9 ms·
CSAR: European Parliament rejects mass scanning of private messages
- mglz 3y agoFinally. As a next step, we need mechanisms to prevent the constant rehashing of these attempts to break security. Otherwise, it will get through during a crisis or via fatigue.
- prox 3y agoSo it needs be enshrined in a constitution I wager.
- logicchains 3y agoIt's already enshrined in the constitution of at least one European country, the right to privacy.
- bonzini 3y agoIt is in Italy's ("Freedom and secrecy of correspondence and any other communication cannot be violated"), but I didn't think this was particularly unique? (Note that this article of the constitution doesn't include E2E encryption because there's a carve out for the judiciary to limit this freedom).
- fullspectrumdev 3y agoWhat’s deeply funny is how Italy is also where a lot of police spyware industry got its start in Europe (HackingTeam and fellow travellers).
- phtrivier 3y agoWell, the trick is, a surefire way to make voters angry in large part of the continents (or, well, large part of France anyway) it so put "Constitution" and "Europe" in the same sentence - so there is not much of a place to enshrine that at the EU level. Besides, every member state's constitution probably already has a variant of "privacy is a fundamental right except in cases defined by law". I will argue that we _definitely do_ want cases where privacy is not 100% respected (sadly, "investigating crime" is not always a red herring, newspeak, lobbying propaganda, etc... People really do that for a living, and in the common interest.) In the end, it will always be a policymaker's job to draw the lines. What I would love to enshrine in a constitution is that "People shall choose policymakers wisely.". But I'm not sure of how to enforce that :/
- dannyw 3y agoI think the 4th amendment did a good job and is quite specific. The courts rewrote it judicially. > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
- waterheater 3y agoThe Fourth Amendment protects the physical, yet other amendments also address privacy in different ways. The First Amendment protects the mind and arguably one's spirit, the Third Amendment is a specific type of physical protection, the Fifth Amendment also protects the mind, the Ninth Amendment protects the existence of privacy, and the Tenth Amendment lets states implement greater privacy protections as they see fit. Given privacy is fundamentally related to the expression of free will, it's not surprising so much touches it.
- smolder 3y ago> The Fourth Amendment protects the physical, That's a narrow reading of it. "Papers and effects" ought to extend to our data as well, something the authors could not have called out more explicitly at the time of its writing. Call it inconvenient or impractical, whatever, but it's ridiculous to conclude their intent was that government can spy on presumed innocents as long as they don't make a physical mess. I think third party doctrine is also a pile of crap... and that data brokers shouldn't have a square inch of legal ground to stand on. GDPR sets a good example in that regard.
- waterheater 3y agoI completely agree, and computing has flipped the table on our understanding of the Fourth Amendment. In fact, our technological development and privacy concerns are proportional, which says something quite profound. Are you familiar with Kyllo v. United States and Carpenter v. United States? If not, you'll probably find them intriguing. Third-party doctrine is indeed a pile of crap. Still, the fact remains that zero-cost (okay, effectively zero-cost) digital information breaks virtually all historical ownership models which legal systems protect. GDPR is okay, but compliance with it is so burdensome to small businesses that corporate-driven cloud infrastructure is the only way to survive.
- eigenket 3y agoIt essentially is. The right to privacy is part of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which is enshrined into law as part of the Treaty of Lisbon.
- gpderetta 3y agoYes, the Treaty of Lisbon plus the Charter act as the de-facto EU constitution.
- varispeed 3y agoIt should be illegal to even propose this and it should be equalled to hate crime. People who think this is okay, to the point that they want to enact this in law should be cast out of the society.
- JW_00000 3y agoIt seems dangerous to make proposing laws in a parliament illegal, don't you think? Anything should go in a parliament. I'm also not sure hate speech could be illegal when a member of parliament speaks in parliament, typically parliamentary debate is more widely protected.
