4 ms·

"the chats of employees of security authorities and the military are also to be exempted from chat control" So the two major fields where you really want to sn

"the chats of employees of security authorities and the military are also to be exempted from chat control" So the two major fields where you really want to snoop their private chats to see if they are up to no good, are excempted?

usrnm 2y ago
I'm astonished that the chats of EU officials and politicians are not exempt. A mistake, no doubt, one which will be corrected shortly
- rightbyte 2y ago
  The ones pushing this probably think the secret police and military are firmly on their side.
- belter 2y ago
  They are also exempt. We are not dealing with amateurs here... https://european-pirateparty.eu/chatcontrol-eu-ministers-want-to-exempt-themselves/ https://european-pirateparty.eu/chatcontrol-eu-ministers-wan...
  - perihelions 2y ago
    - "As O'Brien passed the telescreen a thought seemed to strike him. He stopped, turned aside and pressed a switch on the wall. There was a sharp snap. The voice had stopped." - "Julia uttered a tiny sound, a sort of squeak of surprise. Even in the midst of his panic, Winston was too much taken aback to be able to hold his tongue." - "'You can turn it off!' he said." - "'Yes,' said O'Brien, 'we can turn it off. We have that privilege.'"
- wdb 2y ago
  Always surprised why politicians get exempted from these kind of rules. You would think they would set the good example
  - InCityDreams 2y ago
    Always NOT surprised why politicians get exempted from these kind of rules. You would think they would set the good example. They're not stupid, and they're NOT example-setters (very few exceptions) - for myself. #never voted, and very proud of it.
    - vault 2y ago
      I'm afraid there's nothing in your behaviour to be proud of
      - another2another 2y ago
        "History is made by those who show up." (Disraeli) is the quote that springs to mind.
  - everforward 2y ago
    There are both good and bad reasons. The bad is obviously that they’re immune to their own legislation. The good is that it prevents incumbents from using this data as part of their campaign. It would be Watergate all over again. There is also data that probably shouldn’t be public. Locations and status of missile silos, troop locations, etc. In an ideal world, all of that would be on secured channels that are managed by appropriate entities. In the real world, it seems like a struggle to get troops to stop posting selfies with sensitive data on Facebook; I don’t doubt much more exists in private messages. I’m also about 95% sure our politicians (globally) are incapable of managing the OpSec of having 2 devices, one secured and one not, and using them appropriately. They’ll forget one or the other exists.
    - r00fus 2y ago
      "Laws for thee and not for me" is one of the root tenets of totalitarianism.
      - everforward 2y ago
- crest 2y ago
  It's also going to be fun when it comes to communication of medical providers or lawyers. Both groups can be expected to be legally privileged and commonly come into contact with material they're legally required to process that will trigger (false) positives. The whole idea so braindead it can only come from a politician with a voyeurism fetish unburdened by any subject matter expertise.
WA 2y ago
How is this supposed to work in reality? Do we really want to provide Meta, Apple and Google with a list of phone numbers of accounts of militarly and security personell in order to have their feature-flags for sharing links/photos enabled?
- karma_pharmer 2y ago
  The cellular carriers very obviously already have a system like this for location tracking. Their tower dumps contain enough metadata to determine all the people who spend most workdays at office buildings in McLean Virginia. And then, of course, where those people sleep (i.e. charge their phones) at night. It takes positive effort to erase that data, and believe me, it's being erased. The powerful people don't want it to exist. So yeah, there is already a system for doing this kind of thing. It will be extended. Plebs like you and me don't get to use it.
  - WA 2y ago
    The carrier, for example Vodafone Germany, might have that data. How does that help to enable a feature-flag in US-based Meta's WhatsApp?
    - karma_pharmer 2y ago
      facepalm
  - Hizonner 2y ago
    Unless you have positive evidence, I'm gonna guess that the "powerful people" aren't that organized or that on top of things. But, sure, they'd like to be.
  - raxxorraxor 2y ago
    > The powerful people don't want it to exist. Good on those powerful people then, because this data should not exist.
  - mikrotikker 2y ago
guiraldelli 2y ago
I haven't gone in detail on the draft, but what is nuts is that those are exempt, as well as everyone who uses a service not-for-profit. So, if you self-host [1], you don't need to adhere to the legislation. But, wait… Are you telling me that security officials are allowed to use not their self-hosted infrastructure, but use public one to send (I assume, based on their exemption) confidential data? And, as @WA proposed, will be a list of contacts of these officials given to all for-profit organisations? What a stupid joke it is! [1]: See third row at https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/#currentproposal https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/#current... .
eru 2y ago
> So the two major fields where you really want to snoop their private chats to see if they are up to no good, are excempted? As far as I can tell from the article, the justification for the proposed rules is "won't someone think of the children". Those two major fields you mention might do well with more oversight in general. But I doubt they are especially prone to dealing with children?
- dotancohen 2y ago
  I'm a software developer. How much interaction do you think that I have with children? And if the discussion is concerned with what one does outside of work, well, presumably those exempted industries also have time outside of work.
  - eru 2y ago
    I don't see your point, sorry? I was merely arguing against this remark: > So the two major fields where you really want to snoop their private chats to see if they are up to no good, are excempted? Those two major fields aren't especially prone to dealing with children. (They probably aren't any less prone than eg software development, sure. But that wasn't the point.)
    - dotancohen 2y ago
      > Those two major fields aren't especially prone to dealing with children. Neither are software developers, so why aren't we exempt?
      - afiori 2y ago
        I think you are missing the point, all fields should be exempt as this law should not exists, but those two fields are not very special terms of how much we should want them not to be exempt. It is not about arguing that only they should be exempt.
        2y ago
Scion9066 2y ago
Could the platforms the authorities use decide to not exclude them and treat them the same anyways (ie scan them like everyone else's) or are they codifying that that kind of scanning only applies to the common people?
fitblipper 2y ago
They are claiming that it is privacy preserving, since it uses AI and not humans, and only for catching csam Assuming those claims are true(I know, that is a big ask, but they claim it) what function do exceptions provide unless they are purposely giving those exceptions for the production and distribution of csam by those groups? More likely their claims of the privacy and/or purpose are false.
- RajT88 2y ago
  > Assuming those claims are true(I know, that is a big ask, but they claim it) They may even be true today. The problem is that if true, it won't stay true. Interested parties find ways to tap into stuff like this once it exists. Given enough time, they create a legal framework to justify it.

