I have such a strong reaction to news like this, it's hard for me to not think that it's appropriate for every member state to consider leaving the EU now. They've succeeded in shifting me to a very anti-EU stance in one proposed measure - brilliant! It wouldn't surprise me if the leaders of most states are quite keen on such surveillance though.
The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats
41–50 of 443 posts
Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats
#42Disgusting. Wonder if people working on these commissions ever consider the thought that they are "the baddies". In any case, the gestapo would have _loved_ this service.
I know a few, and these people genuinely and completely unironically without a doubt in their mind consider that they're doing the right thing for the greater good of humanity.
Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm for E2E encryption wherever it's applicable, and for individuals having the ability to be fully anonymous online, but it's not useful to claim it doesn't have drawbacks as well. Yes, it's true that it might it harder to arrest criminals because of encryption, but the alternative that nothing can be 100% private is so much worse.
It was hard to arrest criminals before digital communication as well, I’m sure we’ll deal.
But each improvement in communications tech (landlines, mobile phones, internet) have enabled new, faster, easier, better communication methods. Medieval criminals would have to physically meet to coordinate a coach robbery; nowadays a terrorist attack can be coordinated fully remotely and anonymously. There is no point in denying the facts - that encryption and the ease of use of the Internet enable criminals to coordinate more easily. Sweeping it under the rug won't change it, and it will be a part in the reasoning for limiting encryption. It should be fought with numbers and the gravity and the tradeoffs, not "people used to be able to communicate with pidgeons so there is no issue here".
Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats
#44Anything that violates privacy to such an extent shouldn’t be legal.
It isn't. It is equivalent to an automatized search of all peoples conversations all the time, just because it's automatized and done local on the phone doesn't make it not a search. Which means it's pretty much unconstitutional.
It's also probably not very useful as when it is people knowingly committing crime with YT access will know about it and will know how to work around it.
And outside of cases of people which know they are doing illegal things and therefore take precautions it's unlikely to make a relevant difference I think.
Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats
#45The commission does not seek to break encryption Okay. Encryption is not only important to protect private communication, but would also help perpetrators/criminals No. It is there to protect us from perpetrators, criminals and all the people which think they are on the good side. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Authoritarian regimes on our planet always thought they were the "good guys". Encryption i…
>No.
Assume for sake of argument that it were possible to develop an encryption regime which protected bona fide users, but did not protect criminals. That would be a good thing.
As a matter of public policy, criminals shouldn't be given the right to communicate for the sake of furthering criminal activity without the possibility of lawful interception. It's here that some technologists lose sight of the real world. In the real world, society expects that authorities be able to fight crime using proportionate means.
The real issue is that you can't separate the two from each other - weakening encryption for criminals means weakening it for everyone.
Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats
#46That old adage " if you've nothing to hide, then you've nothing to fear " is oft berated in these sort of discussions, but it really does apply here. This regulation is for the purposes of criminal investigation into serious harms against children, not for spying on whatever innocuous messages you happen to be sharing with friends and family. The privacy fears are being way overblown for us ordinary people. Paedophil…
Quoted post unavailable.
No need to be so rude.
From the law enforcement side, that is the system working as it should - the police investigated and cleared him of any wrongdoing.
That Google can close someone's account for any reason and without any recourse is a wider issue, and one separate to this EU regulation.
Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats
#47Important to note that this is not 10% of all messages being falsely flagged (= 10% false positive rate), but 10% of flagged messages being false positives (= 90% precision). As someone who works with these types of classification problems in a different context, 90% precision is actually quite good - especially assuming there is some sort of manual review process to take care of the 10%. Whether that makes this whol…
For a moment, consider that you're running a company that supports some form of user communication.
How much time and money are you willing to risk in a gray area considering all the legalese? Google doesn't seem to be willing whatsoever: https://archive.ph/W41mf
Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats
#48How many EU beaureaucrats got their training in East Germany, I wonder?
Or is it rather that they are too young and do not know about/remember what constant surveillance does to trust in a society?
Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats
#49So the TL;DR is the EU Commission wants to implement surveillance in Chat applications to "protect and combat sexual abuse of minors", because nobody is against "combating sexual abuse of minors", right?
Probably later they extend that to "protect and combat right wing opinion", because nobody is against "combating the right wing opinion", or even "protect and combat the climate changes", because "Who are against it", right?
Sounds like the a lot of "paranoid people" were just right, i guess?
Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats
#50Which messenger do we switch to if this goes in? I don't think I'd have an issue convincing people. Is Signal subject to this? Telegram? Do we need something "less mainstream"?
Will this go in actually? It's quite unclear to me (esp. not knowing anything about how EU las making/passing works). IIRC last time Chat Control passed here it sounded as if all of this was still in proposal state, or something like that. Whereas on https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/messaging-and-chat-co... one can clearly read things like
All of your chat conversations and emails will be automatically searched for suspicious content