Live data from Hacker News

Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

fightchatcontrol.eu

291–300 of 385 posts

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#291

> Is scanning mandatory? - No — voluntary. Voluntary for whom? The service provider? Can I opt out of getting scanned? > Does it touch encrypted messages? - No. End-to-end encrypted communications were never scanned but providers could deploy client-side scanning under this law. So it circumvents e2e encryption? --- How would these laws prevent me from just side loading my own open source client?

> How would these laws prevent me from just side loading my own open source client?

They do not.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#292
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.

I mean, yeah. They push some things that would help - to sell its ideas to peole, but in the end if they got to power they would tripple down and do horrible things.

If the german government and its parties actually listened to people, the AFD would have like 5% and would be non issue. Same with all extremist parties tht try to latch on some idea to get voted in.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#293

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…

i think a good general rule is anyone with ultimate power over some area (president, lawmakers, supreme court judges) should be elected. thats anyone whos decisions cant be reversed by someone else above them. those who make final but reversible decisions (pm, ministers, heads of military and intelligence) should be directly appointed by someone who was elected. if you allow indirect appointments to important positions you get a corrupt undemocratic government.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#294
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it's privacy from private companies. The government still needs to see everything you do just in case. Its not like you have anything to do hide? Do you?

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…

Companies fall under the government. So what a company harvests (to sell more toilet bowl cleaner), is accessible to the government it falls under.

By that logic, you should fear companies at least as much as their governments when handing them your data.

But companies have additional goals: to increase profit. Which can be achieved by selling more toilet bowl cleaner. But also by externalising harm/pollution/costs, monopolising, reducing taxes, etc. All of which harm you, personally.

So, sure, worry about governments. But worry more about (big) companies. Read more history.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#295
post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I don't believe it does. I interpret 99.9% accurate to mean 1 in 1000 false positives. If 0.1% of your population are terrorists that means each alert has a 50% chance of being correct. That's nowhere near good enough to fully automate things but it is quite reasonable assuming this is merely information provided to a human agent . Whereas if only 0.001% of your population are terrorists then 99 out of 100 alerts…

You're right it doesn't. At least not completely. I was thinking about precision (i.e.: if the test is positive, what are the odds that its prediction is true). It turns out, that accuracy is not defined as "true positive / (true pos. + true neg.)", but "correct predictions / all predictions". The whole point of OP's statement: "It's kind o remarkable how even a 99.9% accurate heuristic is insufficient at scale.", wh…

I think we largely agree about being opposed to chat control however we seem to disagree somewhat about the underlying reasoning leading us to that conclusion.

> even a small relative frequency of errors will yield an unsustainably high absolute frequncy of errors.

That depends entirely on the rate of true positives in the general population and the rate at which the test successfully catches them. If the success rate is reasonably high and the rate of true positives is within one base ten order of magnitude of the rate of false positives then regardless of volume the stream of reports would be expected to prove quite useful.

To put this in concrete terms, if 1 billion messages are scanned, there are 100 violations, 99 of those violations are successfully detected, and there are an additional 1000 false positives reported, then you've got about a 10% hit rate when examining reports. That would provide a genuinely useful starting point.

But it's not at all clear that we can expect numbers like that. Both because the scanners are likely much worse but also because criminals can't reasonably be expected to stick around on conforming platforms in the event that such measures are enacted.

Even if the reports were 100% accurate I'd still be opposed to it on ideological grounds. I don't think pervasive surveillance of that nature is compatible in the long term with a free and democratic system of government.

> Both you and they explain this by throwing numbers without context in combination with slightly inaccurate definitions.

It was my intent to provide reasoning for all the numbers I put forward. They were meant as examples.

As to definitions I wasn't going by anything formal. I tried to spell out exactly what I meant by each term. Apologies if I wasn't entirely clear about that. Regardless, the precise definitions of the terms aren't what matters here. It's the practical end result - what percentage of the alerts are false?

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#296
post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the US wanted to install a breathalyzer in every car a few years back. How is this supposed to prove anything?

That was a law in France from 2012 to 2020 too (breathalyzer needs to be on board). It was not on European level and it has been removed.

That offensive law (every car owner must keep a breathalizer item in the vehicle ready for use) was famous in the "issued but not enforced" category.

But the mandate to keep "equipment" in the car is very different from kill-switches depending on sensors and embedded in electronics - the poster seems to have meant this.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at this other piece in the frontpage: > Every new car sold in the European Union must include a driver monitoring camera (allaboutcookies.org) the eu should never have been born. The above are its results - and just an example. How do we fix that disaster?

by educating our fellow co-citizens about who to vote for. This is not an issue of the EU, but about the politicians in power and them caving in on lobbyists from economy side and fascists

That translates to "capillary education, to the point of fixing structural systemic issues", measure needed generations ago.

We have damages now. The car systems destroyed. How would we be able to fix that, to revert from that and the rest of the damages - which they are carrying on perpetrating as we speak, inventing new.

This is not any more a matter of prevention, it is a matter of fixing the past and preventing the future predictable damages.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#298
post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the US wanted to install a breathalyzer in every car a few years back. How is this supposed to prove anything?

> [they] wanted Did they? That makes a good amount of difference, you know. Especially when "they" may be a vocal exception. > How is this supposed to prove anything Prove what. Nothing seems to be disproven. Edit: look, if you were trying to negate a "bad A" through an "(also) bad B", review and revise your logic. Which is important because that non-argument has been exploited to bend the political opinion of street…

> Did they?

Look, this was a headline I recalled seeing in the news. I do not live in the US, and honestly I'm kinda tired of hearing as much about your (?) politics. If I hadn't used the uncertainty qualifier, I would have been lying.

That said, I believe it did pass almost unanimously, coming into effect in 2027 or something. The law in question required all cars come equipped with intoxication detection systems and refuse to start failing that check.

> vocal exception

I'm not from there, yet even I can tell the system is as broken as it could be. There are two parties funded by almost the same oligarchs, one advocating for open fascism and the other aimlessly laundering elite interests in nominal progressivism, while being more concerned with exterminating actual leftists within than tackling their opposition. You've steadily passed age verification in most major states, followed by a bipartisan federal bill.

Your system does the same thing as EU-steadily laundering corporate agenda into legislation. At least in most of the EU, this shared disease hasn't progressed into the stage of eroding so much of workers rights and basic environmental protections. But with the recent populist currents, I can imagine the median voter will vote for their starvation if only to spite the brown people.

> Bad Springfield hence not bad Vernapool

The argument that started this thread was that the EU itself needs to be entirely abolished because it produces laws of this nature.

If you apply that same standard, do you think cessation is what the US states should do too? Well, these same laws easily pass into state legislation too. All you'd be doing is delaying the inevitable, if you don't cut the problem at its root.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#299
post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's so undemocratic if current inhabitants of some land do not want foreign culture influence in their society?

Who said it's undemocratic? Throwing out citizens because of some birth attribute they can not influence could be seen as inhumane. Would you think it's ok to throw out everybody with a certain eye color?

You said "foreign culture", now you are moving goalposts. Culture is not birth attribute.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#300
post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. If the scanner is 99.99% accurate, then most classifications will be correct.

How many child abusers do you think there are out there?

Even if 10% of population were actively criminal pedos (which is waaaay too high), its pretty safe to assume that the majority of even their online footprint would be ordinary images/messages.

So a quota of 0.1% or even less material being detectably criminal sounds realistic (probably not much less, though).

Post reply on HN