4 ms·

I know this might not be what you're expecting to hear, but my reading is that the proposed law is pretty balanced. If I take pictures and never share them, no

I know this might not be what you're expecting to hear, but my reading is that the proposed law is pretty balanced. If I take pictures and never share them, no scanning is done. If I copy private pictures to my wife's phone when we are meeting in person, no scanning is done. Similarly, I can archive pictures to my PC or print them out and all of that respects my privacy. Only if I use a public service, like Facebook, WhatsApp, TikTok, is there the possibility of my pictures being sent to authorities if (and hopefully only if) the local scanning was inconclusive. But in that case, Facebook, WhatsApp, TikTok can (and probably do) already spy on me and my pictures. I don't think it's all that draconian for authorities to take a look, too, after you have already voluntarily !!! sent them to a for-profit corp with questionable morals. And I feel like the proposed law design also matches with the real risk profile. Pretty much all of the blackmailing scams that drove teenagers to suicide were being perpetuated from outside the country that the victim was living in, e.g. [1]. So it makes a lot of sense to more tightly control cross-country online messaging on almost anonymous platforms than in-person photo sharing. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-68720247 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-68720247 "Two arrested in Nigeria after Australian boy's suicide" EDIT: In case anyone wonders, here's the 100+ page EU report that presents their opinion of the facts and then makes suggestions, some of which are now being discussed: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/652718/IPOL_STU(2020)652718_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/6527... Section 3.5.1. is about the scanning of your private pictures that Facebook is already doing, meaning regardless of how the EU decides in this case.

