5 ms·

Statement by President of Signal app about EU chat control for mass scanning

51 points by busymom0 2y ago

acaloiar 2y ago
On Mastodon: https://mastodon.world/@Mer__edith/112633664440348608 https://mastodon.world/@Mer__edith/112633664440348608
- superkuh 2y ago
  >Official statement: the new EU chat controls proposal for mass scanning is the same old surveillance with new branding. >Whether you call it a backdoor, a front door, or “upload moderation” it undermines encryption & creates significant vulnerabilities >https://signal.org/blog/pdfs/upload-moderation.pdf https://signal.org/blog/pdfs/upload-moderation.pdf >New Branding, Same Scanning: “Upload Moderation” Undermines End-to-End Encryption A statement from Meredith Whittaker, Signal President, in the context of the EU debate End-to-end encryption is the technology we have to enable privacy in an age of unprecedented state and corporate surveillance. And the dangerous desire to undermine it never seems to die. For decades, experts have been clear: there is no way to both preserve the integrity of end-to-end encryption and expose encrypted contents to surveillance. But proposals to do just this emerge repeatedly — old wine endlessly repackaged in new bottles, aided by expensive consultancies that care more about marketing than the very serious stakes of these issues. These embarrassing branding exercises do not, of course, sway the expert community. But too often they work to convince non-experts that the risks of the previous plan to undermine end-to-end encryption are not present in the shiny new proposal. This is certainly how the EU chat control debate has proceeded. In November, the EU Parliament lit a beacon for global tech policy when it voted to exclude end-to-end encryption from mass surveillance orders in the chat control legislation.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
stavros 2y ago
What's the status of this proposal? Did it pass?
- thefz 2y ago
  Vote is 20th of June.
  - stavros 2y ago
    Thanks, that's enough time for me to complain to my MP. EDIT: Does anyone know of a site that makes this easy? I've spent a few minutes but it's pretty time-consuming just to find who to contact.
    - thefz 2y ago
      https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/lawmakers-across-the-eu-call-on-eu-council-to-reject-the-chat-control-proposal/ https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/lawmakers-across-the-eu-cal... Bottom of the page has per-state contacts
greyface- 2y ago
These proposals are only possible due to the centralized nature of current messaging services. Signal has historically opposed any efforts at federation or decentralization. I wonder whether this could be the kick in the pants to get them to reconsider that position, or if we'll have to build something decentralized without them if this passes.
- crop_rotation 2y ago
  Nobody uses decentralised messaging systems. Even email which was decentralized is predominantly 4-5 big companies. And moxie made some very good arguments on why email is still lacking any new features like E2E while Whatsapp can add it very quickly. Then there is matrix, and trying to use it is an exercise in frustration even for tech users (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39368561 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39368561), for non tech it is a non starter. Not to mention the features people expect from their messaging apps simply won't work in decentralized messaging systems (e.g delete for all, read receipts which are symmetric).
- cedws 2y ago
  Sure, it's possible, Tox did it already. People don't want decentralised systems because they're not convenient enough. Your average user does not know what a peer or private key is. How many Signal users even verify their contacts' fingerprints? And when operating within the confines of mobile walled gardens, you need centralisation somewhere. Somebody needs to publish an app, and the publisher will be beholden to the same laws as anyone.
  - greyface- 2y ago
    Everything you wrote is currently true. That said, Signal can no longer claim to be privacy-focused if they submit to these demands, and if they refuse (as they've indicated is their plan), they'll lose a huge user segment, and the network effects that keep them dominant will weaken. Something will have to change.
    - stavros 2y ago

51 points by busymom0 2y ago

On Mastodon: https://mastodon.world/@Mer__edith/112633664440348608 https://mastodon.world/@Mer__edith/112633664440348608

superkuh 2y ago
>Official statement: the new EU chat controls proposal for mass scanning is the same old surveillance with new branding. >Whether you call it a backdoor, a front door, or “upload moderation” it undermines encryption & creates significant vulnerabilities >https://signal.org/blog/pdfs/upload-moderation.pdf https://signal.org/blog/pdfs/upload-moderation.pdf >New Branding, Same Scanning: “Upload Moderation” Undermines End-to-End Encryption A statement from Meredith Whittaker, Signal President, in the context of the EU debate End-to-end encryption is the technology we have to enable privacy in an age of unprecedented state and corporate surveillance. And the dangerous desire to undermine it never seems to die. For decades, experts have been clear: there is no way to both preserve the integrity of end-to-end encryption and expose encrypted contents to surveillance. But proposals to do just this emerge repeatedly — old wine endlessly repackaged in new bottles, aided by expensive consultancies that care more about marketing than the very serious stakes of these issues. These embarrassing branding exercises do not, of course, sway the expert community. But too often they work to convince non-experts that the risks of the previous plan to undermine end-to-end encryption are not present in the shiny new proposal. This is certainly how the EU chat control debate has proceeded. In November, the EU Parliament lit a beacon for global tech policy when it voted to exclude end-to-end encryption from mass surveillance orders in the chat control legislation.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

stavros 2y ago

What's the status of this proposal? Did it pass?

thefz 2y ago
Vote is 20th of June.
- stavros 2y ago
  Thanks, that's enough time for me to complain to my MP. EDIT: Does anyone know of a site that makes this easy? I've spent a few minutes but it's pretty time-consuming just to find who to contact.
  - thefz 2y ago
    https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/lawmakers-across-the-eu-call-on-eu-council-to-reject-the-chat-control-proposal/ https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/lawmakers-across-the-eu-cal... Bottom of the page has per-state contacts

greyface- 2y ago

These proposals are only possible due to the centralized nature of current messaging services. Signal has historically opposed any efforts at federation or decentralization. I wonder whether this could be the kick in the pants to get them to reconsider that position, or if we'll have to build something decentralized without them if this passes.

crop_rotation 2y ago
Nobody uses decentralised messaging systems. Even email which was decentralized is predominantly 4-5 big companies. And moxie made some very good arguments on why email is still lacking any new features like E2E while Whatsapp can add it very quickly. Then there is matrix, and trying to use it is an exercise in frustration even for tech users (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39368561 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39368561), for non tech it is a non starter. Not to mention the features people expect from their messaging apps simply won't work in decentralized messaging systems (e.g delete for all, read receipts which are symmetric).
cedws 2y ago
Sure, it's possible, Tox did it already. People don't want decentralised systems because they're not convenient enough. Your average user does not know what a peer or private key is. How many Signal users even verify their contacts' fingerprints? And when operating within the confines of mobile walled gardens, you need centralisation somewhere. Somebody needs to publish an app, and the publisher will be beholden to the same laws as anyone.
- greyface- 2y ago
  Everything you wrote is currently true. That said, Signal can no longer claim to be privacy-focused if they submit to these demands, and if they refuse (as they've indicated is their plan), they'll lose a huge user segment, and the network effects that keep them dominant will weaken. Something will have to change.
  - stavros 2y ago