5 ms·

If you search for the word “encrypt” in this document, you’ll see that they are against Facebook end-to-end encrypting messenger: https://ec.europa.eu/home-affa

by vages 5y ago

If you search for the word “encrypt” in this document, you’ll see that they are against Facebook end-to-end encrypting messenger: https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/default/files/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-security/20200724_com-2020-607-commission-communication_en.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/default/files/what-w... I don’t think this is an overreaction.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
hvdijk 5y ago
The bit about Facebook's planned end-to-end encryption ends with: > One of the specific initiatives under the EU Internet Forum in 2020 is the creation of a technical expert process to map and assess possible solutions which could allow companies to detect and report child sexual abuse in end-to-end encrypted electronic communications, in full respect of fundamental rights and without creating new vulnerabilities criminals could exploit. Technical experts from academia, industry, public authorities and civil society organisations will examine possible solutions focused on the device, the server and the encryption protocol that could ensure the privacy and security of electronic communications and the protection of children from sexual abuse and sexual exploitation. I read this as "Okay, fine, we can't ban end-to-end encryption and we cannot backdoor it. What can we do?" If that is what they mean, it seems a reasonable enough question to ask.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  > possible solutions focused on the device, the server and the encryption protocol Looks like they're going to find ways to read our messages before they are encrypted and sent. Why would anyone continue to use a communications application that's known to do this?
  - AnssiH 5y ago
    > Why would anyone continue to use a communications application that's known to do this? Network effect. Most people are not using Whatsapp because it is E2EE, they are using it because all their friends are.
    - nix23 5y ago
      Not sure if terrorist and organized crime are influenced by the "Network effect"...and it's because of them right?
      - kenmacd 5y ago
        Even if true it seems it could still create a smaller haystack.
        nix23 5y ago
        Of freedom activists or terrorists? Or is that a viewpoint thing?
  - pradn 5y ago
    What if hashes of known-bad content are stored locally on the device, and sending content that matches against those hashes is not allowed. Or, the user could appeal if they think there's a false positive. This can be used for CP but also for known-bad fake news or inflammatory content. Clearly, the content hash DB needs to be scope down, and what goes in there should be chosen with democratic principles, and stand scrutiny in the courts. If done thoughtfully, it seems like a feasible solution.
    - ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
      Changing a hash is incredibly easy, you could just change some Metadata and the hash would change. And any perceptual hashing algorithms would naturally lead to false positives. Also this would likely be quickly commandeered for copyrighted work (honestly pretty surprised it hasn't happened already).
      - ergl 5y ago
        This is already done extensively: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhotoDNA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhotoDNA and https://blog.cloudflare.com/the-csam-scanning-tool/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/the-csam-scanning-tool/
        pradn 5y ago
        Yes, it would have to be a perceptual hash. False positives will occur, so there needs to be a way to appeal or remediate the algorithmic decision. We already apply this approach in a bunch of places. I believe the major personal cloud storage providers (OneDrive, etc) already do such scanning.
        ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
