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

Germany must stand firmly against client-side scanning in Chat Control [pdf]

signal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–148 of 148 posts

Re: Germany must stand firmly against client-side scanning in Chat Control [pdf]

#141

Post by aprilfoo »

Signal is doing a great job fighting for its survival as a public platform.

It's obvious that "chat-control" cannot be effective in its official purpose: there are already and will be many ways to evade surveillance like CSS for those who really want to.

But it might achieve a devastating side-product, the dream of any authoritarian regime: the criminalization of privacy, which would lead to the end of freedom as we know it. "1984" was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.

Re: Germany must stand firmly against client-side scanning in Chat Control [pdf]

#142

Post by treszkai »

mr_mitm wrote: post #81
ForceOfEntropy wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case you could an Arduino, Raspberry Pi, or similar to write and convert the message. The converted msg can then be sent over USB, wifi, etc to the computer

But how do we then protect our messages to less tech savvy people? Encryption must be effortless and usable by the masses, or it will be almost pointless.

If Chat Control passes, then encryption will not be effortless and usable by the masses, that's the whole point. Basic encrypted chat will be on the level of Snowden trying to communicate with the journalists back in the days – only possible if both parties are willing to go to lengths.

Re: Germany must stand firmly against client-side scanning in Chat Control [pdf]

#143

Post by treszkai »

alex23478 wrote: post #134
mr_mitm wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PGP will never ever see mass adoption. It's too complicated and nothing will fix that. If chat control succeeds, a handful of nerds might be able to protect their comms, but mass encryption as we have it today will be dead. I like how nobody can read my chats with my mom or my landlord and would prefer it stays that way. The average user simply does not care enough to jump through a single additional hoop.

But isn't that what makes it so absurd? The people that this supposedly targets will then become "nerds" and use PGP for their messaging, while the majority of people not discussing illegal activities will just suffer from worse security.

I expect that a large portion of the actually – not supposedly – targeted demographic will still not care or know how to set up encrypted comms, and I guess the EP also expects them not to. If someone actually wants to evade CSAR, they probably would know how to (and if not, all the better).

Re: Germany must stand firmly against client-side scanning in Chat Control [pdf]

#144

Post by xnzakg »

Gud wrote: post #133
kwar13 wrote: post #114

Signal is doing phenomenal work here. They could've sold out long ago. I highly encourage anyone to donate whatever they can.

Could they, though? Signal is marketing themselves as the privacy alternative. If chat control passes, you can’t make the same guarantees as they are. Don’t get me wrong, I am happy they are doing what they are doing. But for signal, selling out is not really an alternative.

Hasn't stopped a lot of companies from selling out and then being ran into the ground by their new owners.

Re: Germany must stand firmly against client-side scanning in Chat Control [pdf]

#145

Post by topranks »

thadt wrote: post #42
kekqqq wrote: post #4

No one should remove from us the right to privacy in chat rooms. Otherwise, PGP might become cool again, or I bet that there will be new ways to chat without mass surveillance.

How would PGP help in the long run? If client side scanning is mandated for everything then the natural place for it to wind up is in the OS. Once your OS is scanning all the things, your privacy is finished - pretty good or otherwise.

Perhaps it’d go that way.

But the chat control proposal specifically involves forcing the makers of messaging apps to scan the contents of messages.

PGP remains very relevant under those current proposals.

Re: Germany must stand firmly against client-side scanning in Chat Control [pdf]

#146

Post by byteknight »

markild wrote: post #18
byteknight wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Encryption is defined as "the process of converting information or data into a code, especially to prevent unauthorized access." What you describe is the same thing just not cryptographic.

Specifically, steganography: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography

Isn't that specific to pictures?

Re: Germany must stand firmly against client-side scanning in Chat Control [pdf]

#147

Post by braebo »

varispeed wrote: post #111
quotemstr wrote: post #30

I've been wondering how Chat Control's proponents settled on such a comically villainous name for their project. They didn't even bother being Orwellian. Skeletor could have have come up with "Chat Control"

If terrorism is defined as using violence or threats to intimidate a population for political or ideological ends, then “Chat Control” qualifies in substance. Violence doesn’t have to leave blood. Psychological and coercive violence is recognised in domestic law (see coercive control offences) and by the WHO. It causes measurable harm to bodies and minds. The aim is intimidation. The whole purpose is to make people t…

Ah so like ICE

Re: Germany must stand firmly against client-side scanning in Chat Control [pdf]

#148

Post by unit149 »

nosianu wrote: post #28
IlikeKitties wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Deep down, Client Side Scanning that's what both want. Let's be absolutely real the CDU wants complete government access to all private communications on demand with essentially endless retention. They just aren't allowed yet.

Funny thing is, the last few times some guy attacked people, a few days later we could read or hear in the news updates that that person had already been known to be violent, and quite a few times we also learned that they were supposed to have been deported. Information does not seem to be the bottleneck at all! (Too) Many times, when we read about the person responsible for some sudden attack, everything needed to…

[dead]
Post reply on HN