19 ms·

> I don't believe there are any western nations that want non-locally-backdoored messaging of any sort But that's what exactly they want no? EU is literally i

by chucke1992 2y ago

> I don't believe there are any western nations that want non-locally-backdoored messaging of any sort But that's what exactly they want no? EU is literally implementing a regulation that will allow to "circumvent end-to-end encryption to address child sexual abuse material". I believe it failed to pass recently, but they will try again - and nothing stops countries to implement it independently. I think France is the one who was pushing for that in the first place.

dijit 2y ago
A handful of EU MEPs keep pushing backdoored encryption and it keeps getting veto’d. There are two legistive bodies in the EU, one is only allowed to propose law, the other is only allowed to vote on it. Lots of braindead laws get put to a vote, theres no requirement that they get through. I understand that raising the alarm is helpful, but it would be helpful if people took a second to understand how the EU works, the politicians involved and how their motions are perceived by the rest of parliament.
- arlort 2y ago
  3 actually, (the second body you described can be categorised as bicameral) Which would be pedantry if it weren't that one of the two chambers is much more in line with the former
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  Chat Control isn't pushed by a "handful of EU MEPs", but the European Commission. Notably, it can be agreed upon in the EC using qualified majority, unilateral veto doesn't apply. The last time they tried (in June), the qualified majority wasn't reached, but the difference was slim.
T-A 2y ago
You might be surprised to learn who's doing the pushing: https://www.wired.com/story/europes-moral-crusader-lays-down-the-law-on-encryption/ https://www.wired.com/story/europes-moral-crusader-lays-down... https://www.statewatch.org/news/2024/july/police-should-have-more-say-in-the-eu-policy-making-process-says-swedish-government/ https://www.statewatch.org/news/2024/july/police-should-have...
- attendant3446 2y ago
  No wonder it's Swedish, a country with zero privacy
- a1o 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
- I_am_uncreative 2y ago
  I'm not. The Swedish government is a lot like California's: it's a lot less progressive than it pretends to be.
  - akira2501 2y ago
    It's not progressive. It's protectionist. The people they're protecting carry a lot of guilt, and so really like the "progressive" label, it's puts a really nice spin on their particular version of graft and corruption.
    - ardaoweo 2y ago
      Yep. If the Swedish government really cared about children, they would do something to stop the massive underage gang violence problem the country has. 12 year olds being used as hitmen for drug gangs is not normal, yet that's the reality.
      - okr 2y ago
        gangs of 12 year old roaming the swedish streets? you sure, it's not monty python playing in your head?
        wordofx 2y ago
        [flagged]
timeon 2y ago
> EU is literally implementing a regulation Does it?
- exceptione 2y ago
  Nope. There was a proposal pushed by corporate lobby groups that got shot down. The EU usually takes 3 steps forward, 1 to 2 steps backwards.
vessenes 2y ago
I think you read my clumsy sentence backwards. They absolutely want to get in the middle of messaging, all of them. This is behind many of the calls for E2E interop as well -- all the proposals I'm aware of call for termination somewhere in the middle; you can imagine who'd like to be at that termination middle point. This is why Apple will not "move over" to RCS, ever, as a first class transport -- it's fundamentally no more secure than OTA plaintext to existing persistent threat actors.
- sgc 2y ago
  So just give me an apple messaging client on my non-apple devices. It is insanely, practically criminally, anti-social to lock your messaging system into your devices alone. It's like the Joker is running the business decisions over there. Who cares, let's just watch the world burn.
  - op00to 2y ago
    Asking cause I don’t know - can you provide iOS level iMessage encryption safely on Android when you don’t control the hardware?
    - cherryteastain 2y ago
      Safety wise, Signal (or PGP email) on GrapheneOS is probably as good as it gets since it's all audited free open source code.
      - throwaway48540 2y ago
        I didn't know Signal app had access to a secure enclave chip.
        Brian_K_White 2y ago
        That is not the definition of secure.
a0123 2y ago
To be clear, the legislation in France and in the EU that is most likely behind this arrest is that companies have to at least try to do some moderation. There is an understanding that not everything can be moderated (obviously, the entire Internet would be banned otherwise) but there has to be a genuine attempt. Which every company does more or less. The fact that Telegram doesn't reach this extremely low, very low bar is quite something.
- spwa4 2y ago
  What keeps amazing me is that this is supposed to make children's lives better, by helping social services. Of course, such legislation only has any chance in hell of improving lives if the standard of living for children, the education, the ... IN social services is good. It is very easy to see this WILL put more children into such a situation, and that's about the only thing such legislation will definitely do. It is completely absurd to think this is going to end drugs, abuse or whatever else they're looking for. Is that the case? Is it the case that the standard of living, education, ... in social services is good? No. Not at all. There's constant scandals and if a child that gets into a social services institution makes it into university, just one, any given year, that's national news. Prostitution in social services is common, drugs and crime are everywhere. It seems there is A LOT more work to be done on the other side of social services first. They seem to perform VERY badly once they actually catch someone. So why do this? Because it isn't to help children. At the very best they see this as a cheap way to look like they're improving social services.
  - BLKNSLVR 2y ago
    They're building the penthouse suite with all the luxuries you could imagine, but the foundation is rotting away and, if anything, becoming more ignored rather than increasingly important. It lays bare that their motivation is blanket surveillance for their own political ends and nothing to do with protecting children in the slightest. Social Services are one of the most consistently underfunded and under-resources arms of government. Australia has recently had to "increase the bar" at which mandatory reporting is required because the resources don't exist to even consider investigation of cases where the child's life isn't in immediate danger. It's gross, but it seems politics around the world has found it's shared water level, and that level is happy with exploiting exploited children.
loceng 2y ago
Using this as a means to manufacture consent to implement-enforce such systems, and then what regulation will be used to counter the tyrannical takeover of these systems - who may be the most vile child predators seeking control-power to be able to do what they want - to pillage, rape, and murder as they please?
namaria 2y ago
> literally implementing > it failed to pass recently These two sentences cannot be both true
LightBug1 2y ago
In the UK, I have a stormtrooper standing behind me in my bedroom as I type this. He just asked me to explain the context of the message I'm writing to you now.
tome 2y ago
Perhaps you got thrown by the double negative? > I don't believe there are any western nations that want non-locally-backdoored messaging of any sort means > I believe every western nation wants all messaging to be locally-backdoored
- andrewshadura 2y ago
  No, it doesn't?
  - tome 2y ago
    Thanks, yes, I should have said > I believe no western nation wants any messaging to be non-locally-backdoored
    - tome 2y ago
      Actually, this seems to be the clearest way of getting rid of negatives: > I believe all western nations want all messaging to be free of remote backdoors
      - froggit 2y ago
        > > I believe all western nations want all messaging to be free of remote backdoors != >> I believe every western nation wants all messaging to be locally-backdoored
        tome 2y ago
        Correct. andrewshadura pointed that out above, too. The former is equivalent to the original formulation that I was trying to simplify.

