21–30 of 47 posts
Just in case people don’t read the article: the European Parliament’s position removes indiscriminate chat control and allows only for a targeted surveillance of specific individuals and groups reasonably suspicious of being linked to child sexual abuse material, with a judicial warrant. End-to-end encrypted messengers are exempted.
More discussion a few days ago: EU Chat Control Bill Postponed https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37982655
To add context to the link, this isn't a repost, just related. The post linked is about the Council (think US senate or Bundesrat) not having enough votes to pass the text (they're still looking for internal compromises) This post is about the European Parliament's committee examining the draft (well, one of the 5, but LIBE is the lead one)
Just in case people don’t read the article: the European Parliament’s position removes indiscriminate chat control and allows only for a targeted surveillance of specific individuals and groups reasonably suspicious of being linked to child sexual abuse material, with a judicial warrant. End-to-end encrypted messengers are exempted.
Just in case people don’t read the article: the European Parliament’s position removes indiscriminate chat control and allows only for a targeted surveillance of specific individuals and groups reasonably suspicious of being linked to child sexual abuse material, with a judicial warrant. End-to-end encrypted messengers are exempted.
How does this differ from the status quo? I would assume targeted surveillance, without requiring 3rd parties sabotage the security of their products, is already a legal law enforcement procedure?
The "publicly addressable" part is feasible and already implemented by many messengers.
Asking for "confirmation before sending contact details" is feasible but easily circumvented as is my mail is joe at example dot com.
Asking for "confirmation before sending [...] nude pictures" is where it gets interesting. How without scanning every file one is about to share?
Just in case people don’t read the article: the European Parliament’s position removes indiscriminate chat control and allows only for a targeted surveillance of specific individuals and groups reasonably suspicious of being linked to child sexual abuse material, with a judicial warrant. End-to-end encrypted messengers are exempted.
How does this differ from the status quo? I would assume targeted surveillance, without requiring 3rd parties sabotage the security of their products, is already a legal law enforcement procedure?
> Security by design: In order to protect young people from grooming, internet services and apps shall be secure by design and default. It must be possible to block and report other users. Only at the request of the user should he or she be publicly addressable and see messages or pictures of other users. Users should be asked for confirmation before sending contact details or nude pictures. Potential perpetrators an…
I’m pretty confident this is a task where LLMs will shine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does this differ from the status quo? I would assume targeted surveillance, without requiring 3rd parties sabotage the security of their products, is already a legal law enforcement procedure?
Doesn't have to be different from the status quo. EU law acts upon member countries like the US federal constitution acts upon member states: it prevent individual members from ever changing their own laws to take more extreme positions than the recognized consensus position.
On the one hand this makes me very happy that democracy can actually work things out (and quite well at that)... but on the other hand i'm still horrified people seriously tried to push the original proposal. Not sure what i feel summing up the two.
My takeaway is that the EU as a whole is somewhat responsive to public feedback but it is still too far removed from the people and our will.
And perhaps the lower public mindshare might help insulate against people with ambitions but not people's best interest at heart. Or this is crazy talk, not sure which one it is :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't have to be different from the status quo. EU law acts upon member countries like the US federal constitution acts upon member states: it prevent individual members from ever changing their own laws to take more extreme positions than the recognized consensus position.
To my knowledge EU Regulations are simply laws that overrule local EU countries' laws, so whether it's possible or not for local laws to be more extreme only depends on such laws being at odds with what the Regulation prescribes (but I'm not a lawyer and only looked into that years ago).