[HN Gopher] EU Chatcontrol 2.0 [video]
___________________________________________________________________
EU Chatcontrol 2.0 [video]
Author : nix23
Score : 366 points
Date : 2021-11-01 14:21 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (peertube.european-pirates.eu)
(TXT) w3m dump (peertube.european-pirates.eu)
| luciusdomitius wrote:
| This is really interesting coming from the Pirate Party. While I
| remember them for the protests against ACTA some 12 years ago,
| their biggest success - the Czech Pirate party is extremely pro-
| Brussels and has hardly breathed a word against it.
|
| Otherwise, my opinion is that this would be either impossible to
| enforce or the cost to do so would outweigh the benefits in a
| massive way.
| emteycz wrote:
| The Czech pirate party was built on internal democracy without
| any failsafety and got swathed by hundreds (thousands today) of
| leftists/statists indifferent to the original ideas.
|
| Basically none of their voting base (young adults, mostly) has
| any idea about the origin of the party. They were lured to the
| party because it supports green and social statist politics.
|
| Note: I don't think statism in itself is wrong, but I don't
| like the particular kind of state they're pushing for. I think
| their goals could be accomplished by supporting people more
| directly e. g. by supporting independent social organizations,
| which I think would be more in line with the original pirate
| ideas.
|
| However I must say that their latest program (for the
| parliamentary elections) was acceptable to me. But they're
| nearly (4/200) out of the parliament now.
| petre wrote:
| My problem with the Pirate Party is that they are part of the
| Greens group = anti nuclear activists, let alone not being
| represented at all in my country. I'd probably vote for them
| even ignoring this, because at least if feels like choosing
| the lesser of several evils. Voting is like choosing between
| the four horsemen of the apocalypse.
| emteycz wrote:
| Thankfully that's not shared by the Czech pirate party.
| They're pro-nuclear here. However, nearly everyone is pro-
| nuclear here.
|
| I think the Czech nuclear program is successful mostly
| thanks to Dana Drabova. Other countries need to find
| someone like her.
| dane-pgp wrote:
| A technology which requires exceptional people for it to
| be managed successfully should not be a technology that
| puts centuries-long commitments on society.
| emteycz wrote:
| I strongly disagree. The specialists exist and the
| benefit is too large to be ignored.
| effie wrote:
| Why not, we will always have exceptional people. I don't
| get this lack of ambition.
| sputr wrote:
| Most Pirate Parties are pro-nuclear. But they are part of
| the Green group because it's the closes match you'll get.
|
| They would like to form their own group, but they don't
| have enough pirates elected from enough countries yet to
| qualify. So they're stuck with going with the best option.
|
| Besides, as long as greens and pirates share the same goal
| ... the'll work out the rest. This way the greens may move
| away from the anti nuclear stance quicker.
| kebman wrote:
| A friend of mine was the leader of the Norwegian Pirate
| Party. He proposed a new way to organize society in a
| decentralized, professionalized, yet accountable way. His
| main issue was that politicians would promise a bunch of
| nonsense, and then get voted in based upon those promises,
| but after the fact they would never do anything about it.
| Even after breaking all the promises, most politicians never
| have to answer for lying or not accomplishing what got them
| into a position in the first place. One of the concrete tools
| he alluded to when speaking about these flaws was the
| FixMyStreet app and website.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| While this is true, some of it is because voters are
| ignorant and prefer politicians who lie to them. Oh sure,
| they'll _say_ they want honest politicians, but then the
| ones who promise them the moon are the ones they 'll
| actually vote for. Someone telling them, "sorry but your
| policy idea is hideously impractical and would be extremely
| expensive for little benefit" won't get their vote, even if
| it's true.
| kebman wrote:
| I think it's a bit more complex than that. I'm sure most
| voters have a real hope that their politician is actually
| speaking the truth. And sometimes the politician is even
| honest about wanting to make it happen. But then comes
| the intricacies of parliamentary constellations,
| horsetrading, lobbyism, and filibustering, and so forth.
| PontifexMinimus wrote:
| > But they're nearly (4/200) out of the parliament now.
|
| According to Wikipedia, the Pirates and Mayors group got
| 15.6% of the vote at the last election last month and has 37
| seats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Czech_legislative_e
| lectio...
|
| Is that not correct?
| emteycz wrote:
| Yes. But 33 seats are gained by the other party due to
| mechanism known as circling, which allows voters to give up
| to four preferential votes to specific candidates. The
| Majors Party is based around this "circling". For example,
| candidates from 10th place were voted in - in regions with
| 3/4/5 seats.
|
| The coalition agreement aimed to resolve this issue but
| failed.
| bojan wrote:
| > the Czech Pirate party is extremely pro-Brussels and has
| hardly breathed a word against it.
|
| I find "pro-" or "anti-" Brussels to be a false dichotomy. You
| can be _for_ the existence of the EU, but be critical of how it
| works, of the proposals coming from one of its institutions,
| and actively participate in improving the organisation.
|
| Which is exactly what this MEP is doing.
| raverbashing wrote:
| Of course, and might I add, this is how institutions should
| work.
| [deleted]
| m4rtink wrote:
| >This is really interesting coming from the Pirate Party. While
| I remember them for the protests against ACTA some 12 years
| ago, their biggest success - the Czech Pirate party is
| extremely pro-Brussels and has hardly breathed a word against
| it.
|
| Well, Marcel Kolaja, who was voted from the Czech Pirate Party
| to the european parliament certainly comments on these things -
| like on an earlier round for this in July:
|
| https://european-pirateparty.eu/parliament-approves-chatcont...
|
| He is in generally pretty active also in other important topics
| such as content filters or gatekeepers and other stuff:
|
| https://european-pirateparty.eu/tag/marcel-kolaja/
|
| As for the Pirate Party being "pro Brussels" it rather seem to
| to that they are ready to get involved in EU matters & possibly
| improve things.
|
| Other parties anti-EU rhetoric is often not very constructive
| and populist, especially if the EU calls then on their shady
| deals.
| FerretFred wrote:
| I agree with your opinion, but we're talking the EU here ..
| cost and red tape will not be an issue, so it'll happen.
| raverbashing wrote:
| The issue is important and needs to be discussed (both sides -
| which doesn't mean solving it at the 'chat level' is the right
| answer, of course). And I'm glad the Pirates "get" the internet.