- chopin 3y agoMy favorite solution: Those who vote for legislation found to be anti constitutional by the respective courts lose their passive voting rights and must leave Parliament immediately.
- varispeed 3y agoAre you saying that it should be perfectly acceptable for legislators to propose a law e.g. to kill all men over 60 in gas chambers and that it should be treated seriously and let go all the way through legislative process?
- JW_00000 3y agoEven more: that is currently the case in liberal democracies AFAIK. Any legislator can propose any law. It's then up to the legislative process to decide whether it should be accepted or not. (Possibly, a constitutional court could roll back laws that violate the constitution.)
- AdrianB1 3y agoNo rights enshrined in a constitution is guaranteed or respected, anywhere in the world. First, in come countries legislation breaching constitutional rights appear all the time and the burden is on the people to fight that legislation that is presumed valid. Second, people believe that some rights are no longer aligned with the modern times (see USA second amendment) and are willing to remove it. Third, constitutional rights that are not completely removed are brutally "regulated", with the same effect, and most people agree with that or actively support it. In summary, there are no rights that are guaranteed even if they are in a constitution.
- mhitza 3y agoPer the article > At the same time, we are still far from the end of the legislative process. This means that we must stay alert to how the other two law-making institutions – the Council of EU Member States and the European Commission – respond To be able to fight these ludicrous attempts at privacy, we must put a spotlight on those behind these proposals (lobbyists). Coincidence or not, it wasn't transparent, but at least some journalists investigated https://privatecitizen.press/episode/160/ https://privatecitizen.press/episode/160/
- Angostura 3y agoThe Parliament is very much the junior member compared with the Council and Commission
- toyg 3y agoIt still has ultimate veto powers.
- Angostura 3y agoI've been unable to find an instance of the European Parliament vetoing legislation
- toyg 3y agoPlenty. Some recent examples: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/european-parliament-scraps-pesticides-bill-latest-setback-green-legislation-2023-11-22/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/european-parliament-scr... https://agenceurope.eu/en/bulletin/article/13274/20 https://agenceurope.eu/en/bulletin/article/13274/20 https://www.thejournal.ie/emissions-trade-system-fit-for-55-5785550-Jun2022/ https://www.thejournal.ie/emissions-trade-system-fit-for-55-... (Somewhat unsurprisingly, being currently dominated by right-wing parties, it happens often on "green" legislation...) It doesn't happen every day simply because 1) MEPs typically don't want to be seen as "Mr. No", and 2) plenary votes are the end of a long legislative process, involving several steps; the Commission will typically not bring legislation to the floor if it understands, in previous committees, that it will likely be voted down. The process is roughly this: EU Council (i.e. national governments) agree that "we should really do something about X"; the Commission drafts legislation to that effect, and brings it to Parliamentary committees; MEPs provide feedback and instructions on how to change things; Commission decides if the changes are acceptable, and if not they go back to Council asking "is this still ok if we do it in XY way?"; and back and forth they go, until the Commission decides to either withdraw it or put it to a plenary vote (in which case it's typically in a shape acceptable to Parliament, because nobody likes losing).
- ratg13 3y agoThe mechanisms are in place .. literally nobody was paying attention. They spent millions on campaigns advertising this stuff and asking for feedback only to get <100 views on youtube videos about the subject. They need to start working together with higher education institutions or something rather than just hoping that people will take an active interest, instead of everyone going about their lives and only finding out when the laws are being ratified.
- bradley13 3y agoAbsolutely this. They just keep trying, one angle or another. They'll be back for another try in a year or three, with new arguments, and having purchased a few more politicians. In the worst case, they'll do something like the USA: institute secret programs that do whatever the heck they want, with no oversight. Part of the problem is that there are no negative consequences. Again, look at the US: Snowden reveals massive, illegal surveillance. Consequences to politicians and government officials: zero.
