Context: Chat Control 2.0: EU governments set to approve the end of private messaging and secure encryption
“By making a minor concession EU governments hope to find a majority next week to approve the controversial ‘chat control’ bill. According to the proposed child sexual abuse regulation (CSAR), providers of messengers, e-mail and chat services would be forced to automatically search all private messages and photos for suspicious content and report it to the EU. To find a majority for this unprecedented mass surveillance, the EU Council Presidency proposed Tuesday that the scanners would initially search for previously classified CSAM only, and even less reliable technology to classify unknown imagery or conversations would be reserved to a later stage. The proposed „deal“ will be discussed by ambassadors tomorrow and could be adopted by ministers next week.”
1: “… and then we’ll be able to stop terrorist attacks. Simple”.
2: “ok but if you put a back door into encryption, won’t others be able to find it?"
1: "no we’ll be the only ones with the key. Great huh?“
2: “and you don’t think the key will be leaked or be hacked?”
1: “I said we’ll be the only ones with the key.”
2: “so what’s your plan to make sure the key stays secure”
1: “…”
2: “what’s your contingency plan if the key *is * hacked or leaked?”
1:“…”
1: "I SAID WE’LL BE THE ONLY ONES WITH THE KEY. "
2: “…”
1: “don’t you want to protect our children ??”
I never seen it summarized so fucking well. And meanwhile, it happens CONSTANTLY, but they pretend it’s impossible to happen and never has actually happened
With quantum computing around the corner that key is useless. So not only is my data then shared with the EU, china and US will also have a little look
That’s very speculative though. We don’t know yet the effect how large scale quantum computing will have on encryption.
Fun fact: Quantum computers already exist and you can play around with one for free*: https://www.ibm.com/quantum
*Max 10 min of system usage per month.
Damn that’s cool. Every once in a while IBM does cool shit
And even that’s only in the optimistic situation where you can always fully trust “1”, also in the future.
This seems to be a general theme. Those arguing loudest for better privacy are really saying “only we should be allowed to invade your privacy”. See: Google, Apple, the EU
It’s such a shame though, since as far as I know, the EU have had such an amazing track record. I’d expect no less from big tech, but not the EU.
because (I firmly believe that) it won’t get passed. The Commission doesn’t have a majority yet, and it will be laughed out of the EUP. EVEN IF the EUP votes to pass it, the ECJ ought to step in, because the UNCHR and the European Data Protection Supervisor have already said that it goes against the (human(!)) right of privacy. There is no shot that this will get implemented by 27 member states.
Criminals aren’t going to be using services that comply anyways. They’ll have their own underground ones. This is just a violation of regular citizens rights.
With a little knowledge, it’s not very hard to make your own messaging app and share it with those you know. And there’s plenty projects online that give you what you need without having to write the code yourself. Alternatively, there’s just plenty dark web and under the radar apps already that won’t bend to this ruling.
What it is, though, is very inconvenient and annoying to do so.
But if you’re an actual criminal, then there is this solution here that can never be subject to this ruling.
So what this clearly means is that the EU will violate the privacy of all the everyday people that don’t handle that inconvenience, pushing the serious criminals to dark channels.
This law has nothing to do with CSAM or child abuse prevention. “Think of the Children” is just an effective rallying point because, of course, no one wants to come out against it publicly. The Surveillance State grows.
Well they can go fuck themselves. Even if they pass it and messenger or whatsapp start (as in they totally dont already) scanning your chats and snitching I wonder how they are going to force other messaging services to comply.
They can’t. It’s unenforceable.
I’d imagine if, say Signal, refuses to comply and gets banned from the EU, one could always use a VPN. I think that nothing short of either a full global ban or implementing a version of The Great Wall of China would allow these ridiculous laws to be enforced. Even then, there will always be ways around it for those willing to go the extra mile.
Why not just go for Tox or some other P2P serverless communication system? They can’t ban / go after a system that has no central servers, can they?
Friendly reminder it’s never about consumer rights. It’s about who is in control of the data.
A question you can all ask yourself. Despite the warts in both who would you rather control your data (you have no choice here. Someone is controlling your data and it is not you)
A. Google, Amazon, Microsoft, etc.
B. Government
You’ll get strong answers either way. Personally I’d rather the government strictly from an accountability perspective but that also warrants governments not electing shitheads which unfortunately the world is leaning towards with these populist right wing politicians gaining favour.