| But the fud is getting old
|
| Realistically, targeted chat grooming on a major platform does
| end with responsibility over the platform. If the system is BS
| then it should be trivial to get the chat of any of the
| politicians involved in approving this. But from the past
| proposals, it doesn't look like that is "too trivial".
|
| While technical folks think the tech world is untouchable by laws
| the legislative folks think everything is "perfectly" amenable to
| legislation and of course they're both wrong and the truth lies
| somewhere in the middle.
|
| The most likely end result is that messaging for minors might
| have the monitoring (but remember Google, FB, etc already do this
| in a way). And of course even if it passes this is amenable to
| ECJ appeals, etc.
| tytrdev wrote:
| 1. GDPR
|
| 2. Intercept and scan all civilian communication
|
| 3. ???
|
| 4. Yellowstone explodes
| intricatedetail wrote:
| I remember talking about such scenario like decade ago and people
| were telling me I am a conspiracy theorist and the EU would never
| do something like this as it breaches human rights. I guess it's
| too late now. Too much money and powerful people involved.
| AnssiH wrote:
| EU has still not done it (yet, anyway). This is not an actual
| legislative proposal of any kind.
| marcodiego wrote:
| The fact that the video is posted using peertube gives me a
| breath of hope.
|
| Considering how it is currently not very popular, I don't have
| high hopes that this video will last longer than it could be had
| it been posted on youtube. Nevertheless, this is a step in the
| right direction.
| dang wrote:
| Related from a few months ago:
|
| _Messaging and chat control_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28115343 - Aug 2021 (317
| comments)
|
| via pvg, prof-dr-ir (thanks!):
|
| _EU Parliament approves mass surveillance of private
| communications_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27759814 -
| July 2021 (11 comments)
|
| _European Parliament approves mass surveillance of private
| communication_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27753727 -
| July 2021 (415 comments)
|
| _Indiscriminate messaging and chatcontrol: Last chance to
| protest_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27736435 - July
| 2021 (104 comments)
|
| _IT companies warn in open letter: EU wants to ban encryption_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26825653 - April 2021 (217
| comments)
|
| Others?
| pvg wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27759814
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27753727
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27736435
| prof-dr-ir wrote:
| _IT companies warn in open letter: EU wants to ban encryption_
| - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26825653 - April 2021
| (217 comments)
| no_time wrote:
| Is it really a democracy if you keep pushing the same legislation
| over and over again until the people sleep on it once?
| sputr wrote:
| Yes, yes it is.
|
| The problem is, that we (as in, "not the rich and powerful")
| are not playing the game of democracy correctly.
|
| Protesting to stop a bill passing is the "you f-ed up, so
| you're panicking, and maybe you'll stop it" move. If it keeps
| happening, it just means you did not learn your lesson.
|
| What you should have been doing is actively fighting to set
| rules the way you want them. Both by electing the right people
| and, more importantly, actually, funding lobbying efforts.
| avgcorrection wrote:
| Democracy is when the people in general have power. Not when
| they are allowed (perhaps, begrudgingly) to demonstrate with
| placards outside of the buildings that house/employ people
| with power.
|
| Cite any reputable social science that says that democracy is
| an actual thing implemented in liberal democracies. Then we
| can take it from there.
|
| > actually, funding lobbying efforts.
|
| Billionaires and multi-millionaires will outspend your
| gofundme lobbying. It's simple economics.
| sputr wrote:
| No, that's not what democracy is. That's what you want it
| to be.
|
| And no, the rich can't outspend the population, if the
| population realized what's happening.
|
| Not only is 10USD/EUR per month times the entire population
| just an incredible amount of money ... it's way more
| effective.
|
| Most damage from lobby happens because corporate lobbyist
| are the only ones there. Just one publicly funded lobbyist
| there to remind the decisions makers of what is right and
| prevent their ability to rationalize would make an
| incredible difference.
|
| But you need to pay that person.
| chupy wrote:
| _What you should have been doing is actively fighting to set
| rules the way you want them.Both by electing the right people
| and, more importantly, actually, funding lobbying efforts._
|
| Maybe we should actively fight against the existence of lobby
| groups. The lobby groups in most cases push for legislation
| that is good for them (companies) and not for the people.
| sputr wrote:
| I hear what you are saying, but sadly that's like fighting
| against democracy. Lobbying is a natural party of a
| democratic system, just like political parties. You can try
| and outlaw it, but you'll only make the problem way worse.
|
| And it's not inherently a problem. It's not even slanted
| against the interests of the population. The only reason we
| have a problem is because "the rich and powerful"
| understand that this is how democracy works and everyone
| else ... wishes it was different.
|
| The solution to just about all our problems is simple: stop
| wanting democracy to be something it isn't and start
| "using" it correctly - namely, realize that to HAVE power
| you need to SPEND money. And no, taxes ain't it.
|
| The great thing is that "the people's" money is way more
| effective (i.e. it's more expansive to get politicians to
| do immoral acts than it is for them to do moral acts).
| Plus, we have more of it (10EUR/USD per month times the
| entire population is ... a lot of money).
|
| We just have to start.
| A_non_e-moose wrote:
| How do we, the "not the rich and powerful" fund lobbying
| efforts, considering current competitors?
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Elect someone else
| no_time wrote:
| Not so simple since you only have one vote and politicians
| have thousands of choices to make during their time in
| office.
|
| I strongly oppose domestic spying laws like this, AND I
| oppose uneducated immigration too. There is no party that
| shares both of these views.
|
| In other words the current system will always boil down to
| choosing between bad options that will screw you over some
| way or another. I wish there was an alternative...
| wolverine876 wrote:
| 320 million other people deserve an equal say, so probably
| you won't - and shouldn't - get exactly what you want (nor
| should I).
|
| I don't like uneducated voters.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _I strongly oppose domestic spying laws like this, AND I
| oppose uneducated immigration too. There is no party that
| shares both of these views._
|
| Democracy requires compromise. There will never be a party
| that perfectly matches your views. You prioritize the ones
| you care about, find common ground and help those who will
| advance your interests.
| A_non_e-moose wrote:
| Direct democracy a la Switzerland where issues are put up
| for vote for the entire population?
|
| Although for direct democracy to be effective you would
| need a highly educated and politically engaged population
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Judging by how low the vaccination rate is for rich and
| developed Switzerland in comparison to poorer countries
| like Spain or Portugal, I stopped assuming that most of
| the population there is "highly educated" as you put it.
| No offense to the Swiss.
|
| Maybe some Swiss can clarify why their population is so
| anti-vax, as it boggles my mind.
|
| My point is not to say that such a direct democratic
| system wouldn't be effective, I'm just saying that
| correlation != causation, as in the case of Switzerland,
| I attribute its success as a country more to it being a
| neutral banking heaven for the world elite for decades
| and being in a very fortunate geo-political location that
| was spared the destruction of war which helped it attract
| tons of foreign talent and capital, rather than to its
| direct democratic system and domestic educated
| population. I could also be wrong of course.
| spidersouris wrote:
| Switzerland has 64% of its population vaccinated [1].
| It's not that low compared to other Western countries.
| It's as much as the United States [2]. What makes you say
| that?
|
| [1] https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-
| tracker-and-m...
|
| [2] https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-
| tracker-and-m...