        >This can be used for CP but also for known-bad fake news or inflammatory content. It worries me that anyone thinks it would be a good idea to have "fake news" and "inflammatory content" blocked at the device level. Obviously cloud providers can do whatever they want (though I doubt it catches any more than the lowest hanging fruit, encrypting then uploading would be uncatchable), but the idea that my device will have a list of disapproved content, and I'll have to appeal to the government to be allowed to view it in case of false positives? The day that becomes a reality freedom will truly be dead.
  - 271828182846 5y ago
    > Why would anyone continue to use a communications application that's known to do this? Are you kidding? Almost nobody will care about that. This isn't even a new threat. It's common practice already.
  - fogihujy 5y ago
    My guess: Client-side scan for certain keywords to identify grooming and some kind of signature-based identification of known child-porn media. Basically what I assume Messenger does today, but on the local devices instead. The general public won't care until we're halfway down a slippery slope, and then people will just switch to whatever platform is perceived as more secure/popular at that particular moment in time.
IanCal 5y ago
Where do they say they are against it? Can you quote precisely what you are referring to? They seem to just explain the problem it causes and calls for finding new approaches since current ones are made ineffective.
estaseuropano 5y ago
They are not against it, they say it makes precenting child porn dissemination more difficult, which seems like a rather obvious truth. They say Industry and government need to work together SNF try and see what can be done about it without breaking privacy. So total opposite of how you read it.
- tremon 5y ago
  what can be done about it without breaking privacy Well, the answer is: nothing. Let's take an analogy: > Industry and government need to work together to try and see what can be done about me talking to my wife without breaking privacy. If I want to speak to my wife in private, that's between me and my wife only. If industry and/or government want to have a say in that, they're going to need to control or monitor anything I say to my wife. The very act of desiring to control requires subverting privacy. Of course, there are fruitful discussions to be had about the extent of privacy itself, the extent of private communication, and the extent of control that might be admissible. But to pretend that there is a perfect solution that doesn't affect privacy is either a foolish or deliberately malicious position to take.
  - brokenmachine 5y ago
    "The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia" - Australian ex-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull (while he was Prime Minister). While the EU is at it, they should do one for free energy. Get just the right panel of experts together, and hopefully they can handwave all those troublesome laws of physics away as well.
AnssiH 5y ago
That is not my read at all: > Last year, Facebook announced plans to implement end-to-end encryption by default in its instant messaging service. In the absence of accompanying measures, it is estimated that this could reduce the number of total reports of child sexual abuse in the EU (and globally) by more than half and as much as two-thirds, since the detection tools as currently used do not work on end-to-end encrypted communications. Seems more like stating a fact.
fossuser 5y ago
That's not even the proposal they're talking about, this is: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/interim-regulation-processing-personal-and-other-data-purpose-combatting-child-sexual-abuse https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/interim-reg... Also as the other comments said, even in the one you link they're discussing the true issues that exist and what to do in that context.
nullserver 5y ago
End to end in chat? They blacklist articles in chat already. So there is some level of man in the middle already.