- g-b-r 3y agoForbid politicians to lie to and deceive the public, that's it. * Suddenly democracy works. * (except about personal matters)
- dragonwriter 3y ago> Forbid politicians to lie to and deceive the public, that's it. Forbidding something is never “it”. People do prohibited things all the time. “Prohibit” is not “magically prevent”.
- g-b-r 3y agoOf course forbid with very strong penalties and no statute of limitations...
- dragonwriter 3y agoBy whom are laws enforced, and by whom are those people appointed and to whom do they answer? Or, to take another angle, why don't the prohibitions in FISA effectively stop the government from abusing foreign intelligence apparatus for domestic spying?
- g-b-r 3y agoBecause the US are messed up on so many levels. Of course the judicial, legislative and executive branches should be independent and they're not that much right now. In any case, even in such a system the proposal might have more positive than negative effects, and maybe lead to gradual improvements to everything else.
- HideousKojima 3y agoOr it might make things even worse. After all,the FISA court system itself was created in response to abuses by the CIA and FBI (and others) as a way to check their power. Instead, it became a (secret and opaque) rubber stamp that approves over 99% of all warrant applications.
- freedomben 3y agoYep, the standard playbook on this stuff is to table it for 6 months, at which point you reintroduce. Repeat ad infinitum until it passes. If at any point there's a crisis that can be used, reintroduce immediately.
- cryptonector 3y agoThat's the European way. Keep voting until the desired result is obtained.
- xiphias2 3y agoAs shown by recent wiretappings, politicians have the most to lose if they give their chat logs away to a smaller, unelected group of people. It's a sure way of losing their power and becoming a puppet.
- AniseAbyss 3y ago[dead]
- xkcd1963 3y agoUnless they team up of course
- almostnormal 3y ago> As shown by recent wiretappings, politicians have the most to lose if they give their chat logs away to a smaller, unelected group of people. Surely the creators of the policy will not forget to exclude themselves from being affected.
- logicchains 3y ago>It's a sure way of losing their power and becoming a puppet They're already blackmailed puppets to the spy agencies, that's why they keep pushing this stuff. There's a reason none of the people Epstein was accused of trafficking young girls to went to jail.
- RecycledEle 3y agoThat's half the battle. Now the real fight begins. We need every message sent or received by the politicians who supported this absurd proposal to be public record. The public's need to stop abuses of power outweighs privacy rights they do not value.
- hollow-moe 3y agoAwesome day for privacy ! They'll try again with another name in three months and it'll pass tho
- Roark66 3y agoAnd that exactly is why we absolutely have to keep the veto power of member states in the EU. The only reason why they backed down is because few countries said "there is no chance in hell we're agreeing to this". If we were making laws based on simple majority few biggest countries plus a couple others forced/bought into submission could override everyone else.
- SiempreViernes 3y agoAre you saying you think the EP voted to reject the mass scanning provisions because a member state promised to vote this?
- sofixa 3y agoNot simple, but qualified majority, would be better than a single country being able to stop any process. The Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth learned this the hard way, where every Sejm member could veto any legislation, so the country stagnated until it was picked apart by neighbourds.
- HideousKojima 3y agoYet you'll often see the exact opposite argument made against the Electoral College and the Senate in US politics
- ReptileMan 3y agoThere is no such thing as mass scanning. Because the cost of scaling anything digital is almost 0, every ability to break encryption or scan is mass by nature.
- tavavex 3y agoNo one would need to control every single bit that passes through the internet. The governments would just need to force most major social media and chat platforms to let them get a peek at user data, and that'd be more than enough to get information on most people.
- cabirum 3y agoIn some sense, a constant pressure from the lawmakers to compromise privacy is vital for encryption to evolve. No law should be able to break into private messages, and so I think CSAR should be passed, because as a consequence, new encryption schemes would be developed to counter it.
- LtWorf 3y agoI think you don't understand what encryption is.
- dsnr 3y agoFor now. See you at the next attempt.