dijit 2y ago

A handful of EU MEPs keep pushing backdoored encryption and it keeps getting veto’d. There are two legistive bodies in the EU, one is only allowed to propose law, the other is only allowed to vote on it. Lots of braindead laws get put to a vote, theres no requirement that they get through. I understand that raising the alarm is helpful, but it would be helpful if people took a second to understand how the EU works, the politicians involved and how their motions are perceived by the rest of parliament.

arlort 2y ago
3 actually, (the second body you described can be categorised as bicameral) Which would be pedantry if it weren't that one of the two chambers is much more in line with the former
inglor_cz 2y ago
Chat Control isn't pushed by a "handful of EU MEPs", but the European Commission. Notably, it can be agreed upon in the EC using qualified majority, unilateral veto doesn't apply. The last time they tried (in June), the qualified majority wasn't reached, but the difference was slim.

T-A 2y ago

You might be surprised to learn who's doing the pushing: https://www.wired.com/story/europes-moral-crusader-lays-down-the-law-on-encryption/ https://www.wired.com/story/europes-moral-crusader-lays-down... https://www.statewatch.org/news/2024/july/police-should-have-more-say-in-the-eu-policy-making-process-says-swedish-government/ https://www.statewatch.org/news/2024/july/police-should-have...

attendant3446 2y ago
No wonder it's Swedish, a country with zero privacy
a1o 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
I_am_uncreative 2y ago
I'm not. The Swedish government is a lot like California's: it's a lot less progressive than it pretends to be.
- akira2501 2y ago
  It's not progressive. It's protectionist. The people they're protecting carry a lot of guilt, and so really like the "progressive" label, it's puts a really nice spin on their particular version of graft and corruption.
  - ardaoweo 2y ago
    Yep. If the Swedish government really cared about children, they would do something to stop the massive underage gang violence problem the country has. 12 year olds being used as hitmen for drug gangs is not normal, yet that's the reality.
    - okr 2y ago
      gangs of 12 year old roaming the swedish streets? you sure, it's not monty python playing in your head?
      - wordofx 2y ago
        [flagged]

timeon 2y ago

> EU is literally implementing a regulation Does it?