johnbakerisback 2y ago
[flagged]
- fxtentacle 2y ago
  You sir, went with an (useless) attack instead of actually furthering the discussion.
  - aaomidi 2y ago
    There are some discussions that shouldn’t be legitimized with a real reply. Imagine this being a public street. A stupid comment would get heckled. If the commenter decided to stay there with a megaphone yelling about it, they might even get the megaphone ripped out their hand and completely sidelined. Some opinions are so _against the grain_ of society (or in this case, just stupid) that facing a reaction like you did is probably the least amount of pushback you could get.
    - roenxi 2y ago
      The authoritarians are a particularly dangerous minority, but they are still a significant part of society. "We should try authoritarian tactics!" is always going to be a part of the debate and should be treated with enough respect to get a real reply. That being said, encouraging government snooping is an idea that can have terrible consequences and we shouldn't do it. It is going to be a support of some truly horrific future political shenanigans, including genocides, and we should be discouraging it everywhere.
      - aydyn 2y ago
        Authoritarians don't change their mind because you debate them.
  - aydyn 2y ago
    nah hes right. Sometimes something said is so dumb theres no other response.
  - cnity 2y ago
    With respect, you did not further the discussion. You turned it round and ran it backwards, misleading an unknown number of people in the process. > But in that case, ... WhatsApp, ... can (and probably do) already spy on me and my pictures. This is just factually false. Research end-to-end encryption. > I don't think it's all that draconian for authorities to take a look, too, after you have already voluntarily !!! sent them to a for-profit corp with questionable morals. It's time for this idea to end. Communications platforms are no longer "voluntary" any more than, say, using electricity from the grid is "voluntary". Sure, I could just not speak to anyone in my family anymore, or share photos with them. I can cut myself off from broader society? That's the alternative? The thing with politics is _we get to choose_. We get to fight for a future that actually works for us. We don't have to settle for this kind of ridiculous choice. > And I feel like the proposed law design also matches with the real risk profile. Pretty much all of the blackmailing scams that drove teenagers to suicide were being perpetuated from outside the country that the victim was living in, e.g. [1]. Steel-manning your argument for a second. Yes, there are risks to privacy. There is a real risk of domestic violence in the home. There is a real risk of sharing CSAM, or scams, or any number of shady human behaviour. > So it makes a lot of sense to more tightly control cross-country online messaging on almost anonymous platforms than in-person photo sharing. But this takes it too far. It only makes sense if you are min-maxing on crime enabled by the existence of privacy, and care about _absolutely nothing else_. You also place a huge amount of trust in governments to wield this overpowered tool in good faith, from now until the end of time. This kind of change is extremely difficult to reverse without violent revolt. Two or three decades from now, when the governments decide that actually, we should try to predict risk factors for future crime (with 99.99% accuracy!), will you be there supporting it?
junon 2y ago
Not to downplay the very obviously tragic suicides, I still disagree with the premise that stuff like that would be reduced or our general safety would be improved by mass scanning. TSA for example is one of the most invasive security screenings most people endure on a quasi-regular basis and it's been the source of overreach and still does not catch much of anything whatsoever. Criminals are incentivized to get around this scanning, regular users are not. Who really bears the burden here?
roenxi 2y ago
> I don't think it's all that draconian for authorities to take a look, too, after you have already voluntarily !!! sent them to a for-profit corp with questionable morals. You don't have to send the photos to a for-profit corp though. E2E encryption is entirely possible. What the law should be enabling is for people to sue companies that claim to do E2E encryption then compromise it by independently sending things to law enforcement.
BSDobelix 2y ago
I know why you were voted down, and I don't think it's fair. But the problem with your example is: -criminals CP-sharing etc use end-to-end encryption -> politicians: encryption must be weakened, but that doesn't work...damn opensource -Now we need local scanners on every phone, but damn those Linux laptops the criminals use still have no scanner. -And now we need an authorized operating system ...., but damn those open source guys. -So now there is a full file system scanner chip in every router, laptop and phone. If you get caught using a device without this chip -> straight to jail. It goes on and on, and next we have to leave the laptop on so gov can always inform us about important stuff ;)
- spurgu 2y ago
  Yup. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Scarblac 2y ago
Several of these apps currently have end-to-end encryption, which means that no, they aren't scanned. Even if they were, what a state can do with them (falsely accuse me of heinous crimes) is a lot more dangerous than what a corporation is likely to do with them (show me different ads). > Pretty much all of the blackmailing scams that drove teenagers to suicide were being perpetuated from outside the country that the victim was living in The recent cases in the Netherlands (where I live) were all Dutch perpetrators. Anyway, this technology won't catch that -- sending nude pictures is, after all, both perfectly legal and very common. The scanning software can't know that the picture is sent to somebody only acting as a boyfriend rather than an actual boyfriend. I can see the point of a database of known child porn pictures. The phone app could keep a database of hashes of those exact files, and check for them. Other than that, I don't see what good automatic scanning can possibly do, and there is a HUGE potential for abuse.
troupo 2y ago
"It's a bad thing that is already happening, so why not make it worse by mandating it on government level" is not as good a take as you think it is.
Mashimo 2y ago
Pretty sure Signal currently can't look at my photos that I send to friends. So that part is wrong. AFAIK WhatsApp is also encrypted. But I don't know if they can see the photos server side.
- WA 2y ago
  If you give an app access to your photos, it can do whatever it wants with them. Even if the normal operation is end-to-end encrypted, the app could still upload straight from your photo library to servers. I'm not saying this is happening. In Meta's case, I simply assume that they at least collect meta information on your photos, such as GPS coordinates to build a better ad profile of you. I might be wrong, but maybe not. That's why I don't give WhatsApp access to my photo library.
  - Mashimo 2y ago
    In that case I would not have send it voluntary. Which was what thread OP was talking about.
gizmo 2y ago
It’s absurd to suggest that users of an e2ee chat service can reasonably expect the government to “take a look” at the pictures they share. Software should have no such backdoors. This law does nothing to dissuade criminals but it does degrade the privacy expectations of regular people who are not suspected of any wrongdoing.
- fxtentacle 2y ago
  I somewhat agree with you. Also: It’s absurd to suggest that users of an e2ee chat service can reasonably expect the service provider to “take a look” at the pictures they share. But sadly, that's already happening. It's probably best to avoid sharing any private pictures on Facebook, WhatsApp, TikTok or any public cloud. Because you never know who might have access or gain access in the future. And isn't Google actively scanning their Drive user's files and removing presumed adult content, too? And didn't Dropbox one tweet about the X-th file uploaded being a cat photo? How did they know?
Hizonner 2y ago
> If I take pictures and never share them, no scanning is done. If I copy private pictures to my wife's phone when we are meeting in person, no scanning is done. Similarly, I can archive pictures to my PC or print them out and all of that respects my privacy. "We'll only beat you on Tuesdays" is not balanced.
pieter_mj 2y ago
Please be aware that even if you choose not to share pictures and decide not to use end-to-end encryption services, the installation of the CSS software will still be mandatory. The control over the scanning of your device remains with them, and the likelihood of this power being exploited is almost guaranteed.
raxxorraxor 2y ago
You and I probably have quite a different meaning of balance, although I am indeed not sure what there is to balance. Freedom and security? What do you mean by this? There is a false perception that this is big tech vs the EU, but instead it is big tech and the EU against you. This is not an issue where there can be much of a compromise. My chats are private and not to be surveilled by a central authority. This isn't a policy that faces the challenges of new technology, this is something that should have stayed in the last century. The internet did raze down quite a few borders and despite some risks, it is very much worth it to keep it in this form. If the EU wanted to be constructive in strengthening and protecting users, it would have created legislation that big tech cannot screen user content with impunity. Instead it now forces them to do so and report "wrongdoings" to something that isn't even a real police force.

