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

311–320 of 385 posts

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#311

Post by xiphias2 »

cbg0 wrote: post #291
worldsayshi wrote: post #220

> 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.

You need open hardware and open software at that point and you won't be able to use government identification as they depend on closed source parts of the Android ecosystem. Also you need identification for side loading apps at some point.

Non of these laws stop you from opting out of surveillance, but altogether it gets so hard that at some point you get more suspicious and tracked if you do all this than if you don't do any of these.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#312

Post by cbg0 »

xiphias2 wrote: post #311
cbg0 wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How would these laws prevent me from just side loading my own open source client? They do not.

You need open hardware and open software at that point and you won't be able to use government identification as they depend on closed source parts of the Android ecosystem. Also you need identification for side loading apps at some point. Non of these laws stop you from opting out of surveillance, but altogether it gets so hard that at some point you get more suspicious and tracked if you do all this than if you don…

Assuming these concerns were real you could just turn the app into a website.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#313

Post by fc417fc802 »

vrganj wrote: post #304
fc417fc802 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My intent wasn't to ask about that specific meeting but rather about the reported positions of the individuals involved. No matter how reputable I wouldn't want to take a single source as fact when the claim is that someone secretly holds reprehensible views in private that contradict what he says in public. Setting aside the other attendees wikipedia more than covers sellner in that regard.

"Hiding your power levels" is a key strategy of the neofascist right. Make yourself look reasonable until you have enough power to do the despicable. This explains why they are publicly denying what they are plotting in private. Here's some choice quotes, translated to English. "We must proceed completely peacefully and deliberately, adapt if necessary and butter up the opponent [literally: smear honey on their mouth…

Based on the political extremes in the US I had figured AfD would have its share of somewhat unsavory characters but this is almost comical. Are you sure the germans haven't confused meeting minutes and disney scripts? (I say, but then look at who we managed to elect.)

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#315

Post by pembrook »

like_any_other wrote: post #230
pembrook wrote: post #115

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…

> is done solely for the purpose of trying to get you to voluntarily buy more toilet bowl cleaner. And to steal tips [1], lower your salary [2,3], charge you more [3,4], and limit how you may use "your" property [5]. I'm sure there are many I've missed. Oh and how could I forget - to smear you if you stand in their way [6]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DoorDash#Withholding_of_tips_a... (try doing that when tips…

Oh the horror, they might try to lower your salary forcing you to find another competing employer!

Meanwhile governments wield enough power to destroy the entire world 100X over, and are currently shoveling young boys into the meat grinder of war to be slaughtered by the thousands every day.

As a left-leaning forum, HN has a giant blind spot re: government power vs. corporate power. I'm trying to point this out.

Yes, companies can abuse their power. But their power pales in comparison to government power.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#316

Post by pembrook »

sensanaty wrote: post #267
pembrook wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 pow…

Yeah 'cause we've never had private corporations like Coca Cola or Chiquita Bananas hire paramilitary forces in South America before. Both large gov't and large corpo are horrible and both should be equally avoided.

So your position is that, because Coca Cola once funded paramilitary action in South America...companies are a worse threat to us than governments?

You don't seem able to hold two ideas in your head.

Yes, companies can abuse their power. Yes, governments can abuse their power.

However, the power wielded by governments is on a whole different scale, so the capacity for abuse and atrocity is exponentially larger (governments have killed millions and can literally destroy the entire world with firepower 100X over).

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#317

Post by vaylian »

dtj1123 wrote: post #212
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.

I thought this was known as Bonferonni'a principle? Or am I getting mixed up?

Bonferonni correction is relevant when you calculate multiple p-values. Most statistical tests are used with a p-value threshold of 5% to reject the null-hypothesis. But because you are repeatedly testing, the probability for false positives increases and that is why you need to decrease the threshold and make it harder, to obtain a p-value below that threshold to declare a significant result.

You typically use the Bonferroni correction when making general statements about a statistical relationship. You wouldn't use it for checking if a particular image shows illegal content. If you kept testing with your image classifier, your significance threshold would need to be continuously lowered and you would asymptotically reach zero.

Relevant XKCD: 882

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#319

Post by pembrook »

berkes wrote: post #294
pembrook wrote: post #115

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…

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,…

This is actually a fantastic example of the blindspot I'm talking about.

You fundamentally are unable to judge risk correctly due to your political bias.

You're even admitting the risk of companies harvesting data is that it may fall in the hands of governments.

Yet you still think a private company lobbying to reduce taxes is a greater threat than your government wielding enough firepower to kill millions of people and destroy the entire world.

Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

#320

Post by asdewqqwer »

joenot443 wrote: post #310
berkes wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Governments have a monopoly on violence, companies generally do not. This fact alone makes the comparison you’re trying to make pretty silly. You have far, far more to fear from the country from which you’re a citizen than the company for which you’re a customer. Read more history.

Read Second Amendment.

Also, governments consists of a large amount of human each acting for their own benefit. Assuming they can easily collectively united as a single force to use violence to harm all citizen (on the topic of privacy, it really is the case) suddenly is wild.

On the contrary, for a limited government, it very likely will result in using the monopoly of violence to provide extreme capitalism style IP and private property protection which results in dominating power of large companies. On the other hand, every bit of history demonstrated you can never maintain monopoly of violence if you are really against people.

Monopoly on economic is strong because it can be guarded by violence, while violence cannot be easily guarded by itself within a country (unless AI overlord really comes).

Read more history.

Post reply on HN