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

Fight Chat Control

fightchatcontrol.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 528 posts

Re: Fight Chat Control

#361

Post by rsynnott »

Telemakhos wrote: post #52
pessimizer wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What really should be done is to disallow proposals, which are kinda the same. This very much exists in a lot of parliamentary rules authorities, but it's usually limited to once per "session." They just need to make rules that span sessions that raise the bar for introducing substantially similar legislation. It can easily be argued that passing something that failed to pass before, multiple times, should require…

Is there no way to codify a negative right, like “The right of the European people to privacy in their communications and security in their records through encryption shall not be infringed?” Negative rights reserved to the people should be more important than positive laws granting power to the government.

Yes; they could amend the definitely-not-a-constitution (for branding/eurosceptic-appeasement reasons, the EU constitution was rebranded as the Lisbon treaty before adoption). Arguably such a right may exist already and this legislation might find itself on a collision course with the ECJ if it passed (notably the ECJ nuked _another_ intrusive law, back in the day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive).

Re: Fight Chat Control

#362

Post by ElectroBuffoon »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #337
ElectroBuffoon wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already have standards: PICS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_for_Internet_Content_... POWDER https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_for_Web_Description_R... ASACP/RTA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Sites_Advocatin... What seem to lack is the will power to use them. Or after seeing in the linked site: *EU politicians exempt themselves from this surveillance under "professional secrecy" rules. T…

Well don't I feel like an uninformed dumbass. Talk of standards aside, pornhub apparently includes the following header if you visit it. rating: RTA-5042-1996-1400-1577-RTA RTA stands for "restricted to adults". So the large websites, ie the entities that would actually be bound by any proposed legislation, are already proactively facilitating network operators and parents filtering them out. And apparently have been…

Yes, many sites already have it, RTA is nearly 3 decades old. It seems new proposed laws always ignore such systems are not just a theory but in a reality in use.

What happens over and over only reinforces they idea that they really want "everyone, empty your pockets and show your papers, NOW!" laws and just hide it with "it's the only way, trust us; for the children!". A pretty telling proof is they want to be exempt.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#363

Post by andrepd »

jlengrand wrote: post #315

*EU politicians exempt themselves from this surveillance under "professional secrecy" rules. They get privacy. This alone tells me which way I should weigh in on this law. They know what they're doing.

The notoriously opaque EU institutions would sooner insist on reading your every message than actually be transparent themselves. This is beyond satire.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#364

Post by nickslaughter02 »

myaccountonhn wrote: post #324
uncircle wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, the marvels of modern democracy. No serious way to enact change, politicians still do whatever the hell they want, and we still believe that voting for someone else will change things. It’ll soon be like the UK, that if you campaign against this kinda stuff, the party in power publicly calls you a paedophile. Because only people with something to hide want privacy. Privacy is a losing proposition. Governments hav…

No serious way to enact change? That's not true at all.

How exactly are you going to repeal ChatControl or ProtectEU when the same people who lobbied for these proposals/laws are the ones who would have to repeal it? Ursula survived a no confidence vote just a month ago.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#365

Post by account42 »

Telemakhos wrote: post #52
pessimizer wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What really should be done is to disallow proposals, which are kinda the same. This very much exists in a lot of parliamentary rules authorities, but it's usually limited to once per "session." They just need to make rules that span sessions that raise the bar for introducing substantially similar legislation. It can easily be argued that passing something that failed to pass before, multiple times, should require…

Is there no way to codify a negative right, like “The right of the European people to privacy in their communications and security in their records through encryption shall not be infringed?” Negative rights reserved to the people should be more important than positive laws granting power to the government.

In some ways yes but we've already seen with covid that governments are happy to behave unconstitutionally even when it's clear they will eventually lose in court - by then their targets have already been dragged through the mud.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#366

Post by nickslaughter02 »

lostmsu wrote: post #121
kratom_sandwich wrote: post #31

Who are the organizations fighting chat control which one could support with a donation?

Pick any decentralized IM project

You cannot fight this with technology. What will you do when they make connecting to instant messager servers without scanning illegal? VPN? They are already going after VPNs.

"VPN services may soon become a new target of EU lawmakers after being deemed a "key challenge""

https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/vpn-servi...

Re: Fight Chat Control

#368

Post by rsynnott »

cobbzilla wrote: post #11
croes wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is the difference to the US, China or the UK? Governments often try that kind of nonsense. Usually against organized crime, terrorism, child abuse. But in the end it’s just used for the heavy crimes like copyright infringement

The US, at least, has a Bill of Rights that would make this illegal, it would definitely violate the 4th Amendment and maybe the 1st too.

Hrm. Remember this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip

Ultimately the US government's key escrow fixation largely faded away, and it was never clear whether it would stand up in the courts, but it still shows up from time to time.

It's quite possible that this would conflict with the EU's can't-believe-it's-not-a-constitution (the Lisbon treaty) if passed, too; for a prior example see the defunct data retention directive, which was nuked by the ECJ: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive

Re: Fight Chat Control

#369

Post by nickslaughter02 »

rkomorn wrote: post #169
andrewinardeer wrote: post #162

Can someone explain how they could read my e2e Signal chat messages to my wife about what I'm cooking for dinner? Can someone explain how they could read my e2e Sessions chat message sent via TOR to my wife about what I'm cooking for dinner? Genuinely curious. Can those that are in power break this encryption?

The idea isn't to break encryption, it's to have apps implement client-side scanning "pre-encryption".

> The idea isn't to break encryption

That comes later with ProtectEU.

"Technical experts call on Commissioner Virkkunen for a seat on the table of the European Commission’s Technology Roadmap on encryption"

https://edri.org/our-work/technical-experts-call-on-virkkune...

Re: Fight Chat Control

#370

Post by account42 »

croes wrote: post #14
uncircle wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, the marvels of modern democracy. No serious way to enact change, politicians still do whatever the hell they want, and we still believe that voting for someone else will change things. It’ll soon be like the UK, that if you campaign against this kinda stuff, the party in power publicly calls you a paedophile. Because only people with something to hide want privacy. Privacy is a losing proposition. Governments hav…

People don’t want change. If really someone gets the power who wants to change things they fight them too. People want that everything stays the same. Problem is climate change and other problems make change inevitable.

People both do and don't want change. Not all change is good and some (most really) should be fought.

> Problem is climate change and other problems make change inevitable.

That's a convenient argument for people who want to push unpopular changes.

Post reply on HN