- gumballindie 3y ago[flagged]
- throw20231130 3y ago[flagged]
- yttribium 3y agoEU governance structure is set up so that a EU parliament resolution has basically the status of a People's Choice Award.
- metalrain 3y agoI mean, even if messages are encrypted in the wire, surely most platform holders will comply to law enforcement requests. Exposing your messages from databases, logs, analytics, installing keyloggers.. Most of people use smartphones and there isn't secure smartphone platform. Even on PC, all you can do is to hope nothing in the chain leaks your messages.
- superjan 3y agoI regret that the discussion about message encryption is so black and white. Encryption is being used to evade prosecution for crimes such revenge porn, CSAM and criminal conspiracy. For one, I would not mind if encryption was forbidden for group chats bigger than 10 people, or that large groups are forbidden to share encrypted images.
- aunty_helen 3y agoWould that put a stop to these types of criminal activity? (No)
- anthk 3y agoThey would just set groups of 5 people creating rings with token connected to outside networks. Did it solve anything as you said? No. On encryption, with base64 and rotations over text you get nonsense and still plain text.
- tavavex 3y agoHow's that justifiable in any way but "I feel like it'd be nice"? Like, what's the logical process that dictates that being in a group of more than specifically 10 people in likely to cause illegal activity? Why can I talk privately with 9 people, but not 10? My point is that all this legislation is pushed as anti-criminal because it's the best spotlight to put mass data surveillance under. In reality, the powers that governments will reap from this ability stretch much further. Would you be okay with the exact same measures in real life? Should large gatherings of people require everyone to wear a wiretap, lest they conspire to commit something illegal? Should we mandate inspection of every postal package, just in case there are drugs or other illegal contents?
- anthk 3y agoThen make everyone group >10 people go outside nude to any event/concert, just to be sure.
- spurgu 3y agoOnce you have it in place there's suddenly a good argument for "if 10, why not 9?" -> "if 9, why not 8?" etc etc. --> 5. ---> 2.
- techwizrd 3y agoI think the public outcry made this outcome inevitable, and this is good to see!
- nurple 3y agoMass surveillance is, like most absolute power, cancer of the soul. I have read your email, and your IMs; I know first-hand how it corrupts a person. I can, without hesitation, guarantee that the situation is like that in the movie Elysium[0]: "They will hunt you to the edge of the earth for this [capability]." The most salient point, I think, is that it is worthless, from a LEO perspective, to tap into communication systems used by the masses--whether through provider taps or client-side scanning like Apple's purported CSAM AI--unless what you're really after is a way to monitor the general public at large. There's no way in hell that a nefarious player with technical resources, or chops themselves, would use one of these public systems to communicate with their compatriots. There are infinite and myriad bespoke channels of covert communications that these laws would never be able to touch which are much more likely to be the hubs of serious malfeasance. [0] https://youtu.be/qUQQerrs52w?t=54 https://youtu.be/qUQQerrs52w?t=54
- TrackerFF 3y agoHere in Norway we (unfortunately) passed a law which allows our intelligence service to read all meta-data of traffic which crosses our borders. Which makes no fucking sense, as pretty much all data crosses borders now. When you use facebook/twitter/tiktok/gmail/whatever, you have zero knowledge what (geolocation) server instance the owners of those products are using. And even if one service uses one "local" (as in within borders) server, many of the others could very well not. This is of course in the name of fighting terrorism, which makes up for such a small percentage of all data traffic, that it might as well be ZERO. Terrorism and CP, the two things that will usher in lots of overreaching laws.
- goalonetwo 3y agoThat's why we need to continue developing apps that are cryptographically open and secure. Then it doesn't matter what the government wants, they will have simply no ways to read my texts. The issue is that only the technically and privacy savy will be able to continue to encrypt their message. The masses will happily comply and continue using facebook messenger/whatsapp or whatever new bigtech "cool app of the day" full of backdoor.
- trizuz 3y ago[dead]