Do any of the EU countries have a legal history of having the right to privacy enshrined in law and custom?
Like all "rights" in Europe, they are only rights when it's politically convenient.
Majority of EU countries support scanning of audio communications
41–50 of 55 posts
Re: Majority of EU countries support scanning of audio communications
#42This just proves that all communications need to be made E2EE in order to preserve privacy & security, with no carveouts for law enforcement: Any avenue that is carved out for the State will be used by malicious actors, both within the State (that don't want to leave any paper trails) and outside of the State.
Re: Majority of EU countries support scanning of audio communications
#43It's sad that "think of the children" is still argument that works on some dumbasses.
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 naïveté 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.
While CSAM is indeed a problem, it's not a technical but a societal one. Fighting this on the technical side wont't work (other countries already tried and failed to do so).
As big of a problem as CSAM may be, failing to acknowledging that tech can't be the sole solution has to be either a sign of malice or incompetence.
Re: Majority of EU countries support scanning of audio communications
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 naïveté 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.
> 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…
Abusers are often close relatives, family friends, or stereotypically trustworthy figures like pastors, but both child porn and sometimes children are trafficked.
I don't have stats off the top of my head, but it's possible, albeit labor-intensive, to make some inferences. Many child porn cases are prosecuted at the federal level because electronic communications are a kind of interstate commerce. By digging through PACER and similar legal databases, it's not too hard to build a corpus of criminal complaints. The really labor intensive part (although ML and other methods help to shorten it) is parsing the legalistic documents to extract information about which platforms most easily facilitate contact and negotiations between peers (CSAM enthusiasts) and targets (unwary kids preyed upon by unscrupulous adults).
It might also be possible to extract information on prosecutions resulting from a report or fortuitous discovery of CSAM-related activity, and that involving sting operations by law enforcement.
Re: Majority of EU countries support scanning of audio communications
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
Law enforcement is only a tool for punishment of offenders, it in no way "protects children" because the offense has already occurred.
This shows an ignorance of how law enforcement operates in this space. Sometimes it is retroactive as you say, but often it is preemptive. For example, cops sometimes go looking on social media platforms for people soliciting CSAM, strike up a relationship, and talk people who take the bait into a physical meeting, at which point they pull out the badge and a warrant and examine the target's phone for evidence of existing possession. Another approach when potential crimes are reported (eg by a parent who discovers someone attempting to seduce their kid) is to silently take over the victim's role in the conversation and lure the would-be predator into a meeting, at which point the cuffs come out.
Anecdotal example, but this is seems to be the opposite of wanting to "protect children"
Yes, but what of it? This is a fallacy of composition, which assumes that failures or perverse legal outcomes are all part of some twisted masterplan designed to strip away freedoms. It's just cope, like the arguments in the wake of mass shootings that they are all secretly engineered by the FBI, based on the fact that the FBI or other law enforcement agencies sometimes fail to act on warning signs that seem obvious with hindsight.
Re: Majority of EU countries support scanning of audio communications
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 naïveté 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.
There is no problem, there has never been a problem, and there never will be a problem. It has always without exceptions been a moral panic encouraged and nurtured by established interests to support their urge for more and more control.
Paranoid bullshit, easily disproved by the fact of people serving very long prison sentences based on an abundance of evidence. These cases are generally not that hard to prosecute because offenders typically have a wildly distorted risk calculus and either incriminate themselves to someone they imagine shares their tastes, or because search warrants turn up a ton of physical evidence - sometimes quite literally: https://cbs12.com/news/local/child-pornography-arrest-paul-z...
Re: Majority of EU countries support scanning of audio communications
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
> Law enforcement is only a tool for punishment of offenders, it in no way "protects children" because the offense has already occurred.
Offenders only ever do it once?
Re: Majority of EU countries support scanning of audio communications
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Law enforcement is only a tool for punishment of offenders, it in no way "protects children" because the offense has already occurred. This shows an ignorance of how law enforcement operates in this space. Sometimes it is retroactive as you say, but often it is preemptive. For example, cops sometimes go looking on social media platforms for people soliciting CSAM, strike up a relationship, and talk people who take th…
Excellent points on #1, thanks for mentioning, I'll take those examples on board.
Regarding #2, I'm in no way conspiratorial about it, but it's a single data point in the opposite direction, which points to a lack of resources or a well thought out over-arching plan to solve the problem. None of that is conspiracy, it's reality, but it's also embarassing to 'policy', and should be pointed out as such. (I'm in no way saying they're trying to encourage, not at all).
Re: Majority of EU countries support scanning of audio communications
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
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... )
Very interesting. Does this apply to the Dutch "dragnet" surveillance law too? https://aboutintel.eu/update-dutch-dragnet-act/
In principle, yes. In practice, no. National security is a matter of the member states. Note that the right to privacy is also in the Dutch constitution. From the little I know, the oversight mechanism in the Netherlands seems to be working to some extent but there are still plenty of caveats:
https://aboutintel.eu/ctivd-bulk-datasets-held-by-intel-need...
Re: Majority of EU countries support scanning of audio communications
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 twee…
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/ev…
I agree with the point about the hypocrisy around all these things. It just fuels straight into the distrust machine.
But I am not sure whether it is about jealousy of the US as such, but perhaps more about alleged or real fears about the domestic instability of the US, its commitment to Europe, and the shifting landscape in the great power politics game. Therefore, there are already open proposals to create a "European CIA":
https://ksr.hkspublications.org/2023/04/06/if-you-want-peace...