Live data from Hacker News

The EU could be scanning your chats by October 2025

techradar.com

241–250 of 259 posts

Re: The EU could be scanning your chats by October 2025

#241
post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What, the cloud scanning of user photos was a good idea for you? That is what is happening before Apples suggestion and is still happening. > The automated surveillance that could lead to people wrongfully accused idea? A hash scan is perfectly fine. It can tell you nothing about what is in your file except that if it matches another file that they know is CP. Even then a flagged item has to be reviewed by law enfo…

Are you OK with private companies basically playing the police with your data?

Let me give you a better answer to your question.

Yes I am OK with how CSAM works.

1. It is not owned by a private company.

2. Hash checking requires a 1:1 match to be flagged.

3. Any match is reviewed by law enforcement to confirm it matches what is recorded in the CSAM. This is checking your file against a descriptive record of what the file is.

4. The chance of a mismatch is so remote that its not even an issue for me. Even if you do get a mismatch it is a human that reviews it.

5. To submit a file to CSAM requires a lengthy detailed process where multiple humans review and approve before creating the Hash.

6. Every hash has a chain of custody. So if in the unlikely chance of something else being put into CSAM, you can see all the people that interacted with the system to put that hash in.

7. Service providers can be sued for content they submitted, so they have a prerogative to ensure what goes in is valid.

This process has been in place for 15 years or so.

Re: The EU could be scanning your chats by October 2025

#242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no way you're seriously making this argument. I don't know what else to say except repeat myself. The US electoral college is an historical artifact that simply rubber stamps the votes of the States. The member states' heads of government make the decision themselves ! The equivalent would be the electoral college simply voting for the president themselves. Jesus christ.

> The equivalent would be the electoral college simply voting for the president themselves. That is... exactly what they are doing?

The electoral college delegates choose the president of their own free will? There is no presidential election? You literally have to be trawling at this point.

Re: The EU could be scanning your chats by October 2025

#243
post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Switzerland is certainly democratic, because voters can directly vote for laws. Some countries and states do have provisions to that effect, but with more restrictions and less often used. The US is actually more democratic than e.g. Germany, because the president is elected by the people (though indirectly), not by parliament. Therefore a political oligarchy could be prevented, because the majority in parliament and…

> The US is actually more democratic than e.g. Germany, because the president is elected by the people The German president is mainly a figurehead with limited power. The office was stripped down after WWII. The real power lies with the ministers, who can issue absolute orders that have to be obeyed without question. One of many results is that German prosecutors cannot be trusted with issuing EU wide arrest warrants…

I was comparing the USian president to the German chancellor. Both head up the government made up of ministers they appoint. It's only the name that is different, and the order in protocol. The USian president is first and head of state in protocol order, the German chancellor is third after the German federal president and the president of the Bundestag (one chamber of parliament).

Sorry for my being imprecise here, Germans tend to skip their own president(s) because, as you correctly state, they are mostly unimportant figureheads.

Re: The EU could be scanning your chats by October 2025

#244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If that’s what happens when you trust the government then sign me up! Like that? https://cphpost.dk/2024-05-05/news/climate/danish-companies-... >>Danish companies breach EU law, dump toxic waste into sea – Environment Ministry waves it through Or that? https://eos.org/thelandslideblog/nordic-waste-1 >>The Nordic Waste landslide scandal in Denmark Maybe how about that? (50 years ago) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=…

>How Denmark forced young women in Greenland to get IUDs And who still take away the babies of Greenlandic mothers in Denmark. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2025/jun/29/controv...

Parenting test.....this is disgusting, thanks for the update.

Re: The EU could be scanning your chats by October 2025

#245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite, the people making these decisions are all in EU commission and they are there because they were submitted by their national parties. Also there is the EU parliament that contains people that also belong to national parties. If they look like they support a very unpopular decision a big public backlash can definitely make them reconsider. Depending on how secure they are in the national politics. For exampl…

EU commission and they are there because they were submitted by their national parties. Members of EU commission are nominated by the European Council and elected by the European Parliament. Principle of subsidiary is absolutely abolished and far from direct democracy.