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| And where did I mention the US?
|
| Portugal is almost 100% vaccinated, Switzerland is at 64%
| which puts it closer to the former comunist EU members
| like Slovakia.
|
| That's a massive difference, and to me, says something
| about the country's population/society.
| mmdoda wrote:
| I'm sorry but you are spreading misinformation. The Swiss
| are not anti-vax in general and they are not against the
| Covid vaccine. Switzerland is 63.7% vaccinated.
|
| In any case not getting the vaccine doesn't make someone
| uneducated. Switzerland has some of the best schools and
| universities in the world. In 2018, 44% of 25-64 year-
| olds had completed a tertiary qualification in
| Switzerland, compared to 39% on average across OECD
| countries. [1]
|
| [1] https://www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-
| glance/EAG2019...
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> I'm sorry but you are spreading misinformation._
|
| Which misinformation did I spread?
|
| _> Switzerland is 63.7% vaccinated._
|
| Which I said I find it to be very low in comparison to
| countries like Spain and Portugal where the rate is
| nearly 100% so having only 64% points to a large number
| of anti-vaxers similar to Eastern Europe.
|
| _> In any case not getting the vaccine doesn't make
| someone uneducated._
|
| No? Then what does it make the other 36% who refuse to
| get vaccinated? En-masse refusal of a potentially life
| saving vaccine that will help end the pandemic doesn't
| really scream intelligence and education, does it?
| monkeywork wrote:
| creating your own definitions or metrics as to what would
| qualify someone as educated isn't helpful in a
| discussion.
|
| you are also making assumptions that those who aren't yet
| vaccinated are anti-vax, which again isn't always the
| case they may have their own reasons for delaying or
| perhaps are perfectly fine with vaccines in general but
| distrust this particular one for whatever reason.
|
| A person can be educated person can still be an
| unreasonable one.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> they may have their own reasons for delaying or
| perhaps are perfectly fine with vaccines in general but
| distrust this particular one for whatever reason._
|
| So what does the swiss population know that the
| scientific and medical communities don't?
| [deleted]
| no_time wrote:
| Yes something like that. I don't have high hopes of that
| ever happening here (Hungary) though
| squarefoot wrote:
| Sometimes it's too late. The best dictator in the western
| world isn't the one who sends the army down the streets to
| shoot protesters, but the one who controls information so
| that people after years of being dazed by the same propaganda
| will vote him in power without any coercion. Sadly bad rulers
| sometimes have more resources than good ones, which turns out
| in more online/tv/radio/newspaper presence used to spread
| their propaganda.
|
| If we could force somehow politicians to count on the same
| exact public exposure, from rallies to apparently trivial
| things such as tweets, that would possibly change something,
| but to me a similar scenario in this universe is near science
| fiction.
| Abfrage wrote:
| The election to the EU Parliament is a farce. The parliament
| has no power. It cannot propose laws. It only votes on the
| laws of the Commission. In the last election, the people
| could elect the President of the Commission. The person
| elected did not get the office. They simply put von der Leyen
| in that position while she was investigated in the German
| parliament.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Having done a lot of work in politics, I see the same
| things frequently: how easy it is for even a few people to
| accomplish things with a little effort (and that's with a
| level of organization and management that is shockingly low
| - as in, if you have competent business skills, you'll walk
| in and think 'this can't possibly be as bad as it looks'),
| and then on the outside there are a lot of people calling
| it a 'farce', saying it's hopeless, etc. etc. It's just
| kind of silly, like people telling me heavier-than-air
| flight is impossible. OK, if that's what you obviously want
| to think.
|
| It's like the naysayers for anything, such as startups. 'It
| doesn't work', 'it can't be done', 'nobody will _let_ you
| ', blah blah blah. And all the time you are doing it. What
| can you say to them?
| pas wrote:
| The power to veto is not a farce.
| blibble wrote:
| it is because the commission just has to bide its time
|
| once the law is passed future parliaments can't modify or
| repeal it
| pas wrote:
| it doesn't depend on time. the parliament can reject it
| every single time without it ever getting tired.
|
| and since the MEPs represent the same people who elect
| governments who then delegate to the commission, it's
| strange if the commission continues to propose
| regulations that are unpopular.
| blibble wrote:
| you're thinking on a sub 5 year scale
|
| the commission can wait for a parliament that will pass
| its legislation
|
| and once it's passed: that's it, future parliaments can
| do nothing about it
|
| and if a member state wants it gone: it has to leave the
| EU entirely
|
| and politically the commission is the same as it has
| always been (by design)
| pas wrote:
| the commission does what the member states want.
| obviously it has its own agency in the matters, but
| members don't send someone who would totally disregard
| their wishes.
|
| the whole problem with these security-privacy ideas is
| that the member governments want to reign in the
| Internet, just as they did with every other phenomena for
| the past hundreds of years. (with varying degrees of
| "success".)
|
| CSAM is especially a big red cloth that catches the eye
| of governments. It's not like there was less child abuse
| before the Internet, and if there were absolutely no CSAM
| on it from tomorrow ther wouldn't be less actual abuse...
| :/
| tsimionescu wrote:
| > In the last election, the people could elect the
| President of the Commission.
|
| What are you basing this on? The President of the
| Commission is, by law, proposed by the European Council and
| validated or not by the European Parliament. Since there
| was no single majority party after the election, it's not
| completely surprising that backroom deals led to a
| different president than the desire of the party holding
| the most seats.
| 66fm472tjy7 wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_C
| omm...
|
| > The Spitzenkandidat of the largest party would then
| have a mandate to assume the Commission Presidency
|
| While this is not de jure, German-speaking media did
| report on the 2019 election as if the above were
| consensus. It is my understanding that this was not the
| case in all EU countries.
