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

The disguised return of EU Chat Control

reclaimthenet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 354 posts

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#281

Post by psychoslave »

nmeofthestate wrote: post #140

I guessed the term Chat Control had to be made up by opponents of the legislation, so searched for the real name. The official name of the legislation is: “Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules to prevent and combat child sexual abuse” (COM/2022/209 FINAL). It is often referenced more simply as the “Child Sexual Abuse Regulation” (CSA Regulation).

Good, where do we start our "Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules to prevent and combat mass surveillance and protect children from authoritative abuses through legislative threats on their fundamental right to grow in democracy"?

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#282

Post by psychoslave »

srcreigh wrote: post #220

Isn’t there precedent for many other governments secretly or openly doing exactly this? Snowden etc? There’s an arms race element to this that I don’t see people discussing. Do EU citizens have any privacy from US tech? Is there anything to protect? Do we want the USA to have exclusive right to spy on the world? Is it better to have 1 Big Brother or 10?

It's better to have zero big bully. It's actually the sole sane desirable state of affairs.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#283

Post by psychoslave »

andix wrote: post #265
ThrowawayTestr wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A lot of messaging services won't implement chat control. Why not?

Signal already announced they won't add back doors, even if it means they are going to be blocked. Which is really funny, because the EU commission recommends to their employees to use Signal for texting.

But MEP will be exempted, so they can continue to use Signal. Rules for thy.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#284

Post by realusername »

pcrh wrote: post #192
realusername wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends the version of the declaration, the french one has zero exception listed.

It's the same in French (obviously), though equally this does not permit mass surveillance: > Article 8 de la Convention européenne de sauvegarde des droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales: > Droit au respect de la vie privée et familiale > 1. Toute personne a droit au respect de sa vie privée et familiale, de son domicile et de sa correspondance. > 2. Il ne peut y avoir ingérence d'une autorité publique dan…

I'm talking about the 1948 version which has the following:

> Article 12

> Nul ne sera l'objet d'immixtions arbitraires dans sa vie privée, sa famille, son domicile ou sa correspondance, ni d'atteintes à son honneur et à sa réputation. Toute personne a droit à la protection de la loi contre de telles immixtions ou de telles atteintes.

And that's it, no other additions.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#285

Post by NumberCruncher »

I wish I would not have a standard post for topics like this:

Every time a surveillance system and violation of privacy rights is advertised in the EU as a solution against child abuse and trafficking I ask myself how such a system could have changed the outcome of a case like Dutroux. Would have been the dozens of witnesses and police officers involved in the investigation suicided a way sooner, later, more silently, or at all? We will never know...

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#286

Post by themafia »

NumberCruncher wrote: post #285

I wish I would not have a standard post for topics like this: Every time a surveillance system and violation of privacy rights is advertised in the EU as a solution against child abuse and trafficking I ask myself how such a system could have changed the outcome of a case like Dutroux. Would have been the dozens of witnesses and police officers involved in the investigation suicided a way sooner, later, more silently…

Surveillance, as typically deployed, cannot _stop_ the acts of abuse. It may be helpful in locating evidence that they occurred, but by that point, you've already allowed nearly irreparable harm to a child.

Even if it did work it would be completely ineffective at reducing the number of victims. Even if it somehow did by proxy then criminals would simply get smarter and find new ways to completely evade this system.

I have a large amount of disrespect for people who should know all this yet push these types of solutions anyways.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#287

Post by Vera_Wilde »

Grateful for Breyer's consistent excellent work tracking and opposing these proposals.

The Zombie proposal just keeps rising from the dead. The technical/mathematical objections don’t change.

I still haven’t seen a counter-argument stating why a mass-scanning architecture should be expected to work, given the base rates and error rates involved.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#288

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

rambojohnson wrote: post #230
pcrh wrote: post #53

The right to privacy is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, article 8 [0]. It escapes me how politicians can repeatedly attempt to violate this. [0] https://fra.europa.eu/en/law-reference/european-convention-h...

it escapes you because all these treaty clauses read like safeguards, but in practice they’re just friction. Once a government decides it needs mass surveillance for ‘security,’ the law bends. The real question isn’t what the ECHR allows... it’s why people still think legal frameworks can meaningfully restrain a state that has already decided not to be restrained. it escapes me hwo so many can be so naive.

> it’s why people still think legal frameworks can meaningfully restrain a state that has already decided not to be restrained.

The EU isn't really a state, though. The members are states, but not the EU.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#289

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

SunshineTheCat wrote: post #197
latchup wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am going to assume your question is genuine and not rethorical hyperbole. Every sovereign nation has legal supremacy over its own territory. Any company doing business in the EU, no matter its origin, must follow EU laws inside the EU . However, these laws do not apply anywhere else (unless specified by some sort of treaty), so they are not forced to comply with them in the US when dealing with US customers. If the…

I mean this (mostly) as a joke, however, I kinda wish US businesses would just firewall off the EU at this point (yes, I know this would mean losing some customers/marketshare and thus would never happen). But the near daily proposals getting tossed out in their desperate attempt to turn their countries into daycare centers is just annoying to people trying to build things for other adults.

> I kinda wish US businesses would just firewall off the EU at this point (yes, I know this would mean losing some customers/marketshare and thus would never happen).

This would involve them taking about a 30% hit to revenue (or more, depending on the company), so yeah, entirely implausible.

But, it's also worth noting that the US constantly does stuff like this. Like, the entire financial services panopticon of tracking is driven almost entirely by the US, and has been around since the 70s. Should the EU then wall off the US?

Personally, (as an EU citizen), that would really hurt if they did, but getting completely off the dollar based financial system would remove a lot of the US's control (and as a bonus/detriment reveal to the US how much of their vaunted market is propped up by EU money).

Most governments are bad, and these kinds of laws are international, so I'm not sure walling off the EU would make your life much better.

And let's be honest, you should expect the tech industry to end up as regulated as the financial industry over time, the only difference will be how long it takes to get there.

Re: The disguised return of EU Chat Control

#290

Post by brigandish »

ChadNauseam wrote: post #271
anonym29 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You're misinterpreting what they mean by "50% false positive rate". Let's say there are 10 child traffickers in the country. A 50% false positive rate might mean this system detects 7 of them, but then also detects 7 people who are not child traffickers. The reason it's an absurdly good rate is because the thing they are looking for is so rare. If one in a million people are child traffickers, and you have a false po…

> It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_ratio

Post reply on HN