Let's not move the goalposts - nobody talked about direct democracy. There's no direct democracy anywhere in the world (even in the Swiss is quite limited) so there's no reason to hold the EU to such imaginary standards. Both the Council and the Parliament are resulted from national elections so they are elected to do exactly that: nominate people in European jobs. It works as designed, and we can either sit in the defeatist pit or act in the action points.

Re: The EU could be scanning your chats by October 2025

#246
post #229

I was reflecting on the whole chat apps and protocols the other day and felt we might just have trapped ourselves artificially. If I want to casually keep in touch with a friend, I am supposed to have the following options: - SMS/RCS: no need for an app but is controlled - WhatsApp: no good to many reasons - Signal: how can you believe it is not controlled once it becomes the mandatory app in the US Gov. - Matrix: gr…

I don't have a need for secure chat at this moment but if I did ... I would just find a simple SSH application and give it to all of the chat participants. Then I would establish a 1U server that I own and control , or even a raspi in my own house, and have everyone log in to run some simple (and old) version of 'talk' - presumably one that has a "wall" feature. Very simple and very low trust. Further, the exploit(s)…

Yeah agreed but I am just a bit skeptical about the one server as the single point of failure.

Building on your idea, wouldn't using 'talk' over a private yggdrasil mesh (so not connected to public peers) [0] or tinc be an elegant solution ?

What I am not sure is I believe you still need to have at least 1 peer with a fixed IP address (so not a mobile phone) for a yggdrasil to work.

- [0] https://www.complete.org/easily-accessing-all-your-stuff-wit...

Re: The EU could be scanning your chats by October 2025

#247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The equivalent would be the electoral college simply voting for the president themselves. That is... exactly what they are doing?

The electoral college delegates choose the president of their own free will? There is no presidential election? You literally have to be trawling at this point.

The electoral college is elected. It then chooses the president, who is not elected by the people. The electoral college is not necessarily reflective of the popular vote, as famously demonstrated by the 2016 election.

All of this is simple fact. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

The term presidential election is a euphemizing misnomer, more accurately it would be called presidential electoral college election.

Re: The EU could be scanning your chats by October 2025

#248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't fight proposals because they're "just proposals" you pretty much give up

False. If the Commission accepts it, there is still time and room to fight it. Furthermore, your logic would also apply if some random person on the street proposed this. My point is that legislation can exist in a variety of stages. In the extreme case where we get stressed and angry at every proposal that any politician comes up with, we waste our energy instead of letting the specific systems introduced and though…

This is hardly a random person on the street or some single politician. It's a concerted effort by several countries that has been narrowly defeated several times because they keep pushing for it.

Besides, getting people up to speed with the idea that backdoored encryption is no encryption is pretty useful in itself, as similar proposals will keep popping up in member countries.

But sure, it's not the very last chance.

Re: The EU could be scanning your chats by October 2025

#249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The electoral college delegates choose the president of their own free will? There is no presidential election? You literally have to be trawling at this point.

The electoral college is elected. It then chooses the president, who is not elected by the people. The electoral college is not necessarily reflective of the popular vote, as famously demonstrated by the 2016 election. All of this is simple fact. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. The term presidential election is a euphemizing misnomer, more accurately it would be called presidential electoral college electi…

If you don't mind me asking, are you autistic? You are conflating the de jure (winning the popular vote wins you the state's electors) with the de facto (the electors are a pro forma/rubber stamp).

Re: The EU could be scanning your chats by October 2025

#250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The electoral college is elected. It then chooses the president, who is not elected by the people. The electoral college is not necessarily reflective of the popular vote, as famously demonstrated by the 2016 election. All of this is simple fact. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. The term presidential election is a euphemizing misnomer, more accurately it would be called presidential electoral college electi…

If you don't mind me asking, are you autistic? You are conflating the de jure (winning the popular vote wins you the state's electors) with the de facto (the electors are a pro forma/rubber stamp).

I am not. And they aren't. You are trying to brush over a significant point to avoid admitting my comparison made sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016...

Post reply on HN