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

181–190 of 385 posts

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#181

Post by SXX »

pqtyw wrote: post #72
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…

Apple's proposal was only for photos being uploaded to iCloud and not local ones. IIRC weren't there some thoughts that they'd switch iCloud to E2E but add local scanning on upload (compare to what it currently when Apple, Google, etc. freely scan all your cloud photos anyway). That didn't seem like a terrible deal on paper.

E2EE on iCloud with advanced data protectiob still keeps metadata not encrypted likely exactly for this purpose.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#182

Post by on_the_train »

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

#183

Post by matheusmoreira »

keraf wrote: post #157

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.

It was never about children. They're just using children as political weapons to justify their 1984 panopticon dictatorships.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#184

Post by earth-tattoo »

bpbp-mango wrote: post #179
ribosometronome wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Especially by voting in a party that says it will do it. That's democracy, right?

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#185

Post by gls2ro »

petre wrote: post #15
joe_mamba wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but expecting EU to clean up after the US shooting itself in the foot Please don't pretend to misunderstand a point just to manufacture the opportunity to reply in bad faith. Nobody in EU is saying the EU should clean up others' mess around the world, people are just saying the EU should be busy building domestic capacity and capabilities to insulate itself from the issues caused by others around the world, such as…

[flagged]

I would assume the actual reality of what can be done that is also respecting individual country needs and the EU ad a whole is at least an extra level of complexity than the reduction of those agreements.

Add to that the risk that every diminishing level of comfort for a population in EU seems to bring new percentages for extremist parties.

The second order and third order effects of any decision are too big and almost everyone posting EU should do is most probably wrong in ways they dont even know about. That does not mean we should not debate but we should slow down a bit the extreme choices and try to be a bit more understanding of various details.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#187

Post by Asmod4n »

wesammikhail wrote: post #113
cortesoft wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, and this is a perfect example of a base rate fallacy situation... even if the scanner is 99.99% accurate, because an even higher percentage of photos are innocent, most matches the scanner will find will be false positives.

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 system we got for this is called parenting.

And there is a saying where I grew up: you need a village to raise a kid, I feel like we lost track of that and feel the issues of that now.

Btw, von der leyen is trying to get stuff like this written down as laws since 2009, it got her the nickname Zensursula.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#188

Post by athrowaway3z »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #173
inigyou wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are other (voices in other) parties that want to expel/restrict foreigners. There is a spectrum, and the AfD holds a rather large portion of the people tentatively agreeing with what you call misrepresentation.

How many people of their party must make such statements while being welcome in the party, for it to not be misinformation/misrepresentation.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#190

Post by budududuroiu »

shevy-java wrote: post #70

Lobbyists control the EU. So much is clear to everyone now. I think there is no way to fix this system from the inside - it is designed to be abused like that. We need an alternative system.

Even if there was no lobbying or corruption, the EU is structurally flawed: the Council, which is made up of 27 mandates that were given for local politics, is used by nations to launder their domestically unpopular laws through an EU indirection layer, the Commission has no electoral link (VDL was appointed, when afaik the Parliament should nominate a Commission President), the Parliament, the legislative body, has no legislative initiative, and despite rejecting laws drafted by the Commission, as we've seen, those laws can be forced through indefinitely until the Commission gets the rubber stamp it needs.
Post reply on HN