| pimterry wrote:
| I agree the future proposed here would be totalitarian, but it's
| important to be clear that today *this is not currently a
| legislative proposal in the EU*.
|
| It's not been proposed, it's not being voted on, and it's not
| coming into force any time soon.
|
| There are two things that have been proposed:
|
| 1. Adding a temporary exemption ('derogation') within privacy
| regulations to ensure online service providers can scan user data
| for CSAM _if the provider so chooses_ without being in breach of
| GDPR. In the US and elsewhere, providers who wish to do were
| already doing this. This just provides a quick fix to avoid GDPR
| from shutting down existing service provider 's own child
| protection programs. More details:
| https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-promo...
|
| 2. Asking the EU Commission to investigate and analyze possible
| proposals for longer-term legislative solutions to this issue, by
| defining more clearly what service providers options and
| obligations are with regard to CSAM, and proposing various other
| ways the EU could protect children from abuse offline & online.
|
| The EU's summary of the overall process is at
| https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/policies/internal-security...
| (even more detail here: https://ec.europa.eu/home-
| affairs/system/files/2020-07/20200...). The details of the
| derogation regulations are at
| https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-promo...,
| and there's more detail on the commission's ongoing analysis to
| eventually define proposals here:
| https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-sa...
|
| One _possibility_ is that the commission could propose
| legislation mandating scanning of all messages and AI to
| automatically search for grooming. Some parts of that legislative
| option are mentioned as ideas to be considered (see the
| "Inception impact assessment" PDF in the commissions analysis)
| alongside various other options. There's nothing suggesting that
| this is the leading option though. That PDF also makes detailed
| note of privacy concerns as topics to consider too, and the
| resulting public consultation on that specific assessment
| received a huge amount of feedback against such measures.
|
| So far, there is no proposed legislation like what's described in
| this video. If there were, it's likely that there would be major
| public outcry, and there is no indication that it would pass.
|
| It's possible the commission could propose this, but it's also
| very plausible that the commission proposes some other framework
| of obligations, which makes it clear when and how online services
| must scan for CSAM, without mandating searching of all private
| communications. For example, mandating CSAM scanning of publicly
| accessible content online, and mandating that private message
| providers include "report this message" tools to allow users to
| report otherwise inaccessible content by themselves.
|
| Of course, there is always the possibility that the EU could veer
| away from privacy protections into being a totalitarian state,
| sure, but nobody is currently proposing legislation along those
| lines. There's a wide spectrum of reasonable possibilities on the
| table here that would be genuine improvements. There's no need to
| panic about the imminent death of privacy quite yet.
| prof-dr-ir wrote:
| Thank you for this clarification. This topic has been
| previously discussed on HN and sadly the top comments seem to
| always result in poorly informed pitchfork parties against the
| EU and its institutions.
|
| I would urge people to read the linked texts in your comment. I
| think they will see that it is entirely possible to follow the
| (imperfect) thought process of the EU Commission from these
| primary sources, since they are quite readable.
| stinos wrote:
| _So far, there is no proposed legislation like what 's
| described in this video._
|
| Any idea why the Breyer makes it sound like this is something
| which is coming though? Or why he's even talking about it?
| Aerroon wrote:
| > _Of course, there is always the possibility that the EU could
| veer away from privacy protections into being a totalitarian
| state, sure, but nobody is currently proposing legislation
| along those lines._
|
| 15 years ago the EU made this into law:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive
|
| This _eventually_ didn 't hold up in court, but it pretty much
| shows where the Union has been on the privacy scale right from
| the start when it comes to governments doing the snooping.
| skratlo wrote:
| Does anyone know WHO is actually pushing this? Who is behind
| this? Who initially proposed it, and who is lobbying for it?
| Gimme names, c'mon
| raverbashing wrote:
| Ashton Kutcher. Yes, I'm serious.
| AnssiH wrote:
| See the Feedback section on the initiative
| (https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-
| sa...) for various comments from various
| organizations/companies, pushing for various things.
|
| As far as I can tell, no EU organ has actually published any
| actual proposal or recommendation to introduce such mandatory
| screening as described in the OP.
|
| My guess is that the actual proposal, when it comes, will not
| include industrywide mandatory screening or breaking end-to-end
| encryption.
| mod50ack wrote:
| These wr going to actually be proposed in the fall, but it
| has now been pushed back to December.
| dane-pgp wrote:
| The intelligence agencies wouldn't be very good at their job if
| you knew what they were up to, would they?
| tasogare wrote:
| At some point we'll have to go in Bruxelles & Strasbourg to "have
| a talk" with those parliamentarians and reclaim our freedom. Is
| this what they are searching for, to justify even harsher laws if
| popular revolt fails? Or just harass even more political
| opponents by finding them automatically? All this crap is not
| gonna end well...
| cure wrote:
| It's not the parliament that is pushing this nonsense. It's the
| European Commission, which is not directly elected, that is the
| problem.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| dahfizz wrote:
| I wish you luck; without the right to bear arms you are going
| to need it.
| nix23 wrote:
| https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/message-screening/
| say_it_as_it_is wrote:
| Every bill in politics should include a reversion migration to
| back out of when it fails to achieve the goal of the bill. If
| this is for child porn protection, 12 months from now it should
| be reversed when the technology gets used for other purposes.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| This likely affects most people world-wide given chat platforms
| like Discord and Slack allow EU and non-EU citizens to chat with
| each other. At least they are being up front about it and giving
| people time to migrate to smaller self contained platforms.
| christkv wrote:
| I bet you the politicians and other EU crats will be exempt
| because of "fill in bs reason". Only for the dirty evil plebs.
|
| We need P2P to come back and fast and make this hard to
| impossible to do.
| petre wrote:
| Technology isn't going to fix corruption, bureaucracy and lack
| of transparency. Yes, we can play with P2P crypto stuff until
| they ban it and classify it as _firearms_.
| jgilias wrote:
| Going on a bit of a tangent here, but I would really prefer if
| less people chose video as the medium to explain things. For me
| at least it's markedly easier, quicker, and convenient to read
| things.
| Avalaxy wrote:
| Yep. Currently sitting in a waiting room with other people. I
| didnt bring headphones so have no way to consume this content.
| notRobot wrote:
| Did you take a look at the video description?
