Live data from Hacker News

Chat Control passed first round in EU Parliament

heise.de

201–210 of 282 posts

Re: Chat Control passed first round in EU Parliament

#201
Heinrich Heine, 1848 (Vormai) penned this:

"Memories from Krähwinkels days of terror" (my translation - the original is of course leages better)

   We, Burgomaster and Senate,
   Are hereby proclaiming this mandate,
   With great paternal care addressed
   To all classes, east and west.
 
   'Tis mostly nasty foreign folk,
   Who brashly dared to wildly stoke
   Rebellion. Such sinners, let us pray to God,
   Are seldom born upon our sod.
 
   There too are atheists, you will find;
   Those who leave their God behind,
   Who, in the end, will be as prone
   To defy our own earthly throne.

   Obeying authority is the key
   For Jew and Christian, bond and free.
   Let everyone close up their shop
   When twilight falls, head home chop chop.
 
   If three are gathered in the street,
   They must disperse with flying feet.
   And after dark, upon the lane,
   No lightless soul shall walk again.

   All weapons must promptly be surrendered
   To the Guildhall, to be tendered;
   And every sort of ammunition
   Is subject to the same condition.

   Who argues in the street shall face
   A firing squad in an open place;
   Arguing with gestures also must,
   Be punished harshly, as is just.
 
   Put your trust in the Magistrate,
   Who guards the pious, loving state
   Through gracious rule, most wise and kind;
   Your duty: simply to not mind.



It's sad to see we pretty much have forgotten the history leading to this poem and how we are reverting so much as a society.

Re: Chat Control passed first round in EU Parliament

#202
post #196

Even if you are not in the EU, this will affect you. Some countries really like to copy such regulations from others. Once services starts complying, other governments will go like "if you did for them, you can do it for us, right? so it's not technically impossible", and things only get worse from there. Not all services will simply block the EU as well, which would be better to send a stronger message if approved.…

This is existing regulation being extended. It allows sites to scan messages. Not mandates. These kind of responses is why it is hard to trust privacy advocates on HN. They are high on rhetorics, but half the time dont know what they are talking about.

Yes - this allowed companies like Google, Facebook, Snapchat etc to do what they already do (voluntarily) in the US and other territories - scan unencrypted user-uploaded or shared media for matches against NCMEC hashes, and image classifiers trained to find novel CSAM.

When you hear of "person arrested after NCMEC cyber tip" that's what this enables - people sharing or storing CSAM that was caught by this scanning, reported to NCMEC, and then sent to local authorities.

I have zero problems with Chat Control 1.0 as the existing derogation brought the EU into line with the rest of the world. Chat Control 2.0 is problematic however, but again, is not what's being voted on here.

Re: Chat Control passed first round in EU Parliament

#203
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I want to know specifically.

As I understand it, chat platforms provider will not be held in violation of the data privacy laws if they add automatic detection and reporting of unlawful content to their platforms. E.G. a CSAM detector in a client app for an end-to-end-encrypted messaging service would be lawful.

Chat Control 1.0 is essentially the existing derogation that allowed cloud providers and messaging apps to do what they do in the rest of the world - voluntarily scan shared media against NCMEC hashes and novel CSAM image classifiers.

We're not talking about E2EE here, we're talking people sharing CSAM on Kik, or Snapchat, or sending it via gmail, or uploading it to DropBox etc. etc.

Re: Chat Control passed first round in EU Parliament

#204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think their point is that you lose some battles in a war, chat Control 1.0 is a battle that was already lost. While it is still worthwhile to make an effort to retake lost ground there, that can be done strategically and through habitual effort and does not demand immediate attention the same way an imminent threat of losing new ground would be

> chat Control 1.0 is a battle that was already lost That’s not true, the previous instance of it expired, and the parliament rejected it. It wasn’t already lost, it was actually a win for people against the proposal

>That’s not true,

my bad then, i misunderstood the context

Re: Chat Control passed first round in EU Parliament

#205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that you're trying to dunk on me but I don't get what the point is supposed to be. It's certainly possible to come up with other bad ways to ask the question. If someone was interested in genuinely understanding the public's opinion, rather than including a demand to take some particular perspective, they would ask things like "Do you support online platforms scanning all personal messages for child porn…