by vages 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

hvdijk 5y ago

The bit about Facebook's planned end-to-end encryption ends with: > One of the specific initiatives under the EU Internet Forum in 2020 is the creation of a technical expert process to map and assess possible solutions which could allow companies to detect and report child sexual abuse in end-to-end encrypted electronic communications, in full respect of fundamental rights and without creating new vulnerabilities criminals could exploit. Technical experts from academia, industry, public authorities and civil society organisations will examine possible solutions focused on the device, the server and the encryption protocol that could ensure the privacy and security of electronic communications and the protection of children from sexual abuse and sexual exploitation. I read this as "Okay, fine, we can't ban end-to-end encryption and we cannot backdoor it. What can we do?" If that is what they mean, it seems a reasonable enough question to ask.

matheusmoreira 5y ago
> possible solutions focused on the device, the server and the encryption protocol Looks like they're going to find ways to read our messages before they are encrypted and sent. Why would anyone continue to use a communications application that's known to do this?
- AnssiH 5y ago
  > Why would anyone continue to use a communications application that's known to do this? Network effect. Most people are not using Whatsapp because it is E2EE, they are using it because all their friends are.
  - nix23 5y ago
    Not sure if terrorist and organized crime are influenced by the "Network effect"...and it's because of them right?
    - kenmacd 5y ago
      Even if true it seems it could still create a smaller haystack.
      - nix23 5y ago
        Of freedom activists or terrorists? Or is that a viewpoint thing?
- pradn 5y ago
  What if hashes of known-bad content are stored locally on the device, and sending content that matches against those hashes is not allowed. Or, the user could appeal if they think there's a false positive. This can be used for CP but also for known-bad fake news or inflammatory content. Clearly, the content hash DB needs to be scope down, and what goes in there should be chosen with democratic principles, and stand scrutiny in the courts. If done thoughtfully, it seems like a feasible solution.
  - ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
    Changing a hash is incredibly easy, you could just change some Metadata and the hash would change. And any perceptual hashing algorithms would naturally lead to false positives. Also this would likely be quickly commandeered for copyrighted work (honestly pretty surprised it hasn't happened already).
    - ergl 5y ago
      This is already done extensively: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhotoDNA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhotoDNA and https://blog.cloudflare.com/the-csam-scanning-tool/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/the-csam-scanning-tool/
      - pradn 5y ago
        Yes, it would have to be a perceptual hash. False positives will occur, so there needs to be a way to appeal or remediate the algorithmic decision. We already apply this approach in a bunch of places. I believe the major personal cloud storage providers (OneDrive, etc) already do such scanning.
        ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
        >This can be used for CP but also for known-bad fake news or inflammatory content. It worries me that anyone thinks it would be a good idea to have "fake news" and "inflammatory content" blocked at the device level. Obviously cloud providers can do whatever they want (though I doubt it catches any more than the lowest hanging fruit, encrypting then uploading would be uncatchable), but the idea that my device will have a list of disapproved content, and I'll have to appeal to the government to be allowed to view it in case of false positives? The day that becomes a reality freedom will truly be dead.
- 271828182846 5y ago
  > Why would anyone continue to use a communications application that's known to do this? Are you kidding? Almost nobody will care about that. This isn't even a new threat. It's common practice already.
- fogihujy 5y ago
  My guess: Client-side scan for certain keywords to identify grooming and some kind of signature-based identification of known child-porn media. Basically what I assume Messenger does today, but on the local devices instead. The general public won't care until we're halfway down a slippery slope, and then people will just switch to whatever platform is perceived as more secure/popular at that particular moment in time.

IanCal 5y ago

Where do they say they are against it? Can you quote precisely what you are referring to? They seem to just explain the problem it causes and calls for finding new approaches since current ones are made ineffective.

estaseuropano 5y ago

They are not against it, they say it makes precenting child porn dissemination more difficult, which seems like a rather obvious truth. They say Industry and government need to work together SNF try and see what can be done about it without breaking privacy. So total opposite of how you read it.

tremon 5y ago
what can be done about it without breaking privacy Well, the answer is: nothing. Let's take an analogy: > Industry and government need to work together to try and see what can be done about me talking to my wife without breaking privacy. If I want to speak to my wife in private, that's between me and my wife only. If industry and/or government want to have a say in that, they're going to need to control or monitor anything I say to my wife. The very act of desiring to control requires subverting privacy. Of course, there are fruitful discussions to be had about the extent of privacy itself, the extent of private communication, and the extent of control that might be admissible. But to pretend that there is a perfect solution that doesn't affect privacy is either a foolish or deliberately malicious position to take.
- brokenmachine 5y ago
  "The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia" - Australian ex-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull (while he was Prime Minister). While the EU is at it, they should do one for free energy. Get just the right panel of experts together, and hopefully they can handwave all those troublesome laws of physics away as well.

AnssiH 5y ago

That is not my read at all: > Last year, Facebook announced plans to implement end-to-end encryption by default in its instant messaging service. In the absence of accompanying measures, it is estimated that this could reduce the number of total reports of child sexual abuse in the EU (and globally) by more than half and as much as two-thirds, since the detection tools as currently used do not work on end-to-end encrypted communications. Seems more like stating a fact.

fossuser 5y ago

That's not even the proposal they're talking about, this is: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/interim-regulation-processing-personal-and-other-data-purpose-combatting-child-sexual-abuse https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/interim-reg... Also as the other comments said, even in the one you link they're discussing the true issues that exist and what to do in that context.

nullserver 5y ago

End to end in chat? They blacklist articles in chat already. So there is some level of man in the middle already.