• archchan@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    102
    ·
    13 days ago

    If we have the will to fight this every 5 minutes, we should have the will to make it so we don’t keep having to. Winning the same battle over and over isn’t victory; it’s just giving the enemy more time and opportunity to define the terms of your defeat.

    This is getting comically ridiculous and I’m tired, but I suppose that’s the point.

  • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    I would bet my right nut on the real reason for all this is some AI-billionaire who aggressively pushes this with moneyz. Having every fart we make soon be analyzed by AI is the best “natural” training there could be.

    As a cherry on top is the total surveillance for the state(s). AI will probably do a decent job (despite what the article says) in scanning for potential “threats” to let actual people check.

    But I can’t even comprehend the power that would be needed to actually scan every shit by every person every minute. No data center in the world has this oomph. So it has to be a simple keyword-search (in all possible languages, even leetspeek and co?) To forward to ai. And if ai would just report 0.5% as “suspicious” for manual human control, it would be more supermassive than a black hole. This is just not doable and hence defeats it’s fake reason: protecting the kids.

    So that kinda just leaves ai-training and selective easy surveillances without court-orders. Which also won’t protect kids. As every criminal out there will find a loophole.

    • Chaotic Entropy@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      12 days ago

      All the current powers that be, private and governmental, can heartily agree that allowing the public to have any expectation of privacy or autonomy is highly undesirable.

    • Tryenjer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      11 days ago

      Of course, just listen to the CEO of Palantir, he already admitted that that’s his goal. By inference, we can extrapolate that this is the goal of all major business leaders of these companies who are developing AI systems. They need more data to compete with China, and if that requires the West to have authoritarian mass surveillance systems, so be it.

      https://gizmodo.com/palantir-ceo-says-a-surveillance-state-is-preferable-to-china-winning-the-ai-race-2000683144

      • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 days ago

        While he’s technically not wrong, i hate the world and where it will continue to go to.

    • REDACTED@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      12 days ago

      Can we please stop circlejerking AI into everything? The chat control has been in debate before AI was mainstream

      • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        12 days ago

        I had multiple possible reasons. Total surveillance is enough already, the recent aggressive pushing hints towards another added goal.

        You’re free to offer YOUR insight. I don’t even hate AI. I like it.

        • REDACTED@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 days ago

          My insight: EU is not interested in training AI for your corporations, neither are personal chats with likely zero accuracy/factuality good training material, neither is sms-style grammar going to improve any existing AI, everything about this is illogical and pretty stupid. It has always been about control, not… training AI lol

          • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 days ago

            Illogical? Chat is not just about sms-style dumb texts. It’s images and videos. Trillions of freshly taken photographs. Those are tremendously valuable. And even if it’d be just text, it’s natural training on people. But it’s also video calls, another incredibly valuable thing.

            And sure, the EU has no AI to offer, hence I said “some ai billionaire” or anyone or lobby that wants that shit being pushed hard.

            But as it is just a thought of a possibility I might totally be wrong. As if peasants like us would ever be allowed to know.

            • REDACTED@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 days ago

              Again, that is not a good training material. There have been numerous studies on the type of training data we feed and the result of it. This type of content tends to poison the data and lead to equalivent of brainrot for AI’s. This is not very useful data for AI, there are far better sources. Again, seems highly illogical the EU would do all this just to train some shitty AI. Training material should also always be accompanied by context data, which is commonly missing from instant messaging. It’s just too big of a mess.

              • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 days ago

                Fair points. But “just” surveillance? Anyone worth being surveiled sure wouldn’t be so dumb to use WhatsApp or other stupid crap. I’m worthless to surveillance and even I would not be possible to surveil.

                Just seems weird that it’s pushed so hard. Surveillance was always a must-have, but why now? The moment it gets voted away it’s back on the table.

                • REDACTED@infosec.pub
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 days ago

                  Counter-argument: all my drug dealers use whatsapp. Real life is not movies, criminals are rarely tech savvy.

  • melroy@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    12 days ago

    I will move to Linux phone if chat control is enforced. Chat control violates all existing privacy regulations. It’s insane.