I suppose the gold standard would be to present detailed arguments from each side with evidence (if any), for context. Barring that, the original question did seem to provide a rough summary of each side’s position. It may be weighted towards the anti Chat Control side, with the formulation “pro says this, but anti says this, and imagine that you are affected”. So perhaps they could have asked a reverse formulation 5…

What scanning means, and how that might affect people and society, are precisely the issues in dispute. A poll which tries to provide arguments and evidence about contested issues cannot yield meaningful results. To pursue this line of reasoning, for example:

> Your context-free formulation on the other hand provides no information for voters to weigh. Privacy or child porn detection? Well I guess I’ll pick child porn detection. Oh, you wanted to do what to my privacy? Never mind!

you might ask questions like "How comfortable would you be with your personal mobile provider scanning your chats for child porn?" or "What would you consider to be an acceptable accuracy rate for such a scanner?". Then you could reasonably infer that respondents who say "not comfortable" or "90-100%" oppose Chat Control, because Chat Control will perform such scans and they're not 90% accurate. (Someone else who thinks the scans are 90% accurate might respond that your interpretation is wrong, but this dispute would not call the poll results themselves into question.)

Re: Chat Control passed first round in EU Parliament

#206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how democratic of the EU. Really, it's not the first time the EU pulls that kind of shite off. And summertime is the perfect time, in Europe everyone's at the beach. They even managed to find a work around an actual referendum.

It’s the council. We have to be clear which institution we are talking about within the EU, otherwise that doesn’t make any sense. The European Parliament already pushed back that proposal. The EU is made of a lot of different actors with their own agenda. Here the council, with the help of the EPP party is doing that undemocratic maneuvering: They made it on purpose so that the parliament is unlikely to be able to p…

> The European Parliament already pushed back that proposal. The EU is made of a lot of different actors with their own agenda.

It doesn't matter how the European parliament voted.

https://www.politico.eu/article/president-vs-parliament-robe...

Re: Chat Control passed first round in EU Parliament

#207
> Meta, Google or Microsoft ... to voluntarily search private chats, emails, and messenger services for material related to [excuse]

Look, there are no private chats on any platform or app provided by Meta, Google or Microsoft. They are known to send a copy of everything at least to the US government (the Snowden revelation). So, what's it to them to also do searches on behalf of European authorities? Plus, what do you mean, you don't want to? Are you for the pedophiles? Maybe you're a pedophile yourself! Search his chat logs, tout de suite!

We must really get the people around us to stop using WhatsApp, Teams, GMail, and all of that junk. There are excellent alternatives - we are only a laziness' reach away from actual half-decent privacy.

Re: Chat Control passed first round in EU Parliament

#208

“We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.” And “If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue'.” - Jean-Claude Juncker

And the worse part is: they do that because the alternative means you're building a railway on a surface tunnel because some people don't like it (or worse, not building anything)

Most infrastructure in Europe predates the EU by quite a bit

Re: Chat Control passed first round in EU Parliament

#209

Even if you are not in the EU, this will affect you. Some countries really like to copy such regulations from others. Once services starts complying, other governments will go like "if you did for them, you can do it for us, right? so it's not technically impossible", and things only get worse from there. Not all services will simply block the EU as well, which would be better to send a stronger message if approved.…

Centralized messaging services won't last long, their capture is sadly inevitable. In the long run, only self-hosted/decentralized protocols can resist what's coming. In the meantime though, Signal specifically should not do something stupid like blocking the EU, which is basically surrender. They are a non-profit headquartered in the US, so there are zero business risks to non-compliance - nothing in the EU to fine…

Signal is quite likely to fail on account being a single organizational entity running the service and refusing to adapt their protocol for federation. In fact, it might already have happened (partially) and you wouldn't know, because they're US-based. The US has the National Security Letters mechanism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter

the government can compel entities to let them access their systems and keep it a secret.

Also, if Signal runs on AWS, that is another potential vector of surveillance.

Re: Chat Control passed first round in EU Parliament

#210

From a post on Mastodon: > democracy is when you repeatedly push for unpopular laws until they pass, and the more times you do it the more democratic it is It is unlikely that 60 additional “no” votes can be found by Thursday to stop this.

They only have to win once. You have to win every time.

I want them to win. The internet is stupid right now. A culture eating its own tail.
Post reply on HN