| http://www.chatcontrol.eu/
| nix23 wrote:
| The full text is in the the description of the video:
|
| More info: https://www.chatcontrol.eu
| callen43 wrote:
| From the publisher of the video (Patrick Breyer, member of the
| European parliament)
|
| http://www.chatcontrol.eu/
| dang wrote:
| Discussed not that long ago:
|
| _Messaging and chat control_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28115343 - Aug 2021 (317
| comments)
| tomc1985 wrote:
| You can thank gen Z and their enthusiastic refusal to read for
| that
| nix23 wrote:
| I am 4 years older then you...young buddy.
| tomc1985 wrote:
| You're being snarky but the rise of video for basic info
| transmission really bugs me. You even get these clowns
| making videos of them typing into notepad! Like ffs get a
| gd blogger account
| shuntress wrote:
| I agree that a concise and well-written statement will
| typically be more efficient than a video of similar quality.
|
| But something about speaking to a camera seems to make it
| easier for people to express their thoughts in a digestible
| way. I tend to find that, for many topics, some random 5-10
| minute video of a person talking to the camera will tend to be
| more informative than some random 5-10 paragraph article.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| >Previously secure end-to-end encrypted messenger services such
| as Whatsapp or Signal would be forced to install a backdoor. [0]
|
| So as an American, are there any Euros that can enlighten me on
| whether or not there remain any procedural hurdles left for this
| to clear? Or is this being implemented in Signal as we speak?
|
| https://european-pirateparty.eu/parliament-approves-chatcont...
| bojan wrote:
| There are still quite some hurdles. The European Comission is
| set to propose to make it mandatory, but the proposal will only
| come in December (and has been already postponed a couple of
| times due to the resistance). Then the European Parliament
| needs to pass it.
|
| The fight is not over, and resisting legislation like this in
| the past has provided results. I am hopeful.
| laurent92 wrote:
| The People shouldn't have to oppose what their leaders want.
| Not in a democracy. The people should vote.
| thomasahle wrote:
| The leaders listen to what the people say too. If the only
| people to speak up are the "we must do everything we can to
| protect the children" people, and the "we must give the
| police any tools they ask for", it's easy for the leaders
| to forget about the rest.
| laurent92 wrote:
| Or the leaders listen to who pays them. The vocabulary of
| listening or voting has faded away for the vocabulary of
| "explaining" or "spreading awareness", in both of which
| people are told what they should think. But they also
| listen, to ensure their explanations are "understood".
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| blibble wrote:
| the commission wouldn't have proposed it if they didn't think
| they would be able to push through the vast majority of it
|
| and if they don't get it through this parliament they'll wait
| until the next one, and so on
|
| and once it's passed: the parliament has no ability to alter
| or undo it
| AnssiH wrote:
| But the commission has not actually proposed it, has it?
| AnssiH wrote:
| There is no actual concrete proposal at all yet, so this is
| very far from passing in my opinion. (I think this is the
| initiative: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-
| regulation/have-your-sa...)
|
| The article in your link ("Parliament approves chatcontrol") is
| also misleading. What was actually passed in July 2021 was a
| temporary 3-year restoration of pre-Dec-2020 rules that _allow_
| service providers to voluntarily scan for child abuse (news
| release: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-
| room/20210701IP... , actual legal text: https://eur-
| lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A...). Dec 2020
| privacy law changes would have otherwise prohibited voluntary
| scanning.
| nisegami wrote:
| I would like to think Signal would simply not operate in the EU
| in any official capacity if this were passed as written.
| WhatsApp would definitely cave though.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| I mean, it's not that difficult for them to do this for the
| EU. The EU can be like _" You guys know those back-doors you
| put in for the CCP so they let you operate in China? Yeah,
| those, just gives us a fork of exactly that and we're cool.
| Maybe we'll also stop fining you every year for privacy
| violations and such if you play ball. :wink-wink:"_
| hellojesus wrote:
| Two questions:
|
| 1. If Signal does implement something like this, are they
| under gag orders so wouldn't be able to inform users?
|
| 2. What if they simply don't comply? So long as they don't
| have an office in the EU, is there anything that could be
| done? Users could just side-load.
| lixtra wrote:
| > 2. What if they simply don't comply? So long as they
| don't have an office in the EU, is there anything that
| could be done?
|
| Signal would be banned from European appstores/IPs.
|
| > Users could just side-load.
|
| Yes. But that can be illegal. And is an option for only a
| small part of the population.
| hellojesus wrote:
| This is really interesting to me.
|
| How could side-loading be illegal? It's just software.
|
| How would the state prevent vpns or tor users from
| connecting to Signal servers?
|
| More importantly, what if users just use pgp in emails,
| etc.?
| megous wrote:
| It can't. It's as simple as that.
|
| This is all just to catch people who don't know how the
| technology works.
| dane-pgp wrote:
| > How could side-loading be illegal? It's just software.
|
| A government could start by demanding that all
| smartphones sold in their territory disallow side-
| loading. That's obviously already the case for iPhones,
| and it would be a small "security update" to Android
| phones to prevent side-loading.
|
| As apps can detect which firmware version your phone is
| running, and whether the phone has been rooted, it's
| possible for phones to send cryptographically secured
| attestations to a government server that it is compliant
| with this new rule. Mobile networks can then block the
| IMEI numbers of phones which have side-loaded apps, or at
| least limit them to only sending/receiving calls and
| texts.
|
| That won't stop people using these chat services on
| laptops, for example, but within a few years it will be
| feasible to enforce a similar "trusted platform"
| condition on those too.
| lixtra wrote:
| > How could side-loading be illegal? It's just software.
|
| Lawmakers have no problem making software illegal [1].
|
| > How would the state prevent vpns or tor users from
| connecting to Signal servers?
|
| They don't have to prevent a 100%. They may just decide
| to police and punish.
|
| > More importantly, what if users just use pgp in emails,
| etc.?
|
| The same stupid arguments about lawful access (=back
| doors) [2] come up again and again. But that does not
| ensure it won't become law some day. If users continue to
| use secure tools above policing and punishing applies.
|
| [1] https://edri.org/our-work/edrigramnumber5-11germany-
| bans-hac...
|
| [2] https://www.justice.gov/olp/lawful-access
| hellojesus wrote:
| Point taken. But it is beyond me why anyone would let
| this type of law prevent them from encrypting their hard
| drives and messages.
|
| I would gladly take on the state to fight for the right
| to encrypt, but I'm American so I do understand my
| culture significantly impacts that perspective.
| feanaro wrote:
| Furthermore, are we now banning decentralized chat
| networks, where everyone can host their own node, like
| Matrix?
