this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
1064 points (98.0% liked)

Memes

45581 readers
1 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml
sexy_peach@feddit.de
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
1064
πŸ‡ͺπŸ‡Ί How the EU Feels about (lemmy.ml)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by makeasnek@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml
44 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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 β€ždealβ€œ will be discussed by ambassadors tomorrow and could be adopted by ministers next week."

Source: https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/chat-control-2-0-eu-governments-set-to-approve-the-end-of-private-messaging-and-secure-encryption/

all 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Lauchmelder@feddit.de 138 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

A law like this would violate the rights of all EU citizens. The courts would (should!) strike this law down immediately

[–] AlteredStateBlob@kbin.social 71 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I sure hope the courts toss that thing. It would be the single worst violation of peoples privacy since the internet became a thing. It's incredible that lobbyists and police unions have this much impact on policy creation.

[–] SummerIsTooWarm@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Almost as if in ~bourgeoisie~ democracy other interest groups have more influence in policy making than normal voters

[–] zyratoxx@lemm.ee 27 points 2 years ago

Yeah, just like the "Upload Filters"

Poor Axel Voss showed everyone how much of a media company whore he is just to get his biggest lifetime achievement taken down by the EU court because those filters could result in censorship (something that literally everybody told the supporters would happen)

[–] SummerIsTooWarm@lemmy.ml 19 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The courts very likely will strike something like this down, but the people responsible know this. Court dealings can take years and during this time our privacy gets violated ~~and some kind of profit is made~~.

And even when this law is declared illegal the existing data will likely be kept, only new collection is stopped (happened in Germany)

[–] ruination@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 years ago

I wish people who proposes laws and regulations that violates human rights with provable intent to do just that would be fined or imprisoned.

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 129 points 2 years ago (2 children)

1: "... and then we'll be able to stop terrorist attacks. Simple".

2: β€œok 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?β€œ

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 ??"

[–] Amends1782@lemmy.ca 33 points 2 years ago (1 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

[–] AmIConcious@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] lud@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Amends1782@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago

Damn that's cool. Every once in a while IBM does cool shit

[–] tweeks@feddit.nl 20 points 2 years ago

And even that's only in the optimistic situation where you can always fully trust "1", also in the future.

[–] zzzzzz@lemmy.ml 101 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] ruination@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 2 years ago

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.

[–] Starkstruck@lemmy.world 98 points 2 years ago

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.

[–] MentalEdge@ani.social 74 points 2 years ago (2 children)

This is a level of bullshit that will straight up make me vote to leave the EU.

Outlawing E2EE should just not be a thing. It just shouldn't.

[–] sexy_peach@feddit.de 59 points 2 years ago (2 children)

As if European state governments aren't also stupid and would come up with this idea.

The EU sucks sometimes but where ever you live in the EU your gov would totally come up with this on their own...

[–] MentalEdge@ani.social 18 points 2 years ago

Obviously. The point is that it's the kind of thing that will make me reject the very society I'm living in, and I would change it wholly to avoid this.

If the source was my own government, for the first time in my life, I'd be considering moving to a new country.

[–] Rivers@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

UK has been trying to push this for the last 2 years the moment we left the EU

[–] Dra@lemmy.zip 30 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Well, this is being implemented in the UK separately so I wouldnt be too hasty

[–] ruination@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 2 years ago

Honestly, they could at least wait and see what happens in the UK before proposing something similar. They literally have a free guinea pig next door.

[–] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 1 points 2 years ago

Not really surprising, though

[–] stepanzak@iusearchlinux.fyi 70 points 2 years ago

iT's fOr yOuR kiDs sAfEtY!!1!1!1! As much as I like being in EU, I hate this and hope it doesn't pass.

[–] guy@lemmy.world 59 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 38 points 2 years ago

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.

[–] riodoro1@lemmy.world 51 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Serdan@lemm.ee 20 points 2 years ago (1 children)

They can't. It's unenforceable.

[–] ruination@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Ferk@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

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?

[–] whoisearth@lemmy.ca 38 points 2 years ago (4 children)

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.

[–] makeasnek@lemmy.ml 29 points 2 years ago

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.

[–] jlow@beehaw.org 9 points 2 years ago

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 ... +__+).

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago

Tbf in this scenario, google reports you to the police. You get arrested in either scenario.

[–] chaosppe@lemmy.world 36 points 2 years ago

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

[–] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 28 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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.

[–] gareins@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago

Somebody must have already... anyone did any googling?

[–] Facebones@reddthat.com 4 points 2 years ago

Start dumping any and all data of theirs that can be dredged up

[–] SuckMyWang@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago

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.

[–] Raz@lemm.ee 19 points 2 years ago

What the actual fuck...

[–] jlow@beehaw.org 14 points 2 years ago

Learning from the "friends" on the other site of the atlantic!

[–] Evilphd666@hexbear.net 9 points 2 years ago

fedposting this seems like a sus link HAHAHA! WE GOT THEM NOW! CLICK

Never going to give you up troll

GOD DAMMIT GARY this is the 12th time today!

[–] Faydaikin@beehaw.org 4 points 2 years ago

At least they have the courtesy to write it into law.