Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

fightchatcontrol.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 385 posts

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#151

Post by earth-tattoo »

arjie wrote: post #31

I don't understand. How does it affect encrypted messages? It seems like either you need: 1. allow MITM decryption by a privileged authority 2. require all devices doing E2EE have a non-user-modifiable piece of functionality to scan on-device The second is the Apple style on-device CSAM scanner? I have to say that I do sometimes think about it while taking a photo of my baby playing in the bathtub - photos like my pa…

There are in betweens of an iphone and analog camera. You can use a digital camera with an SD card that you plug into a laptop that never connects to internet.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#152

Post by alethic »

nicce wrote: post #56
arjie wrote: post #31

I don't understand. How does it affect encrypted messages? It seems like either you need: 1. allow MITM decryption by a privileged authority 2. require all devices doing E2EE have a non-user-modifiable piece of functionality to scan on-device The second is the Apple style on-device CSAM scanner? I have to say that I do sometimes think about it while taking a photo of my baby playing in the bathtub - photos like my pa…

> The second is the Apple style on-device CSAM scanner? This is exactly what has been proposed. E.g. WhatsApp has a piece of code that scans images and texts before sending. After that, they are "encrypted".

This is of course a massive privacy violation, since the code that scans for CSAM can be switched out to scan for anything else at any time. (It's even easier to do now than when Apple first proposed it, as language models since have gotten good at reading images.)

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#153

Post by earth-tattoo »

inigyou wrote: post #89
delichon wrote: post #32

[flagged]

Alternative for Germany (Alternativ für Deutschland, AfD) is a party that wants to revoke citizenship of brown people and expel them from the country. There are very good reasons they should be banned. Their opposition to chat control is completely incidental.

[flagged]

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#154

Post by petcat »

rvz wrote: post #79
Zufriedenheit wrote: post #28

They claim to protect consumers and privacy and then push this creepy surveillance state.

You are now finally realizing what a trojan horse is.

You think USA is the Trojan Horse? Barak Obama said, in no uncertain terms, that Europe needed to mobilize and arm itself.

But of course Europe just ignored that warning. Like it anyways has.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#155

Post by protocolture »

pembrook wrote: post #150
protocolture wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I keep trying to explain to people that private companies harvesting your data, while not good, is done solely for the purpose of trying to get you to voluntarily buy more toilet bowl cleaner. I keep trying to explain to people that any data companies harvest, for whatever purpose, can then be accessed by the government, and that trying to draw distinctions in what is a big massive ouroboros is irrelevant. Even if y…

The root issue is still government having absurdly asymmetric power over you. If the government weren't legally able to use the toilet bowl cleaner companies data against you, it wouldn't matter. The problem is us giving governments the right to use this data against us (passports to access the internet, messages being under constant surveillance, etc.) In Europe we're happily handing over our rights every day so tha…

>The Root Issue

Look trying to separate them is foolhardy. Corporations exist due the limitation of corporate liability provided by government. There's no scenario where you have a corporation without government. A corporation will sell you out wholesale to continue having the right to make 100 bucks a year off of people.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#156

Post by greenleafone7 »

mikaeluman wrote: post #53

Most everyone would love to see more work on stopping child sexual abuse. But this is the ultimate "grant me dictatorial powers so I can do good" play. Rather than narrow and specific - it's a broad based law that suddenly touches everyone even though offenders are a small percentage and should be able to be targeted more efficiently.

In the list of people that are worried about children.... the government is at the very end.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#157

Post by keraf »

The same governments pushing for this type of regulation are also the ones that fail to condemn high profile individuals involved in the crimes that these regulation are supposed to help fight. Makes you really wonder if it's about protecting the children.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#159

Post by ablob »

m12k wrote: post #133
wesammikhail wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny you bring this up. Back in the day when I was like 15 and DC++ was still a thing, I used to browse people's shared folders. One day I came across a file called "the paradox of false positive". It was a 1 pager that described how a machine which is 99.9% accurate at identifying terrorists would be completely useless due to this false positive base rate fallacy you're describing. It really stuck with me throughou…

The intuition I've built is that you can't talk about a false positive rate being high or low on its own - it's always relative to the actual occurrence rate of positives in the tested population. E.g. if there's a 1 in 10000 risk of a false positive, but real positives also are only 1 out of 10000 tested cases, then a positive case will have a 50/50 chance of being a false positive (because for every 10000 tests, yo…

The mentioned accuracy in the comment you are replying to already encapsulates the relation of true positives to false positives.
Post reply on HN