| thomasahle wrote:
| > 1. If Signal does implement something like this, are they
| under gag orders so wouldn't be able to inform users?
|
| I would guess not. At least if you mean gag-orders as used
| in the US by NSA etc.
|
| That's because this would be a law, and not a "friendly
| favor" asked for by the police. A law is at least under
| public scrutiny in contrast to fisa orders etc.
|
| Another question is whether EU police already is issuing
| gag based surveillance orders today. I'd like to know the
| answer to that too.
| 323 wrote:
| They are a bit behind times with the messaging.
|
| Instead of talking about pedophiles, they should talk about
| racists and far right extremists using chat platforms, that would
| rally a big part of the press in support:
|
| > White supremacists openly organize racist violence on Telegram,
| report finds
|
| https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/26/tech/white-supremacists-t...
|
| > Telegram: why right-wing extremists' favorite new platform is
| so dangerous
|
| https://www.vox.com/recode/22238755/telegram-messaging-socia...
|
| > Neo-Nazi groups use Instagram to recruit young people, warns
| Hope Not Hate
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/22/neo-nazi-group...
|
| > How far right uses video games and tech to lure and radicalise
| teenage recruits
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/14/how-far-right-...
|
| > Revealed: walkie-talkie app Zello hosted far-right groups who
| stormed Capitol
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/13/zello-app-us...
|
| > The UK social media platform where neo-Nazis can view terror
| atrocities
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/28/the-uk-soci...
|
| > Are Private Messaging Apps the Next Misinformation Hot Spot?
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/technology/personaltech/t...
|
| > The Cybersecurity 202: Extremists flocking to encrypted apps
| could restart debate over law enforcement access
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/13/cybersecu...
| natded wrote:
| Do not worry, this is their actual goal obviously. Can't have
| anyone voice opinions different from Klaus Schwab.
| ricardobayes wrote:
| I personally don't see anything wrong with this. If a private
| company would do this, sure. But the EU, no. They are non-profit
| and very unlikely to ever turn rogue. edit: I even welcome this
| change. You can dislike how you wish, I stand by my view.
| pydry wrote:
| I really wish somebody (or a lot of people) would write a hit
| movie/book where an innocent person on the run from a stasi-like
| state in 2035 has to face an interrogator who could read their
| whatsapp messages and google searches dating back to 2021.
|
| Without art or literature that draws out the terror I don't think
| most people can really envisage the danger we're all being put
| in. Without popular consciousness of the problem, it's all the
| more likely to happen.
| pmlnr wrote:
| In the 80s we had cyberpunk dripping from everywhere, in the
| 90s we had movies like The Net from 1995: (
| https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113957/ ), and just recently(ish)
| we had Black Mirror.
|
| People don't realize how deep the shit is becoming despite all
| these. We have successfully amused ourselves to death. (as per
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death )
| superkuh wrote:
| Cory Doctorow wrote this story in a number of ways but the most
| obvious one was back in 2007 called "Scroogled".
| http://superkuh.com/scroogled.html is a mirror because the
| https://craphound.com/scroogled.html version is garbled.
| pydry wrote:
| Thanks! Yes, exactly like that.
| drclau wrote:
| It's a good idea. But I don't think the impact will be as big
| as you hope. The "it can't happen to me" bias (optimism bias
| [0]) will make sure of that.
|
| Links:
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism_bias
| pydry wrote:
| I would expect the impact to be the way in which it would
| shape conversations afterwards by serving as a cultural
| touchpoint. Much like 1984 does.
|
| I'd really like to simply reference a classic movie or book
| as a conversation ender every time this shit cropped up
| rather than explain abstract risks from scratch in a less
| than engaging fashion.
|
| Anyway. This isnt a problem I can solve.
| drclau wrote:
| Btw, your idea reminds me of "Enemy of the State" movie
| [0]. I feel it was somewhat similar to your idea, except it
| dealt with what seemed to be a potentially big issue back
| then.
|
| Links:
|
| [0]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120660/
| RicoElectrico wrote:
| Movies can and do shape public opinion. So did the Jaws with
| respect to sharks [1]
|
| [1] https://daily.jstor.org/sharks-before-and-after-jaws/
| megous wrote:
| The danger is from companies building massive centralized
| archives of people's interpersonal comunications, behaviors and
| ideas. The data is already available for nefarious purposes
| internally. I'd be more interested in knowing how rampant the
| abuse of the data already is.
| malandrew wrote:
| I think what is sad is such a movie would literally have to use
| Google and WhatsApp in the movie as opposed to some fictional
| search engine or fictional social network for people to make
| the connection these days.
|
| Honestly, 1984 should be enough as it's not a big jump from
| 1984 telescreens to Google/Facebook.
| pydry wrote:
| Why is that sad?
| vaylian wrote:
| Because otherwise most people won't understand that it is a
| criticism of how things are in the real world.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Combining some recent news in which a company is attempting
| to claim at least common words for their new identity, I
| would just tweak the story so that the "Web" corporation in
| 2035 is at some point disclosed to be merely a rebranding of
| those we know today. One character will mention it to another
| in a casual side-remark.
|
| "Yeah, I never did feel great about the time that old search
| engine company renamed themselves "Web", but I guess the name
| stuck"
| avgcorrection wrote:
| Honestly it's nothing new. Dystopian stories about modern
| social media (or technology in general) gone wrong? Did I
| dream that Black Mirror was a thing?
|
| Black Mirror is just an example. And the whole "social media
| ruined the life of this one unsuspecting person" plotline is
| pretty boring and on-the-nose by now.
| snthd wrote:
| It's not enough (but it's still a good idea).
|
| "Slaughterbots" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fa9lVwHHqg)
| shows a terror angle for some of what technology can do
| (drones).
| skratlo wrote:
| Black Mirror
| radicalbyte wrote:
| Slack has a premium version which explicitly allows this: your
| employer can export ALL messages, including your private
| messages.
| aftbit wrote:
| Good to mention it, but IMO generally assume anything issued
| by or associated with your work is owned.
| chronogram wrote:
| I imagine every work communications platform has such a
| feature since before email.
| PeterisP wrote:
| The games Orwell: Keeping an Eye on You and Orwell: Ignorance
| is Strength explore this aspect, the player is an investigator
| that can read "whatsapp messages and google searches" to
| prosecute (or, in some cases, protect) people on the run from a
| stasi-like state.
| whitepaint wrote:
| Oh man, this is a wonderful idea.