    • it_depends_man@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      12 days ago

      That won’t work in the sense on page 35, Article 2 definition (f) it says that this applies to

          (ii)an interpersonal communications service;
          (iv) an internet access service;
      

      as well, meaning your phone provider and ISP. It’s highly the approach to enforce this would couple e-SIM and some app on your phone or computer that things have to be routed through. Or you just don’t get cell/internet service.

      • eleitl@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        12 days ago

        This has not yet happened even in the most authoritarian jurisdictions, with the possible exception of North Korea. The Internet is built with open protocols so any restrictions will have to be implemented on the network edge. There is no vendor locking for on-prem routers in multiple countries. As long as all purpose computers are not illegal you can still use strong encryption and anonymizing services on your end devices on your own network. So any mandatory surveillance and tracking will have no power there.

        • it_depends_man@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          12 days ago

          I would be happy to be wrong.

          The entire “proposal” is absolutely crazy from start to finish anyway. It’s just that these companies will have to do ______ or be labeled or held liable for aiding in the distribution of CP.

          Who knows what they will come up with.

      • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        12 days ago

        Such a tech restriction would instantly kill hotspot capability of a phone. Not that I think they corrupt traitors in the EU wouldn’t want to try it anyways.

    • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 days ago

      I think the strategy used the world-over, is to surveil everyone and build network graphs. You may work extremely hard to secure your device and communications, but the algorithms will build up a dossier on you based on all of the people you associate with who are less capable or motivated. Machine learning is insanely good at filling in missing data in an information rich dataset.

    • SabinStargem@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      12 days ago

      Oh, it is. Whoever masters Chat Control, gets to decide whom they can blackmail and rendezvous. Especially the underaged.

      Police and triple-letter agencies abuse information all the time to stalk their lovers or to get ahead in life. I bet this will be more of the same.

    • TheObviousSolution@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      12 days ago

      It’s sort of funny they have the reputation as one of the least corrupt countries in the world. It’s funny because when you say that something is incapable of being vulnerable in some way, that means at the very least that they are fertile grounds waiting to invite it.

      The public does not consider corruption a major problem in Danish society means those that are corrupt can get away with more because of less supervision. The OCDE has serious concerns about the lack of enforcement of bribery paid by Danish companies abroad and the Danske Bank money laundering scandal, which was the largest money laundering scandal ever in Europe and possibly the largest in world (at least until the Trump era), involved - you guessed it - Russian (among other USSR remnants) money laundering. Denmark will do what is good for Denmark, but Denmark is not the EU.

      • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        12 days ago

        Dunno, my perception of Nordic countries has always been that they have (of course, they’re human) corruption, they have organized crime and they have all kinds of social rot, but they also have no reservations in admitting having those or barriers at discussing and trying to help those, which was the reason for nicer things in their societies. Though inside that perception Denmark has always been the worst.

        Still, it’s all dynamics, and of course thinking you’re set causes failures.

        Russian money laundering is honestly not as big a problem as the degree of penetration of Russian state secret agents, which both inside Russia and outside is beyond what you’d reasonably expect. If you think a 13 years old girl can’t be an agent, you’re wrong. If you think such agents can’t be a common enough thing, you’re wrong. If you think it’s limited to Russian/ex-USSR nationals and their relatives, you’re wrong.

        And that’s the state of affairs during late USSR, these services haven’t become less professional, the world since then was changing fast enough to sharpen them, but also in ways where they always had the resources to survive hardship and learn.

        I don’t know what the supreme goals of what one can call Russia’s deep state are, and whether I would consider them something good or bad, but I’m sure western reactions to their actions are all 10-20 years late.

    • Urist@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 days ago

      Denmark’s social democrats were doing rough for a while against the conservatives and far right. After the immigration wave of 2015 they changed their stance (like most Nordics and the EU in general) towards an anti-immigration and xenophobe stance.

      This delivered them great success in elections due to them appropriating the popular talking points of the far right. Prior to this here in Norway, the social democrats, even as they were doing badly themselves, joked for some time that at least they were doing better than social democrats of Denmark.

      TL;DR The Nordic social democrats, with Denmark in the lead, want to be toughest in class on crime and immigration to do well in elections.

      In my opinion, this is just an internal contradiction of late stage capitalism, for which their ideology is not capable to compensate.

    • Tattorack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 days ago

      I wish I could tell you, but for all the cool and sensible things we have her, Denmark comes with… this.

      What the fuck is this, Denmark?