4 ms·

As per my comment above, this draft law has nothing to do with Hungary. The only reason Hungary is currently associated with the "Chat control" draft is becaus

As per my comment above, this draft law has nothing to do with Hungary. The only reason Hungary is currently associated with the "Chat control" draft is because Hungary currently holds the EU presidency and as part of their mandate they are free to set goals and negotiate with other countries in order to come up with future laws. First, these drafts mostly originate from the EU commission, so Hungary is not the one who came out with it in the first place. Secondly, Belgium which had the presidency a couple of months ago also tried (and failed) to get this draft across the line. So yes, Hungary, which may or may not be on it's way to become a dictatorship is very happy to keep pushing for these negotiations to happen but let's also take a moment and remember that Sweden, France, Spain and many more countries are also happy with it. So to me, the question is how can we take EU countries seriously when they talk about privacy when so many of them are ready to create a system of blanket surveillance on all their citizens?

Nursie 2y ago
> So to me, the question is how can we take EU countries seriously when they talk about privacy when so many of them are ready to create a system of blanket surveillance on all their citizens? Well I guess they draw a distinction between allowing state-level actors to access information in the name of stopping crimes and/or national security concerns and allowing the same sort of access to commercial entities. I'm not saying that justifies it, but it's a different threat model - accessing data about your own citizens for state reasons, rather than collecting data about everyone for commercial gain. Let's hope it gets knocked back again.
- rdm_blackhole 2y ago
  In that case then the definition of privacy needs to change because to me privacy is a binary state. Either I have it or I don't. Secondly, this piece of legislation is not only a threat to the people of Europe, it is actually a gift to the autocracies of the world like China, Russia and Iran and more who as soon as it is implemented will deploy tremendous amounts of efforts to break into it. By going forward with this law, we are advertising to the world, hey we got a backdoor here, come and use it! Instead of making it harder for foreign powers to break into our system, we are creating multiple points of failures where the data could be intercepted.
  - Nursie 2y ago
    > In that case then the definition of privacy needs to change because to me privacy is a binary state. Either I have it or I don't. That seems a little, well, binary. I don't have (nor want) a lot of privacy from my partner. I have a lot more from my boss, who clearly doesn't need to know about the pimple on my ass. He also doesn't need to know my car registration, which the government does, or parts of the government. You need to look at your threat model and understand what it is you want to protect and from whom. "Privacy" is a bit more complex than on/off. I agree, the backdoor is a poorly thought out idea, it's an authoritarian fantasy which (like many authoritarian fantasies) doesn't take into account the practicality of the idea or the second order consequences. That back door will indeed be a target, so the people of the EU have to worry about not only their own governments misusing the data but (as you say) other powers finding ways in as well. On the corporate side, the threat model is different - companies don't want the expense of doing security well and they have a profit motive of being able to sell data. This treasure trove could also be useful to foreign actors, or those (like Cambridge Analytica) who would use it for domestic political aims. EU citizens are relatively well protected from this type of threat at the moment, US citizens not so much. Should weakness in one mean you don't listen to anything out of the EU when it comes to privacy? Again I think that's too binary. The EU has some great ideas and laws about protecting us from the excesses of corporate data hoarding, those should be celebrated, just as we excoriate them on attempts to create a state panopticon.

Nursie 2y ago

> So to me, the question is how can we take EU countries seriously when they talk about privacy when so many of them are ready to create a system of blanket surveillance on all their citizens? Well I guess they draw a distinction between allowing state-level actors to access information in the name of stopping crimes and/or national security concerns and allowing the same sort of access to commercial entities. I'm not saying that justifies it, but it's a different threat model - accessing data about your own citizens for state reasons, rather than collecting data about everyone for commercial gain. Let's hope it gets knocked back again.

rdm_blackhole 2y ago
In that case then the definition of privacy needs to change because to me privacy is a binary state. Either I have it or I don't. Secondly, this piece of legislation is not only a threat to the people of Europe, it is actually a gift to the autocracies of the world like China, Russia and Iran and more who as soon as it is implemented will deploy tremendous amounts of efforts to break into it. By going forward with this law, we are advertising to the world, hey we got a backdoor here, come and use it! Instead of making it harder for foreign powers to break into our system, we are creating multiple points of failures where the data could be intercepted.
- Nursie 2y ago
  > In that case then the definition of privacy needs to change because to me privacy is a binary state. Either I have it or I don't. That seems a little, well, binary. I don't have (nor want) a lot of privacy from my partner. I have a lot more from my boss, who clearly doesn't need to know about the pimple on my ass. He also doesn't need to know my car registration, which the government does, or parts of the government. You need to look at your threat model and understand what it is you want to protect and from whom. "Privacy" is a bit more complex than on/off. I agree, the backdoor is a poorly thought out idea, it's an authoritarian fantasy which (like many authoritarian fantasies) doesn't take into account the practicality of the idea or the second order consequences. That back door will indeed be a target, so the people of the EU have to worry about not only their own governments misusing the data but (as you say) other powers finding ways in as well. On the corporate side, the threat model is different - companies don't want the expense of doing security well and they have a profit motive of being able to sell data. This treasure trove could also be useful to foreign actors, or those (like Cambridge Analytica) who would use it for domestic political aims. EU citizens are relatively well protected from this type of threat at the moment, US citizens not so much. Should weakness in one mean you don't listen to anything out of the EU when it comes to privacy? Again I think that's too binary. The EU has some great ideas and laws about protecting us from the excesses of corporate data hoarding, those should be celebrated, just as we excoriate them on attempts to create a state panopticon.