| xalava wrote:
| "Give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man,
| I will find enough there to hang him" Richelieu, French PM,
| 17th century
| [deleted]
| zoover2020 wrote:
| Hollywood, watch this.
| pydry wrote:
| Alas it wouldnt be a remake or a superhero franchise. The
| best I can probably hope for is Charlie Brooker seeing it.
|
| And, if he writes a screenplay about it that probably means
| it already happened.
| zarq wrote:
| Hunted, a Dutch TV series, is a reality show featuring exactly
| this kind of investigative resources. A lot of times, the
| players (the hunted) are tracked down because they used some
| form of communication that is compromised by the hunters.
| sharperguy wrote:
| It would just be labeled a right wing conspiracy video from
| trump supporters.
| brippalcharrid wrote:
| But at the same time, if a [big-budget Hollywood] film like
| this were to be made, some might be tempted to think that it
| was a form of Predictive Programming.
| hohloma wrote:
| I changed my mind a bit on this issue. of course I still think
| its better with as little surveillance as possible, but I don't
| think what you are describing is actually "terror". If you are
| really an innocent person, there will be nothing in your
| history. I mean can you give me some examples of things this
| stati-state will find about you? Your porn history? or random
| wiki page about explosives? If there is a stasi-like state and
| they really want to get you, they don't need your history from
| 2021, its enough to just beat a concession from you about
| anything. Just see what the current stasi-like states are
| doing. Otherwise "Enemy of the state" is a pretty good movie.
| bserge wrote:
| Let's see, drone research, bomb research, gunmaking and
| ammunition possibilities, research on fires, explosions and
| incendiary devices, quick suicide methods, drugs, legality
| and punishment for a lot of shit, etc.
|
| Yep, I'm fucked :D
| mpolichette wrote:
| I want to agree with you... the problem arises because you're
| applying your values to those items... e.g. "yeah they're
| embarrassing/bad, but not really that bad"...
|
| However, it becomes scary when the people with access are
| much less level-headed. There are people who think gay people
| or watching porn should require treatment. There have been
| power changes where people with drastically different views
| have an agenda to push, and your innocuous "not really that
| bad" is all of a sudden an imprisonable offense because you
| "think differently" and you might encourage others.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > If you are really an innocent person, there will be nothing
| in your history.
|
| It's only not about things that are incriminating. Suppose
| you were a witness to something nobody was supposed to know
| about and now you're to be disposed of.
|
| If they have your message history, they have your full
| contact list, your relationships with them, who you trust the
| most, where you like to hang out, who owes you money or
| favors you could call in. You're completely isolated. For
| sure you can't use any kind of ATM or credit card or find
| work anywhere they'd expect you to provide a social security
| number.
|
| How far can you get if you can't buy gas or travel tickets?
| What do you do for food?
| ljm wrote:
| Innocent of what, though?
|
| This sounds like the nothing to hide, nothing to fear
| argument.
|
| The history allows such a state to construct a narrative
| where everybody else thinks you're guilty, based on your
| messages and porn history and so on. Cherry-picking, quoting
| out of context, etc. This allows the state to legitimise
| their actions, where torture would fail to do so.
|
| Make everyone fear each other.
| ben_w wrote:
| > I mean can you give me some examples of things this stati-
| state will find about you?
|
| I think it's a bit unfair to ask someone to throw away their
| (assuming American) 5th Amendment rights to make a point.
|
| To paint with a broad and nonspecific brush, the UK
| government has regular surveys asking about drug use[0] which
| show that in the year ending March 2020, 7.4% of young adults
| used a class A drug. Possession of that class carries a
| maximum penalty of 7 years and an unlimited fine, supply and
| production up to life and unlimited fine.
|
| Even for more mundane things like road traffic laws, if they
| were fully enforced then the only people with licenses would
| be those who didn't drive.
|
| (And are your memes fully licensed from the original
| copyright holder?)
|
| [0] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crime
| and...
| [deleted]
| AshamedCaptain wrote:
| Do note that they can already do that now. A stasi-like state
| just has to force Google/Apple to store/give them the history,
| and Google/Apple will oblige. They already do so regularly in
| "non-stasi" states without much fanfare.
| laumars wrote:
| That's genius. The Circle (with Emma Watson and Karen Gillan)
| started out really promising but ended up drifting in silliness
| towards the end. Also I seem to recall the movie having a
| really wooden quality despite the emotional content and having
| competent actors.
| hulitu wrote:
| The funny part will be that the same politicians who today vote
| this crap will be its victims. Those who do not underestand
| history, will repeat it.
| visarga wrote:
| I'd rather have the ability to filter what I don't like in my
| feeds, but having the government do this is totalitarian. Who
| knows what they will search for, I lived under communism for 15
| years, thank you, don't want back to the reign of terror.
| ricardobayes wrote:
| The possibility of the EU becoming a totalitarian power is
| without foundation.
| iakov wrote:
| It's not even about your feeds. It's about your private
| messages. Crazy stuff, Gestapo and KGB wouldn't even dream of
| this level of surveillance of ordinary citizens.
| heavenlyblue wrote:
| > Crazy stuff, Gestapo and KGB wouldn't even dream of this
| level of surveillance of ordinary citizens.
|
| They were doing that exact thing to selected citizens. So did
| FBI for alleged communists.
|
| Bugging apartments, planting their own spies, opening up
| private letters, etc.
| PontifexMinimus wrote:
| > They were doing that exact thing to selected citizens
|
| But they couldn't do it to everyone. Now with computers
| they can. You might think 1984 was written as a warning,
| but the powers that be see it as an instruction manual.
| rhn_mk1 wrote:
| > selected citizens
|
| Yup, they wouldn't even dream about that magnitude.
| buran77 wrote:
| Scale makes a whole lot of difference. Even the Stasi, the
| KGB, or the FBI had to restrict such monitoring to the
| small fraction of the population they actually suspected.
| Now they don't only suspect everyone, they also have the
| tools to monitor everyone.
|
| It's the difference between being able to point a gun at a
| few inconvenient people, and being able to point it at
| everybody, all the time. Eventually the temptation
| presented by this kind of power and control over people
| will intersect with some Erdogan or Lukashenko type with
| the finger on the trigger.
| PeterisP wrote:
| IIRC both Stasi and KGB _did_ aim for an almost full
| coverage of surveillance and informants, not just
| limiting to a small fraction of the population. Stasi had
| 500000+ informants (3% or more of population) which had
| _done_ monitoring, and obviously they wrote reports on
| much more people than that.
