Live data from Hacker News

Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

fightchatcontrol.eu

171–180 of 385 posts

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#171
post #125
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Maybe don't trust AI so much. Obviously the fascists don't put their most odious ideas in writing, they plan them in secret instead. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/19/turmoil-in-ger...

> discuss removing asylum seekers

Those aren't citizens though? I don't agree with their ideals but lets please be honest about what they do and don't support.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#172
post #116
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I see nothing here rebuking the above claim. Maybe you would’ve had better luck coming up with something if you had bothered to write it yourself.

The claim was that they want to deport citizens. The above list does not contain any entries that correspond to citizens. So unless you believe the above list to be incomplete or somehow otherwise in error it is a sound refutation of the original claim.

I'm inclined to vouch for the comment however I'm not clear if the self admitted AI copy and paste is in keeping with the current HN guidelines.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#173
post #89

[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.

This appears to be blatant misinformation. They want to expel various noncitizens and remove or restrict various pathways to citizenship. It's important not to misrepresent others even when you vehemently disagree with them.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#174

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. Meanwhile, Governments can take away your freedom, block your right to speech, ruin your entire life, seize your private assets/wealth, take away your children, deport you, etc...all depending on how the cultural wind is blowin…

Your comment seems to frame this as a "two sides issue" as if it was a see-saw and you can only move back and forth between one side and the other with no room for nuance or alternate directions. Governments can do a lot of things that hurt you, this is a consequence of having power. Giant Corporations can also hurt you because they also have power. In general I would agree that say, walmart, is mostly interested in…

> Your comment seems to frame this as a "two sides issue" as if it was a see-saw and you can only move back and forth between one side and the other with no room for nuance or alternate directions.

No. My point is you should fear centralized power in general, and in exact proportion to the scope of the power being centralized. All power gets abused.

Governments are centralized power on a scale that makes the most powerful corporation on earth look like an ant. Historically AND currently, the worst atrocities come from governments, not companies.

Yet, internet discourse (and new legislation) over the past 10 years has pretended like the biggest threat to us re: data collection is private companies. They are indeed a threat. But they are NOWHERE near the scale of the threat that data collection by governments represents.

This blind spot is part of the reason mass surveillance legislation is being rolled out (largely successfully) everywhere right now.

For example, we've created such a boogieman out of facebook/social media (which, ironically, doesn't even exist anymore as people remember it) that it has manufactured consent among the public for governments building the infrastructure for 1984. A far greater threat to us than micro-targeted face cream ads ever were.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#175
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Platforms will stop offering E2EE . Didn't Instagram abandon E2EE ?

That is a much more simple prediction. I do use Telegram with our family claw-like and it does not do E2EE by default. You need to do a secret chat or whatever. I think you're probably right. We'll just lose E2EE.

E2EE has UX issues that are difficult to paper over aside from just legislation issues.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#176
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.

So the average person is having to set up an air gapped system to store normal family photos while while Epstein's clients and co conspirators communicate over plain text Gmail and for some reason we can't do anything about it.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#177
post #85
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…

You are correct in that both option 1 and 2 are possible. For end-to-end encrypted messages only option 2 is possible. The content will be scanned directly on your own device and the data will be sent to the authorities without your knowledge, if the software detects something suspicious. This is called client-side-scanning.

The proposed Apple system was at least more restrained in that it was looking to identify known abuse images. Which is better than the Google one which aims to identify new unseen content which constantly flags parents acting legally sharing photos to medical professionals.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#178
post #159
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

False result rate is a property of the test. They're describing predictive value, derived from that rate and population statistics.

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

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Your quote is very different from the situation you describe. Revoking citizenship is different than no pathway to citizenship. A pathway to citizenship is not open doors.

a country can change its mind though

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#180
post #37
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would be a pity if I had to have a separate analog camera just for baby photos because then I'd need to learn the whole developing film stuff. Polaroid coming back in business! I would not complain at all if we started reverting some of our lifestyle behaviors back to analog.

Haha, we do have those Instax Mini cameras. They make for a nice dose of nostalgia. We have a big frame full of photos of our friends and family on the wall and it's nice to walk by.

Same. We have albums full of those instax photos
Post reply on HN