johnbakerisback 2y ago

[flagged]

fxtentacle 2y ago
You sir, went with an (useless) attack instead of actually furthering the discussion.
- aaomidi 2y ago
  There are some discussions that shouldn’t be legitimized with a real reply. Imagine this being a public street. A stupid comment would get heckled. If the commenter decided to stay there with a megaphone yelling about it, they might even get the megaphone ripped out their hand and completely sidelined. Some opinions are so _against the grain_ of society (or in this case, just stupid) that facing a reaction like you did is probably the least amount of pushback you could get.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    The authoritarians are a particularly dangerous minority, but they are still a significant part of society. "We should try authoritarian tactics!" is always going to be a part of the debate and should be treated with enough respect to get a real reply. That being said, encouraging government snooping is an idea that can have terrible consequences and we shouldn't do it. It is going to be a support of some truly horrific future political shenanigans, including genocides, and we should be discouraging it everywhere.
    - aydyn 2y ago
      Authoritarians don't change their mind because you debate them.
- aydyn 2y ago
  nah hes right. Sometimes something said is so dumb theres no other response.
- cnity 2y ago
  With respect, you did not further the discussion. You turned it round and ran it backwards, misleading an unknown number of people in the process. > But in that case, ... WhatsApp, ... can (and probably do) already spy on me and my pictures. This is just factually false. Research end-to-end encryption. > I don't think it's all that draconian for authorities to take a look, too, after you have already voluntarily !!! sent them to a for-profit corp with questionable morals. It's time for this idea to end. Communications platforms are no longer "voluntary" any more than, say, using electricity from the grid is "voluntary". Sure, I could just not speak to anyone in my family anymore, or share photos with them. I can cut myself off from broader society? That's the alternative? The thing with politics is _we get to choose_. We get to fight for a future that actually works for us. We don't have to settle for this kind of ridiculous choice. > And I feel like the proposed law design also matches with the real risk profile. Pretty much all of the blackmailing scams that drove teenagers to suicide were being perpetuated from outside the country that the victim was living in, e.g. [1]. Steel-manning your argument for a second. Yes, there are risks to privacy. There is a real risk of domestic violence in the home. There is a real risk of sharing CSAM, or scams, or any number of shady human behaviour. > So it makes a lot of sense to more tightly control cross-country online messaging on almost anonymous platforms than in-person photo sharing. But this takes it too far. It only makes sense if you are min-maxing on crime enabled by the existence of privacy, and care about _absolutely nothing else_. You also place a huge amount of trust in governments to wield this overpowered tool in good faith, from now until the end of time. This kind of change is extremely difficult to reverse without violent revolt. Two or three decades from now, when the governments decide that actually, we should try to predict risk factors for future crime (with 99.99% accuracy!), will you be there supporting it?

junon 2y ago

Not to downplay the very obviously tragic suicides, I still disagree with the premise that stuff like that would be reduced or our general safety would be improved by mass scanning. TSA for example is one of the most invasive security screenings most people endure on a quasi-regular basis and it's been the source of overreach and still does not catch much of anything whatsoever. Criminals are incentivized to get around this scanning, regular users are not. Who really bears the burden here?

roenxi 2y ago

> I don't think it's all that draconian for authorities to take a look, too, after you have already voluntarily !!! sent them to a for-profit corp with questionable morals. You don't have to send the photos to a for-profit corp though. E2E encryption is entirely possible. What the law should be enabling is for people to sue companies that claim to do E2E encryption then compromise it by independently sending things to law enforcement.

