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

The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

mastodon.online

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 300 posts

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#81

Post by AnthonyMouse »

delusional wrote: post #42
ori_b wrote: post #17

Until people lobby for these privacy rights to be enshrined in law, this will continue to be a problem. Defeating one bad law isn't enough.

[flagged]

> Fix the problem the proposal tries to fix, and the proposal goes away.

Only it doesn't. Even if you completely solved CSAM, authoritarians would still be proposing things like this to go after "terrorists" or copyright infringers or what have you. Claiming that people can't have privacy unless there is zero crime is just claiming that people can't have privacy, and that'll be a no.

Moreover, this proposal wouldn't completely solve CSAM. If the standard is that it has to be 100% effective then this won't work either.

Whereas if the standard is that something has to be worth the cost, then this isn't.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#82

Post by moomoo11 »

pxc wrote: post #75
moomoo11 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s because once you educate yourself, you see how the masses behave and it’s like the ultimate revelation. They are consumers. Feeders. They want to be told what to think. Most people don’t even have an internal monologue and many people say they don’t even think much, not even a thought. You thought for yourself. You used your brain. But you are outnumbered. Vastly.

> Most people don’t even have an internal monologue Is there any scientific indication that whether private thoughts are automatically verbalized actually has an impact on cognitive activity or function? Also where do you get this idea that most people lack an internal monologue? Afaik research indicates that totally lacking verbal thinking is very rare.

There is a person thinking about how to solve actual problems at the bus/rail stop. The other person is totally reactive (someone FaceTimes them), mostly glued to doomscrolling (consuming non stop). There are disproportionately more of the latter than the former.

There’s nothing wrong with that it’s just how humans are wired. It’s pretty obvious.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#83

Post by flumpcakes »

ibejoeb wrote: post #77
flumpcakes wrote: post #70

And hopefully this gets voted down like all the other laws. Even if it passes, it will probably be repealed or just not enforced within some member nations. At least this is talked about and discussed... unlike in China, or Russia, or the US's own 20+-years-and-still-going-patriot act.

A reasonable point about the discussion, but I doubt it is a meaningful one. The intention of these international agreements is that they circumvent the laws by moving data out of jurisdiction and have someone else do the surveillance, right? I have to assume that the EU is doing metadata analysis. All the talking is just about bringing it in house. On another topic, I don't know how mullvad intends to avoid complian…

They'll probably take it to court in the regions within the EU where this would be illegal, for example Germany. This is kind of what I meant by this law would be ignored/repealed as it goes against member nations own laws. I would expect there would be a lot of civic push back too. This law hasn't passed before, I'm not confident it will pass this time either. The real issue here is that the EU is not good at handling band faith actors - the same law in different wrapping should not be allowed to persist.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#84

Post by roenxi »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #78
timschmidt wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similarly, the 4th amendment to the US Constitution reads in full: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." "papers, and effec…

SCOTUS will simply say that since the constitution didn't explicitly state that electronic data and communications was protected, then it isn't. Even if it did explicitly say that this information is protected, SCOTUS would just make up a new interpretation that would allow surveillance anyway. Same as they made up presidential immunity, even though all men being subject to the law was pretty explicit purpose of the…

> all men being subject to the law was pretty explicit purpose of the founding of america. I mean, they had a whole revolution about it.

I don't think it is a feasible claim. Revolutionaries, by definition it seems to me, believe some men and the enacting of their principles are above the law. A revolutionary is someone who illegally revolts against the current law.

And formally recognising presidential immunity isn't really as novel as the anti-Trump crowd wants to believe. If presidents were personally subject to the law for their official acts, most of them wouldn't be in a position to take on the legal risk of, eg, issuing executive orders. If something is done as an official act then the lawsuits have to target the official position and not the person behind them. That is how it usually works for an official position.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#85

Post by trueismywork »

delusional wrote: post #53
trueismywork wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its like govt banning bleach and when chemical companies protest, the govt tells them to fix problem of people mixing bleach and vinegar. Its a problem, it has to be solved. If you dont like this, find another solution govt says.

It's also a bit like when the government bans opioids because they're an addictive narcotic, but then allows their use in specific circumstances where the benefit outweighs the downsides, and then works with the industry to try and make it harder to abuse them. It's like a lot of things.

But they aren't working with industry here.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#86

Post by dheera »

charcircuit wrote: post #5
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #2

VPN is a trust exercise, but, I’m sure if Mullvlad isn’t the best out there, they’re far from the worst.

They are not the best because they no longer support port forwarding. Their IPs are low quality and get you flagged as suspicious.

Mullvad is one of the few that work in China today, any others? Or is it possible to run your own Mullvad server?

Rolling your own L2TP/IPSec gets flagged by the China firewall these days

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#87

Post by izacus »

cogman10 wrote: post #59
delusional wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It's something that can't be fixed, so rather than trying to cure it through bad privacy invading laws we should be looking in how to mitigate the problem through good reporting, accountability laws, and therapy laws. A few examples of how mitigate the problem * Require 2 adults at all times when kids are involved. Particularly in churches and schools. * Establish mandatory reporting. None of this BS like "I'm a prie…

This is a way more sick proposal of authoritarianism than any law that would allow cops to read chat messages with a warrant.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#88

Post by JoshTriplett »

delusional wrote: post #42
ori_b wrote: post #17

Until people lobby for these privacy rights to be enshrined in law, this will continue to be a problem. Defeating one bad law isn't enough.

[flagged]

> Fix the problem the proposal tries to fix, and the proposal goes away. Until you fix the problem, the only proposal that exists will keep being the only one that exists.

Unfortunately, politicians and lobbyists are a hard problem to solve.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#89

Post by zdragnar »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #78
timschmidt wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similarly, the 4th amendment to the US Constitution reads in full: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." "papers, and effec…

SCOTUS will simply say that since the constitution didn't explicitly state that electronic data and communications was protected, then it isn't. Even if it did explicitly say that this information is protected, SCOTUS would just make up a new interpretation that would allow surveillance anyway. Same as they made up presidential immunity, even though all men being subject to the law was pretty explicit purpose of the…

Text, phone calls and emails which are not encrypted are the equivalent of a postcard. They don't need to seize the effects, only observe them.

Encrypting, end to end, would be the equivalent of posting a letter. The contents are concealed and thus are protected.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#90

Post by izacus »

rvnx wrote: post #49
pavlov wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany has a history of its government using data collected about citizens against them. Much legislation was created after WWII to try to prevent that from happening again.

It hasn't stopped the German Interior Ministry from campaigning for EU-wide chat control and pushing to reinstate mass data retention

That's because this campaign is about changing that very law. Saying that "this is blatantly illegal" misses the basic point of this proposal being a CHANGE of the law that makes that illegal.
Post reply on HN