|
| Similarly for KGB; I believe that standard practice was
| to recruit secret informants e.g. from _every_ course
| group in universities, so any student activities would be
| fully covered and you could get a personal report about
| every student; for 100% of any trips abroad the group had
| an agent /informant or multiple within the group. So
| you'd have a small fraction (multiple percent?) of
| population actively involved in the monitoring, and a
| majority of people being at least occasionally monitored
| - as the archives later revealed, an _average person_
| should expect that your colleagues, friends and relatives
| will [have to] write reports on you (corroborated by the
| fact that any group might include two or more informants,
| so any omissions would be obvious and cause consequences
| for the false reporter) and note any expressions of anti-
| government sentiment.
|
| The aim _was_ to effectively keep a gun aimed at
| everyone, and they were somewhat successful in achieving
| that (or at least maintaining that belief) even without
| modern technologies.
| buran77 wrote:
| > The aim was to effectively keep a gun aimed at everyone
|
| The aim was to make everyone believe there _may_ be a gun
| pointed at them even if there wasn 't. While that was
| relatively effective do you know what is even more
| effective? _Actually_ having a gun pointed at everyone.
|
| Having 500k Stasi informants and spies over its 50 years
| of existence is a far cry from being able to effectively
| spy on everyone all the time. And informants are
| notoriously unreliable due to a whole host of human
| failings, not least among them being that the people want
| to gain favor or at least not antagonize the state.
|
| The modern surveillance state would make you inform on
| yourself via every device or communication channel you
| use, and at all times, with some human/AI combination
| making sure very little if anything is missed.
| PontifexMinimus wrote:
| If Erdogan isn't doing this already, he certainly has
| plans to. As do Putin, Xi, and a load of others. Welcome
| to our Brave New World.
| oleganza wrote:
| :eyeroll:
|
| Why is it always "them" vs "us"? NSA/CIA are doing
| probably a better job at global surveillance of
| everything and everyone, simply based on resources
| available to them. Every powerful enough government spies
| on the largest scale they can, because just letting
| someone else to spy on you and not spy yourself (if you
| can) would be infinitely foolish.
|
| Even at local scale. If citizens could find a way to hold
| their president on short leash, such president would be
| more likely to listen to the citizens. But citizens don't
| have such powers, only presidents do, so they only have
| to listen to each other.
| marcodiego wrote:
| Thanks to how big IT companies have tighter ties to
| developed countries, I wouldn't consider only these
| governments. Remember the list of companies who
| participated in PRISM were mostly (only) US-based.
| intricatedetail wrote:
| What makes you think people proposing this aren't on
| level (or even above) with Erdogan or Lukashenko? At this
| point they are just better at maintaining a good image. I
| don't believe you can have good intentions and still want
| to introduce such level of mass surveillance.
| [deleted]
| walrus01 wrote:
| If modern day tech had been available to the stasi they
| absolutely would have used it. They were already beginning to
| collect hair samples from people in the late 1980s in
| anticipation of widespread DNA testing being available 5, 10,
| 15 years down the road.
| mod50ack wrote:
| I think the Chinese government in the present day (for
| example) provides us with a good idea of what the Stasi
| would be doing today.
| nix23 wrote:
| And we try to re-implement it because it works...for the
| government ;)
| Aerroon wrote:
| I don't see how this won't pass. It's the EU. In the minds of
| many people the EU can do no wrong. And if they do something
| wrong it's okay and a small thing. And if it's not a small thing
| then you're just a conspiracy theorist that hates democracy.
|
| In the past the EU passed a directive that required all ISPs to
| save what websites you visited. This was overturned years later,
| but it seems now they're trying again through a different angle.
|
| Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive
| merb wrote:
| well now it's child pornography which they use to push such
| things trough. all people hate child pornography, but I mean,
| who would use whatsapp for such things? I mean seriously what
| are they even thinking? making such a thing go trough a
| official directive probably makes things go worse, way worse.
|
| a lot of people in germany, basically do not care they thing
| they do not have anything to hide (which is probably right) but
| there are so many crimes which are just done in front of
| everybody and nobody did care (cum ex, wirecard, just to name
| some). it's like once the rich or politicans are involved they
| start to care.
| xcambar wrote:
| Since it applies to chat and messaging providers... does it mean
| I could self-host my emails and save them from Chatcontrol?
| sabellito wrote:
| Then everyone you communicate with would also need to self-
| host.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| Maybe a small but growing number of people could deploy
| NextCloud _(open source file sharing, email app)_. [1][2]
| Some VPS providers make it easier to deploy. There might be
| easier ways to deploy nextcloud.
|
| [1] - https://www.vultr.com/apps/nextcloud
|
| [2] -
| https://www.linode.com/marketplace/apps/linode/nextcloud/
| kingcharles wrote:
| We'll have to go back to the days of Echelon in the 90s where
| everyone stuffed their Usenet posts and emails with keywords
| intending to render any surveillance useless due to overwhelming
| number of matches.
| eluusive wrote:
| This is definitely coming down the pipe. I think it's extremely
| imported to come up with an alternative to the existing
| centralized systems; which I believe primarily exist in order to
| mitigate spam.
|
| Some people have been working on an interesting solution called
| StampChat which has a similar topology to email, but the messages
| are encrypted by default and the spam mitigation is done via
| sending tokens to the recipient (ala Hal Finney's RPoW) idea.
|
| It's still a prototype, but there is one deployment over here:
| https://web.stampchat.io
|
| The whitepaper on the protocol is here:
| https://www.stampchat.io/whitepaper.pdf
|
| There's a faucet here if anyone is interested
| https://faucet.lotuslounge.org/
|
| We're not doing an ICO or anything, happy to give out more tokens
| out.
| shuntress wrote:
| > I think it's extremely imported to come up with an
| alternative to the existing centralized systems; which I
| believe primarily exist in order to mitigate spam.
|
| I think spam and abuse are definitely significant problems.
|
| The centralized systems are like medieval walled cities.
|
| They exist because, for an average individual, there is no
| practical way to live outside their walls.
|
| It's difficult to run your own email server. But, while the
| technical challenge may be difficult, the greater difficulty is
| in preventing your email server from becoming a bot in a spam
| network.
| Zababa wrote:
| Sent to the US? Really? The whole idea is terrible and harmful,
| but this part is what surprises me the most.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-01 23:01 UTC)