BSDobelix 2y ago

I know why you were voted down, and I don't think it's fair. But the problem with your example is: -criminals CP-sharing etc use end-to-end encryption -> politicians: encryption must be weakened, but that doesn't work...damn opensource -Now we need local scanners on every phone, but damn those Linux laptops the criminals use still have no scanner. -And now we need an authorized operating system ...., but damn those open source guys. -So now there is a full file system scanner chip in every router, laptop and phone. If you get caught using a device without this chip -> straight to jail. It goes on and on, and next we have to leave the laptop on so gov can always inform us about important stuff ;)

spurgu 2y ago
Yup. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Scarblac 2y ago

Several of these apps currently have end-to-end encryption, which means that no, they aren't scanned. Even if they were, what a state can do with them (falsely accuse me of heinous crimes) is a lot more dangerous than what a corporation is likely to do with them (show me different ads). > Pretty much all of the blackmailing scams that drove teenagers to suicide were being perpetuated from outside the country that the victim was living in The recent cases in the Netherlands (where I live) were all Dutch perpetrators. Anyway, this technology won't catch that -- sending nude pictures is, after all, both perfectly legal and very common. The scanning software can't know that the picture is sent to somebody only acting as a boyfriend rather than an actual boyfriend. I can see the point of a database of known child porn pictures. The phone app could keep a database of hashes of those exact files, and check for them. Other than that, I don't see what good automatic scanning can possibly do, and there is a HUGE potential for abuse.

troupo 2y ago

"It's a bad thing that is already happening, so why not make it worse by mandating it on government level" is not as good a take as you think it is.

Mashimo 2y ago

Pretty sure Signal currently can't look at my photos that I send to friends. So that part is wrong. AFAIK WhatsApp is also encrypted. But I don't know if they can see the photos server side.

WA 2y ago
If you give an app access to your photos, it can do whatever it wants with them. Even if the normal operation is end-to-end encrypted, the app could still upload straight from your photo library to servers. I'm not saying this is happening. In Meta's case, I simply assume that they at least collect meta information on your photos, such as GPS coordinates to build a better ad profile of you. I might be wrong, but maybe not. That's why I don't give WhatsApp access to my photo library.
- Mashimo 2y ago
  In that case I would not have send it voluntary. Which was what thread OP was talking about.

gizmo 2y ago

It’s absurd to suggest that users of an e2ee chat service can reasonably expect the government to “take a look” at the pictures they share. Software should have no such backdoors. This law does nothing to dissuade criminals but it does degrade the privacy expectations of regular people who are not suspected of any wrongdoing.

fxtentacle 2y ago
I somewhat agree with you. Also: It’s absurd to suggest that users of an e2ee chat service can reasonably expect the service provider to “take a look” at the pictures they share. But sadly, that's already happening. It's probably best to avoid sharing any private pictures on Facebook, WhatsApp, TikTok or any public cloud. Because you never know who might have access or gain access in the future. And isn't Google actively scanning their Drive user's files and removing presumed adult content, too? And didn't Dropbox one tweet about the X-th file uploaded being a cat photo? How did they know?

Hizonner 2y ago

> If I take pictures and never share them, no scanning is done. If I copy private pictures to my wife's phone when we are meeting in person, no scanning is done. Similarly, I can archive pictures to my PC or print them out and all of that respects my privacy. "We'll only beat you on Tuesdays" is not balanced.

pieter_mj 2y ago

Please be aware that even if you choose not to share pictures and decide not to use end-to-end encryption services, the installation of the CSS software will still be mandatory. The control over the scanning of your device remains with them, and the likelihood of this power being exploited is almost guaranteed.

raxxorraxor 2y ago

You and I probably have quite a different meaning of balance, although I am indeed not sure what there is to balance. Freedom and security? What do you mean by this? There is a false perception that this is big tech vs the EU, but instead it is big tech and the EU against you. This is not an issue where there can be much of a compromise. My chats are private and not to be surveilled by a central authority. This isn't a policy that faces the challenges of new technology, this is something that should have stayed in the last century. The internet did raze down quite a few borders and despite some risks, it is very much worth it to keep it in this form. If the EU wanted to be constructive in strengthening and protecting users, it would have created legislation that big tech cannot screen user content with impunity. Instead it now forces them to do so and report "wrongdoings" to something that isn't even a real police force.