It can be you. It doesn’t have to be Big Corps or Government. It can be federated instances, it can be self-ownership of data, it can be E2E encrypted.
A, by a goddamn long shot. If google mistakenly thinks I’ve advocated for a crime against a massive corporation, they’ll remove my account and ban me from their services. If the government mistakenly thinks I’ve advocated for a crime against a massive corporation, they’ll arrest me and ruin my life. Microsoft doesn’t give a shit if you acquired the 1s and 0s that comprise a popular TV show without paying for them. The government will fine you more than the average person will make in their entire life.
It also depends on where you live. Facebook doesn’t care if you’re gay or trans, if anything that’s valuable monetizable data about you. Iran will straight up fucking kill you.
Tbf in this scenario, google reports you to the police. You get arrested in either scenario.
This one is completely about the people who pretend to “care about the children” but coincidentally also sell the software that does the proposed CSAM scanning. It’s a money making-scheme for them. Shit like this makes me lose the last bit of hope I have for democracy (really hard to not put this into quotes by this point … +__+).
The privacy tech is so robust and easily available right now that anyone could spend a few days and replace their everything with privacy focused alternative while still maintaining a solid experience.
Here’s what this bill does for children: reduces pedos from sharing images of them yay! Here’s also what it does for Children: un-encrypts their chats so pedos know what they are doing, where they are, who they are with, what they like, their vulnerabilities and much much more. Trading safety for a viewing crackdown. Congratulations
In their defence they don’t actually care about your privacy they just want to hold onto power. The cookie thing is getting ahead before everything starts to shit itself from a private companies destroying privacy perspective. This stuff is for governments to look good and they are notorious for thinking they won’t fuck this up even though they always do.
We need to collect the list of names of every politican and such who has advocated for this. These humans are dangerous to society, and we need to be on the lookout regarding what are they doing next. We also need to raise awareness about them so that given the chance, they can be removed from positions of power.
Start dumping any and all data of theirs that can be dredged up
Somebody must have already… anyone did any googling?
What the actual fuck…
Learning from the “friends” on the other site of the atlantic!
Fairly fucking sure this is a nothingburger like Art. 13-17 was, and will not break E2EE messengers.
The reason:
Encryption plays an essential role in securing communications. The international human rights law test of legality, necessity and proportionality should be applied to any measures that would affect encryption. Both the UN Commissioner for Human Rights[1]and the European Data Protection Supervisor[2]have concluded that the EU’s proposal for a regulation on child sexual abuse material fails this test[3].
A recent article published by Wired[4]described a European Council survey of Member States’ views on regulating encryption. In its response to the survey, Spain stated that there should be legislation prohibiting EU-based service providers from implementing end-to-end encryption.
Requiring platforms and device manufacturers to build back doors to facilitate law enforcement access would make everyone more susceptible to malicious hacking from criminals and foreign adversaries alike[5]. Measures allowing public authorities to access the content of communications affect the essence of the right to privacy.
1.Which encryption experts did the Commission consult when preparing its proposal for a regulation on child sexual abuse material?
2.Will the Commission revise its position on encryption in view of the opinions of human rights associations and experts?
3.Given the abuse of Pegasus, how will the Commission ensure that the fundamental right to privacy is protected if a Member State, such as Spain, decides to ban encryption?
Submitted: 24.5.2023
[1] UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘The right to privacy in the digital age’, A/HRC/51/17, 4 August 2022, para. 28, https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc5117-right-privacy-digital-age. [2] https://edps.europa.eu/press-publications/press-news/press-releases/2022/combat-child-sexual-abuse-online-presents-serious-risks-fundamental-rights_en. [3] https://home.crin.org/readlistenwatch/stories/privacy-and-protection. [4] https://www.wired.com/story/europe-break-encryption-leaked-document-csa-law/. [5] https://cdt.org/area-of-focus/government-surveillance/encryption-and-government-hacking/.Source: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2023-001661_EN.html (EUP Parliamentary question E-001661/2023)
So yeah, it is now established that forcing law enforcement on E2EE messaging services goes against human rights. glhf EUC
At least they have the courtesy to write it into law.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