usrnm 2y ago

I'm astonished that the chats of EU officials and politicians are not exempt. A mistake, no doubt, one which will be corrected shortly

rightbyte 2y ago
The ones pushing this probably think the secret police and military are firmly on their side.
belter 2y ago
They are also exempt. We are not dealing with amateurs here... https://european-pirateparty.eu/chatcontrol-eu-ministers-want-to-exempt-themselves/ https://european-pirateparty.eu/chatcontrol-eu-ministers-wan...
- perihelions 2y ago
  - "As O'Brien passed the telescreen a thought seemed to strike him. He stopped, turned aside and pressed a switch on the wall. There was a sharp snap. The voice had stopped." - "Julia uttered a tiny sound, a sort of squeak of surprise. Even in the midst of his panic, Winston was too much taken aback to be able to hold his tongue." - "'You can turn it off!' he said." - "'Yes,' said O'Brien, 'we can turn it off. We have that privilege.'"
wdb 2y ago
Always surprised why politicians get exempted from these kind of rules. You would think they would set the good example
- InCityDreams 2y ago
  Always NOT surprised why politicians get exempted from these kind of rules. You would think they would set the good example. They're not stupid, and they're NOT example-setters (very few exceptions) - for myself. #never voted, and very proud of it.
  - vault 2y ago
    I'm afraid there's nothing in your behaviour to be proud of
    - another2another 2y ago
      "History is made by those who show up." (Disraeli) is the quote that springs to mind.
- everforward 2y ago
  There are both good and bad reasons. The bad is obviously that they’re immune to their own legislation. The good is that it prevents incumbents from using this data as part of their campaign. It would be Watergate all over again. There is also data that probably shouldn’t be public. Locations and status of missile silos, troop locations, etc. In an ideal world, all of that would be on secured channels that are managed by appropriate entities. In the real world, it seems like a struggle to get troops to stop posting selfies with sensitive data on Facebook; I don’t doubt much more exists in private messages. I’m also about 95% sure our politicians (globally) are incapable of managing the OpSec of having 2 devices, one secured and one not, and using them appropriately. They’ll forget one or the other exists.
  - r00fus 2y ago
    "Laws for thee and not for me" is one of the root tenets of totalitarianism.
    - everforward 2y ago
crest 2y ago
It's also going to be fun when it comes to communication of medical providers or lawyers. Both groups can be expected to be legally privileged and commonly come into contact with material they're legally required to process that will trigger (false) positives. The whole idea so braindead it can only come from a politician with a voyeurism fetish unburdened by any subject matter expertise.

