this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2024
546 points (98.8% liked)

Privacy

31220 readers
848 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

Chat rooms

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

What you can do: https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/messaging-and-chat-control/#WhatYouCanDo

Contact your MEP: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/home

Edit: Article linked is from 2002 (overview of why this legislation is bad), but it is coming up for a vote on the 19th see https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/council-to-greenlight-chat-control-take-action-now/

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So first it's client-side scanning for CSAM. Not without some nobility. But the problem is once you wedge open that door it's technically possible to do it for other things and so you become compelled to.

It'll move from just CSAM to stopping and tracking "propaganda" as deemed by them which will be narrow-ish at first (anything pro-Russia, RT links, etc) but gradually expand over time to anything outside the mainstream branded as extremist (and guess what, privacy advocates will definitely fall within that label). And once that's in place the private stake-holders, copyright holders will come knocking, they'll say rightly so "hey you have the capability right now, we demand you implement client-side scanning to detect copyright violations" and then that will be ordered by a court, further enshrined by a law and oh look now you can no longer send political thought that the ruling regime disagrees with, can no longer surf the high seas, and so on and so forth. Congratulations and please enjoy living in the "garden" of Europe.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago

The US uses the Patriot Act to spy on innocent people under the guise of terrorism. Once you open the door, they knock the wall down.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It is already law in the UK, they are just waiting for the right moment to activate it.

Maybe this move by the EU will embolden other countries to follow suite. the best thing to do is to move to a corner of the internet they can't control. like Tor , I2P and similar projects

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago

Yah, but the UK has been an Orwellian nightmare since Maggie's day. Everyone expects laws that completely negate privacy there and just roll over for it.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago

Keep me updated Europe friends. If they implement this, for sure other countries will implement this as well.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

yes, then it got rejected, and now another iteration is about to be voted on on June 20, 2024 https://digitalcourage.social/@echo_pbreyer/112637908478562409

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

It's somewhat amusing how western liberals once touted freedom of speech as a defining characteristic separating them from states like China, which impose stricter limitations on freedom of expression. The argument was made that the pursuit of personal liberties is what sets western liberal culture apart and makes it superior to others.

However, this narrative succeeded primarily due to broad public agreement within mainstream Western society. When economic conditions were favorable and people generally content with their system, there was little reason to suppress dissenting views. In fact, allowing such opinions on the fringe even served to reinforce the narrative. But now that growing discontent is causing this illusion of freedom they once believed in to unravel.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Well. Now seems to be a good time to be ashamed to be Belgian.

Shameful politicians :(

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Reading it, it looks like it doesn't require invasive oversight as long as the chat apps and app stores have sufficient detection and such.

really, that's what such places already should have, considering how much profit they make off of our data

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

It does require invasive oversight. If I send a picture of my kid to my wife, I don't want some AI algorithm to have a brainfart and instead upload the picture to Europol for strangers to see and to put me on some list I don't belong.

People sharing CSAM are unlikely to use apps that force these scans anyway.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The proposal only does so under specific circumstances, which makes sense. Try to read more than three words before your respond

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The point is is that it should never, under no circumstances monitor and eavesdrop private chats. It's an unacceptable breach of privacy.

Also, please explain what "specific circumstances" you are referring to. The current proposal doesn't limit the scanning of messages in any way whatsoever.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No, I actually read the current proposal. Maybe try that before regurgitating random stuff that matches your opinion

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=COM:2022:209:FIN

Here's the text. There are no limits on which messages should be scanned anywhere in this text. Even worse: to address false positives, point 28 specifies that each provider should have human oversight to check if what the system finds is indeed CSAM/grooming. So it's not only the authorities reading your messages, but Meta/Google/etc... as well.

You might be referring to when the EU can issue a detection order. This is not what is meant with the continued scanning of messages, which providers are always required to do, as outlined by the text. So either you are confused, or you're a liar.

Cite directly from the text where it imposes limits on the automated scanning of messages. I'll wait.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

ey there you go, you bothered to actually read. Your chats remain with your provider!

It's not like you were expecting privacy while sending your content through other people's platform, were you?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Aaand here's your misunderstanding.

All messages detected by whatever algorithm/AI the provider implemented are sent to the authorities. The proposal specifically says that even if there is some doubt, the messages should be sent. Family photo or CSAM? Send it. Is it a raunchy text to a partner or might one of them be underage? Not 100% sure? Send it. The proposal is very explicit in this.

Providers are additionally required to review a subset of the messages sent over, for tweaking w.r.t. false positives. They do not do a manual review as an additional check before the messages are sent to the authorities.

If I send a letter to someone, the law forbids anyone from opening the letter if they're not the intended recipient. E2E encryption ensures the same for digital communication. It's why I know that Zuckerberg can't read my messages, and neither can the people from Signal (metadata analysis is a different thing of course). But with this chat control proposal, suddenly they, as well as the authorities, would be able to read a part of the messages. This is why it's an unacceptable breach of privacy.

Thankfully this nonsensical proposal didn't get a majority.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Ahh, that is indeed a critical detail on the implementation not quite clear right away. To be honest I don't trust the end-to-end encryption most of these services offer. If I want perfect privacy, I'm sticking to self hosting stuff

[–] [email protected] 25 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I just did my part and wrote an email.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago

🫡🫡🫡🫡🫡

load more comments
view more: next ›