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

EU now one step away from reviving private message scanning rules

cyberinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 194 posts

Re: EU now one step away from reviving private message scanning rules

#41

Post by AshamedCaptain »

Cider9986 wrote: post #35
inigyou wrote: post #16

The Chat Control 1.0 rule is simply that organisations like Meta are allowed to scan messages if they want to. In other words your Facebook messages are not private from Facebook. Surely we already knew and expected that. Chat Control 2.0 is the worrying one because it mandates scanning and bans E2EE. These two things should not have both been given the same branding.

The name "Chat Control" is great because it implies a lockdown on free speech and the exact consequences that are going to happen to everyone.

I think the name is meaningless to the average layman, therefore useless. Something like "(private) chat police" would probably transmit what this is about but is not as catchy.

Re: EU now one step away from reviving private message scanning rules

#42

Post by inigyou »

Cider9986 wrote: post #35
inigyou wrote: post #16

The Chat Control 1.0 rule is simply that organisations like Meta are allowed to scan messages if they want to. In other words your Facebook messages are not private from Facebook. Surely we already knew and expected that. Chat Control 2.0 is the worrying one because it mandates scanning and bans E2EE. These two things should not have both been given the same branding.

The name "Chat Control" is great because it implies a lockdown on free speech and the exact consequences that are going to happen to everyone.

That's suitable for Chat Control 2.0. Applying the same name to v1 just muddies the waters, probably intentionally..

Re: EU now one step away from reviving private message scanning rules

#43

Post by Cider9986 »

inigyou wrote: post #42
Cider9986 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The name "Chat Control" is great because it implies a lockdown on free speech and the exact consequences that are going to happen to everyone.

That's suitable for Chat Control 2.0. Applying the same name to v1 just muddies the waters, probably intentionally..

Agreed.

Re: EU now one step away from reviving private message scanning rules

#44

Post by spwa4 »

yubblegum wrote: post #18
artisinal wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps in the future cars will not only record your face but also listen in for hate speech. Most cars have SOS and GPS modules so calling the police if someone in the car shouts a slur is just connecting some code together.

Why do you think this is only going to be in Europe? This will be the global norm modulo some astroid hitting earth or civilizational crash. The trajectory is crystal clear: access to information (AI), control over personal finance (CBDC), privacy of personal communications (handful of big tech MITM in everything), metered social interactions (today China, tomorrow the world over).

Until the sun grows in a final blaze of glory and burns all Qurans at the same time for 100 million years?

Re: EU now one step away from reviving private message scanning rules

#45

Post by Cider9986 »

sscaryterry wrote: post #28
JoshTriplett wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the position can best be approximated as "companies should not be able to do this, but you should trust your government to do this to you". (That's a bad position that needs to be defeated every time it arises, but it's a consistent position.)

Given the choice of trust between, lets say Amazon/Meta/Google and the EU (or some European government), 9 times out of 10, the EU is the lesser evil.

You don't have to use Amazon/Meta/Google. You have to use the government.

Let's not forget that these are the people and laws that are supposed to represent and help you, not the other way around. While private companies have no such obligation.

Re: EU now one step away from reviving private message scanning rules

#46

Post by SiempreViernes »

watwut wrote: post #32
kubb wrote: post #29

When is it coming online? I have seen so many of these headlines that I feel it's always about to kick in, but I never get any closure.

This was online already. It is existing law that is being extended rather then expired.

Somewhat unsurprisingly too, since the negotiations about a more comprehensive CSAM legislation (the one that now doesn't contain chat control 2.0) isn't done yet.

Re: EU now one step away from reviving private message scanning rules

#47

Post by john_strinlai »

inigyou wrote: post #16

The Chat Control 1.0 rule is simply that organisations like Meta are allowed to scan messages if they want to. In other words your Facebook messages are not private from Facebook. Surely we already knew and expected that. Chat Control 2.0 is the worrying one because it mandates scanning and bans E2EE. These two things should not have both been given the same branding.

>These two things should not have both been given the same branding.

the confusion is purposeful, because it is easier to convince people that 1.0 is okay, which makes 2.0 appear like a version bump of the same thing.

Re: EU now one step away from reviving private message scanning rules

#48

Post by spwa4 »

kubb wrote: post #29

When is it coming online? I have seen so many of these headlines that I feel it's always about to kick in, but I never get any closure.

2 August 2021.

It already was in force, and EU states are presumably using it right now despite that being illegal. Only to protect the children, of course.

Re: EU now one step away from reviving private message scanning rules

#50

Post by sscaryterry »

Cider9986 wrote: post #45
sscaryterry wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the choice of trust between, lets say Amazon/Meta/Google and the EU (or some European government), 9 times out of 10, the EU is the lesser evil.

You don't have to use Amazon/Meta/Google. You have to use the government. Let's not forget that these are the people and laws that are supposed to represent and help you , not the other way around. While private companies have no such obligation.

Amazon/Meta/Google is sometimes required, nobody in the real world can get away from that.

> supposed to represent and help you, not the other way around. While private companies have no such obligation.

Exactly my point.

Post reply on HN