exceptione 2y ago
Nope. There was a proposal pushed by corporate lobby groups that got shot down. The EU usually takes 3 steps forward, 1 to 2 steps backwards.

vessenes 2y ago

I think you read my clumsy sentence backwards. They absolutely want to get in the middle of messaging, all of them. This is behind many of the calls for E2E interop as well -- all the proposals I'm aware of call for termination somewhere in the middle; you can imagine who'd like to be at that termination middle point. This is why Apple will not "move over" to RCS, ever, as a first class transport -- it's fundamentally no more secure than OTA plaintext to existing persistent threat actors.

sgc 2y ago
So just give me an apple messaging client on my non-apple devices. It is insanely, practically criminally, anti-social to lock your messaging system into your devices alone. It's like the Joker is running the business decisions over there. Who cares, let's just watch the world burn.
- op00to 2y ago
  Asking cause I don’t know - can you provide iOS level iMessage encryption safely on Android when you don’t control the hardware?
  - cherryteastain 2y ago
    Safety wise, Signal (or PGP email) on GrapheneOS is probably as good as it gets since it's all audited free open source code.
    - throwaway48540 2y ago
      I didn't know Signal app had access to a secure enclave chip.
      - Brian_K_White 2y ago
        That is not the definition of secure.

a0123 2y ago

To be clear, the legislation in France and in the EU that is most likely behind this arrest is that companies have to at least try to do some moderation. There is an understanding that not everything can be moderated (obviously, the entire Internet would be banned otherwise) but there has to be a genuine attempt. Which every company does more or less. The fact that Telegram doesn't reach this extremely low, very low bar is quite something.

spwa4 2y ago
What keeps amazing me is that this is supposed to make children's lives better, by helping social services. Of course, such legislation only has any chance in hell of improving lives if the standard of living for children, the education, the ... IN social services is good. It is very easy to see this WILL put more children into such a situation, and that's about the only thing such legislation will definitely do. It is completely absurd to think this is going to end drugs, abuse or whatever else they're looking for. Is that the case? Is it the case that the standard of living, education, ... in social services is good? No. Not at all. There's constant scandals and if a child that gets into a social services institution makes it into university, just one, any given year, that's national news. Prostitution in social services is common, drugs and crime are everywhere. It seems there is A LOT more work to be done on the other side of social services first. They seem to perform VERY badly once they actually catch someone. So why do this? Because it isn't to help children. At the very best they see this as a cheap way to look like they're improving social services.
- BLKNSLVR 2y ago
  They're building the penthouse suite with all the luxuries you could imagine, but the foundation is rotting away and, if anything, becoming more ignored rather than increasingly important. It lays bare that their motivation is blanket surveillance for their own political ends and nothing to do with protecting children in the slightest. Social Services are one of the most consistently underfunded and under-resources arms of government. Australia has recently had to "increase the bar" at which mandatory reporting is required because the resources don't exist to even consider investigation of cases where the child's life isn't in immediate danger. It's gross, but it seems politics around the world has found it's shared water level, and that level is happy with exploiting exploited children.

loceng 2y ago

Using this as a means to manufacture consent to implement-enforce such systems, and then what regulation will be used to counter the tyrannical takeover of these systems - who may be the most vile child predators seeking control-power to be able to do what they want - to pillage, rape, and murder as they please?

namaria 2y ago

> literally implementing > it failed to pass recently These two sentences cannot be both true

LightBug1 2y ago

In the UK, I have a stormtrooper standing behind me in my bedroom as I type this. He just asked me to explain the context of the message I'm writing to you now.

tome 2y ago

Perhaps you got thrown by the double negative? > I don't believe there are any western nations that want non-locally-backdoored messaging of any sort means > I believe every western nation wants all messaging to be locally-backdoored

andrewshadura 2y ago
No, it doesn't?
- tome 2y ago
  Thanks, yes, I should have said > I believe no western nation wants any messaging to be non-locally-backdoored
  - tome 2y ago
    Actually, this seems to be the clearest way of getting rid of negatives: > I believe all western nations want all messaging to be free of remote backdoors
    - froggit 2y ago
      > > I believe all western nations want all messaging to be free of remote backdoors != >> I believe every western nation wants all messaging to be locally-backdoored
      - tome 2y ago
        Correct. andrewshadura pointed that out above, too. The former is equivalent to the original formulation that I was trying to simplify.