaties, how is this even their thing?
| Macha wrote:
| > Ahem what? Last I checked any EU country can veto anything on
| its own.
|
| Only on certain topics, which have been narrowed down over
| time. For most areas (including something like chat control),
| it comes down to Qualified Majority Voting, which needs at
| least 55% of countries representing at least 65% of EU
| population.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_E...
| moffkalast wrote:
| Hmm if they are passing this as a "treaty" of some sort then
| the head of state Council might still need to confirm it even
| if it passes. At least I hope so.
|
| Feels like they did this shit deliberately though, as it
| would never pass the Parliament for sure.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| 55%? That's a pretty low bar for laws that will become
| written in stone for decades.
| zirror wrote:
| There are some matters at the council that just need a
| qualified majority to move forward.
|
| Other matters, notably foreign policy, require unanimity.
| zx10rse wrote:
| One more step closer to a full blown totalitarian regime. The EU
| bourgeoisie is becoming more intolerant with its proletariat by
| the day, having access to private communication, those nasty
| peasants may organise and God forbid exercise a right to protest.
|
| But I have no doubt who is going to have private encrypted apps,
| so they can arrange their next flight to a new Epstein island.
| seydor wrote:
| Good, our children can now sleep safe. Emphasis on sleep
| mistercheph wrote:
| Won't someone think of our childrens' rights to eternal
| slumber?
| radicalbyte wrote:
| I already kicked up a shit here in NL together with a few other
| well connected people (with success) but it's a little
| frustrating that there's little more to do other than hope that
| nerds in other EU countries can make a difference.
| contravariant wrote:
| Looks like the Netherlands is already opposed, for what good
| that will do. Any useful links to share with people?
| worldsayshi wrote:
| How is VPN supposed to work? How are internet banks supposed to
| operate? All security will go out the window? Backdoors
| everywhere?
|
| Will TLS have to be redone with a third snooping party in the
| mix? Is that what we're going for here?
| Dig1t wrote:
| Client side scanning is going to be required, it doesn't matter
| if you're on a VPN if your device is self-reporting.
| gpvos wrote:
| How would my device be (self-)reporting?
| worldsayshi wrote:
| All legal apps have to be self reporting I guess...
|
| So whenever you send anything to example.com you also send
| it to government-snooping-service.org?domain=example.com
| pera wrote:
| The proposal leaked a few weeks ago[1] is extremely vague on this
| matter and does not clarify how providers should detect CSAM
| "prior to transmission". Is anyone aware of any sort of scanning
| technology that can be implemented purely on the client side?
| Note that the leaked text says that it should be able to detect
| known and _new_ abuse material.
|
| [1] https://cdn.netzpolitik.org/wp-
| upload/2024/05/2024-05-28_Cou...
| godelski wrote:
| Microsoft: Replay
|
| Apple: Their CSAM detection system that was lambasted not too
| long ago[0]
|
| [0] https://www.apple.com/child-
| safety/pdf/Expanded_Protections_...
| throwawayfear wrote:
| EU continues its descent into an authoritarian surveillance
| state. I hope all the EU netizens wake up and realize how much
| more control the EU has been exerting over its citizens since the
| pandemic.
| gpvos wrote:
| It hasn't, apart from this Chat Control.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-06-17 23:00 UTC)