Live data from Hacker News

EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

patrick-breyer.de

51–60 of 947 posts

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#51

The defence against this is widespread truly peer to peer messaging services, where there is no company at the middle to tell you add backdoors. Who is working on that? I suspect the main challenge is not technical, but human - persuading users to switch messenger apps is almost impossible.

Session was recently shut down due to lack of funding.

True P2P implies knowing the IP addresses of the people you're talking to.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#52
post #7
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slippery slope is fine and all but do you have any constructive argument?

Slippery slope is not a "fallacy" by default. It can be occasionally but its a perfectly reasonably argument in plenty of cases.

Sure, it's not a fallacy, but it does erode nuanced conversations and so it shouldn't be used without caution.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#53
> apps that are safe by design for children

How do we design such apps? Let's rule out age attestation (to allow only some age ranges) or scan of content because they are orthogonal to apps. What are the design patterns that prevent adults to meet kids? No messaging?

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#54
post #14

FTA: What changes with the return of Chat Control 1.0—and what stays the same: *What is coming back:* US tech companies are once again allowed to scan private messages without a warrant or prior suspicion. This affects direct messages on platforms like Instagram, Discord, Snapchat, Skype, and Xbox, as well as emails via Google’s Gmail and Apple’s iCloud. *What remains unchanged:* Public social media posts and files h…

[dead]

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#55

what are the actual consequences of that? they can read any Whatsapp encrypted chat? What changes?

FTA: > What changes with the return of Chat Control 1.0—and what stays the same: > What is coming back: US tech companies are once again allowed to scan private messages without a warrant or prior suspicion. This affects direct messages on platforms like Instagram, Discord, Snapchat, Skype, and Xbox, as well as emails via Google’s Gmail and Apple’s iCloud. > What remains unchanged: Public social media posts and files…

Discord recently had an AI malfunction that resulted in square grids getting detected as CSAM and reported to cops.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#56
post #2

And so, step by step, in the name of child protection and similar excuses, we lose liberties and rights one by one. Welcome to the Brave New 1984 We World. Big Brother loves us. We are living through the time best described by Zamyatin, Orwell, and Huxley.

Chat Control 2.0 is in the name of child protection. This one, 1.0, is just in the name of pleasing big tech.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#57
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Multiple things can be true at the same time. There can exist strong consumer protections against misuse of their personal data by various entities. And there can simultaneously also exist governmental overreach against citizens private data. The world is complex, few things are truly binary.

No, "strong digital privacy" and "governmental overreach against citizens private data" is mutually exclusive.

They're strong protections relative to most other jurisdictions, where there is no need to pass laws exceptionally allowing certain uses of private data, since such uses were never forbidden and sometimes are mandatory beyond what Chat Control 2.0 would mandate.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#58
post #7
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slippery slope is fine and all but do you have any constructive argument?

Slippery slope is not a "fallacy" by default. It can be occasionally but its a perfectly reasonably argument in plenty of cases.

It is a fallacy by default. The existence and slipperiness of the slope must be justified to make it not a fallacy.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#59
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slippery slope is fine and all but do you have any constructive argument?

Constructive argument? Just disband the EU as a whole, including all laws, treaties, contracts ... Europe would be a much better place if the EU stayed what it was, a trade union of sovereign nations without any political power over the people.

It still is. Countries can ignore EU laws if they want to.

Re: EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0

#60
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But now you have governmental overreach and legalized spying on European Citizens by (mostly) US Companies, so i would say that Law is truly binary bad. Also how the Law was forced is extremely bad. But hey it's once more proof that the EU is not a democratically spirited institution.

It still remains true that Mark Zuckerberg will get arrested if he is caught using the data for anything other than child porn scans.

I am not sure if the absurdity of that statement is intentional, or a result of just how far the Overton window has drifted.

First of all, private companies shouldn't be given that responsibility to begin with. Meta in particular, has a long history of unethical and immoral usage of personal data. I won't use the term "illegal", as the question of legality becomes moot when punishment can be factored in as a cost of doing business [1]. Given the long list of things Meta has been caught doing, together with the in grand total zero seconds of jail time. I'm genuinely curious as to why you think this would be any different. I'd be surprised if it hasn't already happened, where in some room without windows and a lot of lawyers and business analysts, they have ran models and concluded that the cost of getting caught here is "a good financial decision". Wouldn't be surprised either if it also came with a guarantee of personal protection from prosecution, from NSA and other government entities, in exchange for a hand in that data pipe.

Secondly, for this to carry any plausibility for being motivated by "protect the children" arguments, it requires a minimal effort be enacted on more effective measures, and a measured balance with the cost this comes at. There are very good arguments for why this law would actively harm children. Throw in some Bayesian understanding, and you better have a state of the art system that somehow pretty much never has false positives, nor false negatives, where this was also the only way to detect and avoid said abuse. I don't know the numbers here, but I highly doubt this is a good idea, even with infinite generosity as to good intentions. We've all been children, we've all done stupid things. Now throw in the brilliant and surely-not-to-scar-a-child-for-life situations where parents and strangers looking at something they thought was private, and have a "grown up discussion" about. I shiver at the thought.

Thirdly, and aside from directly harming children in situations where they selves use technology and naively, and unwisely share pictures, consider how many take pictures of their own kids without clothes, because they are normal human beings, who do not consider there to be anything sexual about said depiction. You want to throw law enforcement in the mix here? Child protective services?

Fourthly, consider the possible negative for this abuse. If normal behavior (e.g. children being children, and e.g. normal parents otherwise sharing normal pictures if you are a normal person) can be selectively chosen as being a heinous crime, this should scare anyone, especially consider the political shifting trends towards fascism.

[1]: https://www.creativefuture.org/facebook-scandal-timeline/

Post reply on HN