WA 2y ago

How is this supposed to work in reality? Do we really want to provide Meta, Apple and Google with a list of phone numbers of accounts of militarly and security personell in order to have their feature-flags for sharing links/photos enabled?

karma_pharmer 2y ago
The cellular carriers very obviously already have a system like this for location tracking. Their tower dumps contain enough metadata to determine all the people who spend most workdays at office buildings in McLean Virginia. And then, of course, where those people sleep (i.e. charge their phones) at night. It takes positive effort to erase that data, and believe me, it's being erased. The powerful people don't want it to exist. So yeah, there is already a system for doing this kind of thing. It will be extended. Plebs like you and me don't get to use it.
- WA 2y ago
  The carrier, for example Vodafone Germany, might have that data. How does that help to enable a feature-flag in US-based Meta's WhatsApp?
  - karma_pharmer 2y ago
    facepalm
- Hizonner 2y ago
  Unless you have positive evidence, I'm gonna guess that the "powerful people" aren't that organized or that on top of things. But, sure, they'd like to be.
- raxxorraxor 2y ago
  > The powerful people don't want it to exist. Good on those powerful people then, because this data should not exist.
- mikrotikker 2y ago

guiraldelli 2y ago

I haven't gone in detail on the draft, but what is nuts is that those are exempt, as well as everyone who uses a service not-for-profit. So, if you self-host [1], you don't need to adhere to the legislation. But, wait… Are you telling me that security officials are allowed to use not their self-hosted infrastructure, but use public one to send (I assume, based on their exemption) confidential data? And, as @WA proposed, will be a list of contacts of these officials given to all for-profit organisations? What a stupid joke it is! [1]: See third row at https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/#currentproposal https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/#current... .

eru 2y ago

> So the two major fields where you really want to snoop their private chats to see if they are up to no good, are excempted? As far as I can tell from the article, the justification for the proposed rules is "won't someone think of the children". Those two major fields you mention might do well with more oversight in general. But I doubt they are especially prone to dealing with children?

dotancohen 2y ago
I'm a software developer. How much interaction do you think that I have with children? And if the discussion is concerned with what one does outside of work, well, presumably those exempted industries also have time outside of work.
- eru 2y ago
  I don't see your point, sorry? I was merely arguing against this remark: > So the two major fields where you really want to snoop their private chats to see if they are up to no good, are excempted? Those two major fields aren't especially prone to dealing with children. (They probably aren't any less prone than eg software development, sure. But that wasn't the point.)
  - dotancohen 2y ago
    > Those two major fields aren't especially prone to dealing with children. Neither are software developers, so why aren't we exempt?
    - afiori 2y ago
      I think you are missing the point, all fields should be exempt as this law should not exists, but those two fields are not very special terms of how much we should want them not to be exempt. It is not about arguing that only they should be exempt.
      - 2y ago

Scion9066 2y ago

Could the platforms the authorities use decide to not exclude them and treat them the same anyways (ie scan them like everyone else's) or are they codifying that that kind of scanning only applies to the common people?

fitblipper 2y ago

They are claiming that it is privacy preserving, since it uses AI and not humans, and only for catching csam Assuming those claims are true(I know, that is a big ask, but they claim it) what function do exceptions provide unless they are purposely giving those exceptions for the production and distribution of csam by those groups? More likely their claims of the privacy and/or purpose are false.

RajT88 2y ago
> Assuming those claims are true(I know, that is a big ask, but they claim it) They may even be true today. The problem is that if true, it won't stay true. Interested parties find ways to tap into stuff like this once it exists. Given enough time, they create a legal framework to justify it.