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

Chat Control Must Be Stopped

privacyguides.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 272 posts

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped

#121

Post by 0xc0ff338 »

jongjong wrote: post #79

The only long term solution for this is for people to use more different platforms. Communities should be seeking out new platforms, building their own chat platforms with their own protocols. There is no such thing as a single 'decentralized protocol' - There are incompatible protocols and then there are centralized protocols. When it comes to censorship resistance, incompatibility is a feature. Lack of adoption (un…

I fear we're long past the point of no return. We are exactly one 'policy update' away from not being able to install non-compliant messengers on our phones. Sure, there are still some devices that will let you unlock the bootloader and you can still sideload unverified apps, but let's be honest, most people today barely manage to install an app from the store. If installing a decentralized messenger is more involved than that, 99% of people aren't going to do it.

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped

#122

Post by giveita »

mnls wrote: post #95

Don't worry people. If you are not a European let me tell you how it goes. The 'Unofficial' boss of European Union is Germany. If Germany will vote against it, more countries will back off and it won't pass. If Germany wants ChatControl, it's over. It will pass and all other undecided countries will support it. Thankfully, Germany (so far) is against it.

Would this have been UK/Germany back in the day?

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped

#123

Post by petertodd »

puppycodes wrote: post #119
petertodd wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chat control will require client-side AI scanning of all messages, bypassing end-to-end encryption. Since the AI will be an unauditable blackbox, it will make it effectively illegal to have secure end-to-end encryption. Yes, it is that fascist.

I predict a massive uptick in linux use

Installing open source software on phones is becoming more and more difficult. It used to be the case that bootloaders were generally unlocked or unlockable. That is no longer true, including on Android. Google is also planning on banning APKs from unregistered sources soon.

We need end-to-end encryption on phones to have reasonably convenient privacy. We can definitely lose that, and open source software won't help.

Worse, once phones are locked down desktops and laptops can be locked down as well.

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped

#124

Post by giveita »

kypro wrote: post #51
dingnuts wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some thoughts if you have them, are illegal to express, even in private, for your own consumption. fuck this attitude with a rake

In the UK we take this a step further – if you're by an abortion clinic and the police believe you could be praying in your head for those getting an abortion they can charge you. There are also examples where the people have been charged for retweeting opinions or sharing lyrics which are considered grossly offensive. Although I suppose in these cases you could at least argue something is being expressed.

Any case law for first claim?

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped

#125

Post by mort96 »

fleischhauf wrote: post #118
bigfishrunning wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"including end-to-end encrypted ones" How? If they're end-to-end encrypted, they really can't be monitored unless there's a flaw in the encryption system. Don't trust messages to systems that aren't auditable.

as far as I understand they want the software on your device, at one point you need to decrypt if you want to read the message content

This illustrates why I'm so skeptical of all these "end to end encrypted" closed source solutions like WhatsApp: yes, they're end to end encrypted so the server doesn't necessarily get to see what's going on, but what's the point in that when I can't trust the client?

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped

#126

Post by giveita »

PhantomHour wrote: post #98
bapak wrote: post #14

Looking at the long list of faces for my country, it boggles my mind how all these people are fine letting the police just scan their phone, photos, messages at will, as if they don't have significant others or medical pictures on their phones, including of their children. Do they think they're above it? Are they stupid and don't know what they vote for? I do not understand.

> Do they think they're above it? Are they stupid and don't know what they vote for? They're somewhat out of touch with tech, and caught up in police narratives around encrypted apps blocking their attempts to find pedos. Tech firm lobbyists sell them some lies about the capabilities of these systems. Ultimately these are politicians stuck in the notion of "but the police can open your [physical] letters, this isn't…

WhatsApp is the new living room for families. Living rooms are part of an English house. A castle, if you like.

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped

#127

Post by oefrha »

svachalek wrote: post #69
noduerme wrote: post #20

Questions for people who have used phones in China: How hard is it to disable the state spyware on a phone you buy there? Can you buy a phone from outside China, put in a Chinese SIM card, and do everything over a VPN? Or will they shut down your connection?

As someone who's only visited, a foreign phone with foreign SIM will get you out. But I think using VPN on a Chinese SIM is somewhere on the range of very difficult to completely impossible these days.

> somewhere on the range of very difficult to completely impossible these days.

It’s completely fucking trivial, there are a gazillion services and a number of well supported v2ray/ss/etc. capable VPN apps. SIM has nothing to do with VPNs after all (except in the DPI sense but various protocols already bypass that).

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped

#128

Post by DontBreakAlex »

giveita wrote: post #124
kypro wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK we take this a step further – if you're by an abortion clinic and the police believe you could be praying in your head for those getting an abortion they can charge you. There are also examples where the people have been charged for retweeting opinions or sharing lyrics which are considered grossly offensive. Although I suppose in these cases you could at least argue something is being expressed.

Any case law for first claim?

Apparently that is Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014. Article regarding the claim: https://adfinternational.org/en-gb/news/guilty-army-vet-conv...

> In its decision, the court reasoned that his prayer amounted to “disapproval of abortion” because at one point his head was seen slightly bowed and his hands were clasped.

I'm all for women's rights, but that's not how to do it

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped

#129

Post by octo888 »

giveita wrote: post #122
mnls wrote: post #95

Don't worry people. If you are not a European let me tell you how it goes. The 'Unofficial' boss of European Union is Germany. If Germany will vote against it, more countries will back off and it won't pass. If Germany wants ChatControl, it's over. It will pass and all other undecided countries will support it. Thankfully, Germany (so far) is against it.

Would this have been UK/Germany back in the day?

UK-Germany-France collectively I think

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped

#130

Post by m463 »

CGMthrowaway wrote: post #47
Humorist2290 wrote: post #10

> Chat Control would make it mandatory for all service providers (text messaging, email, social media, cloud storage, hosting services, etc.) to scan all communications and all files (including end-to-end encrypted ones), in order to supposedly detect whatever the government deems "abusive material." I wonder why there has been such silence on this, with the exception of a handful of well written blog posts. The scop…

> I wonder why there has been such silence on this Yes, I would think that if there were any real journalism left, they would be all over this. For the sake of their profession, and the protection of their sources.

Cory Doctorow points out a lot of things: https://pluralistic.net/

But I don't think mainstream journalism points out computer nonsense because they're so intertwined with it all.

I mean, "we have a surveillance state" first points to "advertising" which is their revenue stream.

Post reply on HN