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

The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

mastodon.online

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 300 posts

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#101

Post by cogman10 »

izacus wrote: post #87
cogman10 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's something that can't be fixed, so rather than trying to cure it through bad privacy invading laws we should be looking in how to mitigate the problem through good reporting, accountability laws, and therapy laws. A few examples of how mitigate the problem * Require 2 adults at all times when kids are involved. Particularly in churches and schools. * Establish mandatory reporting. None of this BS like "I'm a prie…

This is a way more sick proposal of authoritarianism than any law that would allow cops to read chat messages with a warrant.

Which part exactly?

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#102

Post by amelius »

goda90 wrote: post #94
BlackjackCF wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These should be enshrined into law... and there needs to be some sort of rule to prevent lawmakers from trying to ram through laws with the same spirit without some sort of cool down period. The fact that lawmakers have tried to push the same crap multiple times in the last 4 years despite a ton of opposition and resistance is ridiculous.

People need to do a better job of voting out people who push such laws.

Good luck convincing people not to vote for anti-immigration measures and other populist ideas instead.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#103

Post by rjdj377dhabsn »

Sharlin wrote: post #73
moralestapia wrote: post #62

So, they succeed and repeal it a third time. What can be done to stop them from trying again and again and again until they get away with it?

Not much really, unless the EU takes a big turn to the left. Which is unfortunately not something that's likely to happen anytime soon.

The left? The authoritarian politicians pushing this legislation in the EU are more leftist than right.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#104

Post by dryarzeg »

IlikeKitties wrote: post #27
hkpack wrote: post #20

To be honest, I think VPN businesses and specifically politically charged ones like Mullvad is doing disservice for the security of the country and specifically EU in this case. I think the right course of action should be a political activism, not a technological one. Especially when the company doing it makes a fortune. The course, when one can just disengage from participating in society by sidestepping the proble…

> So instead of speaking from the high ground, please, tell us what your solution about mass disinformation happening from US social media megacorps, Russia mass disinformation, mass recruitment of people for sabotage on critical infrastructure. Education. Education. Education. The only thing that ever worked. is Education. Censorship and a total surveillance state aren't an option. Why bother protecting freedom and…

[dead]

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#105

Post by delusional »

MrNeon wrote: post #55
delusional wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I'm curious, what would you personally consider to be a step too far in the fight against CSAM?

Thank you so much for asking the question instead of assuming an answer.

I don't think I have an ideological limit. I'm pro weighing alternatives, and seeing what happens. If law enforcement misuses the tools they are given, we should take them away again, but we shouldn't be afraid to give them tools out of fear of how they might misuse them.

I think my limits are around proper governance. Stuff like requiring a warrant are hard limits for me. Things like sealed paper trail, that are too easily kept away from the public, are red flags. So long as you have good ways for the public to be informed that the law isn't working, or being misused, I don't have many hard limits, I don't think democracy really allows for hard limits.

At the very broad level. I believe that Big Tech (Meta, Google, etc.) are already surveilling you. I believe that government should have at least as much ability to surveil you as companies. If you are willing to hand over that data to a company, you should be willing to hand it over to your government (specifically YOUR government, not the one the company is based in).

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#106

Post by [deleted] »

delusional wrote: post #105
MrNeon wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious, what would you personally consider to be a step too far in the fight against CSAM?

Thank you so much for asking the question instead of assuming an answer. I don't think I have an ideological limit. I'm pro weighing alternatives, and seeing what happens. If law enforcement misuses the tools they are given, we should take them away again, but we shouldn't be afraid to give them tools out of fear of how they might misuse them. I think my limits are around proper governance. Stuff like requiring a war…

[deleted]

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#107

Post by LtWorf »

zen928 wrote: post #79
Zealotux wrote: post #57

In the ancient Greek colony of Locri, any who proposed a new law would do so with a rope around their neck, if the law was voted down, they would get hanged. Food for thought.

Intentionally misinformed citizens continued to charge the streets demanding "essential services" like barber shops need to be reopened and to intentionally dismantle and resist against all government protections on public safety during the pandemic (like wearing a mask during an active spreading event), literally while their grandparents and relatives slowly and painfully died on respirators in hospitals largely agr…

When governments push out clearly nonsensical regulations, like you must go to the office even if you can work from home, but you cannot go hiking, yes people do tend to get mad.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#108

Post by SiempreViernes »

If Mullvad could bother to link to this supposed "Presidency outcome paper" that would be great, after extensive searches on Concilium and eur-lex I have no idea what that is supposed to reference.

In any case here's the actual "ProtectEU" text the Comission sent on the first of April which contains most of the text Mullvad is quoting from the "presidency outcome paper": https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...

As a bonus, here's input report listing the problems that are supposed to be solved: https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/document/download/05963640...

This is from the introduction:

> Access to this data is understood as access granted to law enforcement subject to judicial authorisation when required, in the context of criminal investigations and on a case-by-case basis. As a rule, in the cases where such judicial authorisation is necessary due to the sensitive nature of the data in question, it represents an integral part of the applicable legal and operational framework for facilitating access to this data by law enforcement. Access to data on behalf of law enforcement authorities must be achieved in full respect of data protection, privacy, and cybersecurity legislation, as well as the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) case-law on these matters and applicable standards on procedural safeguards.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#109

Post by Nasrudith »

moralestapia wrote: post #62

So, they succeed and repeal it a third time. What can be done to stop them from trying again and again and again until they get away with it?

There would need to be some form of punishment towards them for their failure to deter them.

The most 'accessible' options to a disgruntled populace (or a small portion of it, down to N=1) are generally recognized as extreme things that very few sane people are on board with, because they are recognized widely as bad precedents for societies. Things like issuing death threats, assassinations, or burning down parliament buildings. To state what I hope is already obvious - this is not an endorsement of violence. For one Japan's history of 'government by assassination' was incredibly ugly and helped lead to extremism which helped lead to Imperial Japan's conduct becoming notorious as they did.

There are other far more peaceful options to be considered but they would require high degrees of coordination and agreement. For an example, the classic Amish shunning - if legislatures faced utter social ostracism for their attempts then they would be unlikely to attempt it again.

I'm not sure what policies could even provoke such extreme responses as those listed (violent or otherwise) in the first place, but for better or worse Chat Control isn't one of them. My most realistic guess would be that trying to abolish the pension/retirement system altogether.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#110

Post by LtWorf »

rjdj377dhabsn wrote: post #103
Sharlin wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not much really, unless the EU takes a big turn to the left. Which is unfortunately not something that's likely to happen anytime soon.

The left? The authoritarian politicians pushing this legislation in the EU are more leftist than right.

They're usually liberals, so right wing but they don't specifically hate homosexuals.
Post reply on HN