12 ms·

> Chat Control would make it mandatory for all service providers (text messaging, email, social media, cloud storage, hosting services, etc.) to scan all commun

> Chat Control would make it mandatory for all service providers (text messaging, email, social media, cloud storage, hosting services, etc.) to scan all communications and all files (including end-to-end encrypted ones), in order to supposedly detect whatever the government deems "abusive material." I wonder why there has been such silence on this, with the exception of a handful of well written blog posts. The scope of such a dragnet, the economic impact, the societal damage, all seems rather broad. Yet why don't any major operators in the EU take a stance? Is it really so below the radar, or being kept so below the radar? Just the network egress costs to whatever state sanctioned scanner gets built will in aggregate probably exceed a few hundred MEUR yearly.

mr_toad 1y ago
Having the service provider handle the encryption is very convenient for the users. And, it turns out, the government.
- Humorist2290 1y ago
  Sure, but the way this was written it also includes everything from Gmail to root access servers hosted by Hetzner. Gmail has been doing this for years, but (I assume) not Hetzner. If even hosting providers are dragged into this the scale grows dramatically. Can Hetzner really not even be bothered about having to comply with such ridiculous requirements? To give a simple example: imagine a script that constantly dumps /dev/urandom into JPG-like files nonstop onto a 16 TB disk, then repeats. I've seen enterprise systems that aren't so dissimilar. If indeed the EU commission wants all files scanned, then will Hetzner need to spy on all of their machines at least enough to check for compliance? I'm guessing their board members think it can't possibly be so dumb, or stand to gain handsomely and privately.
api 1y ago
Big tech would be for this -- it would create a huge moat in terms of costly and complicated compliance overhead that would keep small challengers and startups out. Complicated or costly regulation is a regressive tax -- it affects smaller companies a lot more than larger ones and tends to prevent new entrants to a market.
- ortusdux 1y ago
  I hadn't thought of the regulatory capture implications. As if this could not get worse.
  - spwa4 1y ago
    Add to this that law enforcement is human, and famously opposed to checking their members. Resulting in things like this: https://www.heraldnet.com/news/investigation-seattle-cop-used-police-database-to-stalk-ex-girlfriend/ https://www.heraldnet.com/news/investigation-seattle-cop-use... https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article291059560.html https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article29105... If the lowest level of law enforcement can figure out how to use the system for this, imagine what a government ministry can do.
- Humorist2290 1y ago
  That's exactly my point though. Google, AWS, Meta etc all stand to gain from this. But plenty of middle tier providers are entirely silent even if it poses a potentially existential threat. Some people are going to get rich from this of course, but many will be ruined. And that's before even accounting for the lives to be destroyed by a blurry photo of a tree being classified as abuse material.
  - varispeed 1y ago
    This is because they are one audit away from being off the market. This is how companies stay silent in authoritarian regimes. One wrong comms and company is toast.
- marcus_holmes 1y ago
  Except that it creates a market for circumvention tech that would also cut Big Tech out from understanding what its users are saying to each other. Age restriction laws don't stop underage folks from doing anything, they just increase the market demand for VPNs, and improve VPNs so they get less easily detected. The net result is that platforms can't use IP addresses to meaningfully infer anything about their users. Same with this. This legislation will create a demand for private encryption tech that isn't part of the platform. Someone is going to provide that and make money, and in the process may remove the demand for the platform in the first place. I get the logic you're talking about, and agree that they must be thinking this, but it's very short-sighted.
moffkalast 1y ago
We've been mostly deplatformed for any kind of organized action against it, there's just writing an email to your MEP or... a change.org petition. Yes really. Nothing official one could sign their name under. But even so, the commission does whatever it wants anyway, they are complete autocrats when it comes to law proposal, it's up to the parliament and the courts to something about it afterwards. And they should given that it's unconstitutional in many EU countries and incompatible with GDPR as it currently exists.
- api 1y ago
  Would it be correct to compare the EU's autocratic pronouncements to Presidential executive orders in the US? In the sense that they can pass whatever they want with little feedback but then the courts can tear them apart?
  - pas 1y ago
    It's ridiculously different, there's no single person or country that can do anything like that there are multiple ways to make EU law, there are regulations (that apply directly) and directives that member states need to implement (basically ratify) the Commission proposed something and then the Council votes on it and then there's the EP which votes on it this one is a regulation proposal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_to_Prevent_and_Combat_Child_Sexual_Abuse https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_to_Prevent_and_Co... the treaties have some areas that are under "Special legislative procedures" where the EP cannot propose amendments, but still has consent power, but in some cases like internal market exemptions and competition law only consultation right https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/decision-making/special-legislative-procedures/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/decision-makin...
    - varispeed 1y ago
      Why this even got to a stage of being official? It's something a Nazi regime would implement today had it existed. There is no one in the EU that would tell those people are you fkin insane and give them a sack?
BoredPositron 1y ago
Fatigue? We are fighting this with different names since 2002. I guess normal people just can't hear about it anymore and that's probably on purpose.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
  It's hard to reach normal people, too. At least here in America the right wing has consolidated a lot of propaganda power into cable news like Fox
  - ToValueFunfetti 1y ago
    Cable everything is dead. FOX is doing relatively well, but they reach maybe 1% or 2% of the population, and presumably that's almost all already unshifting right-wing people. I'm not saying it's impossible that it's a propaganda power center, but I don't personally know how that would work. It feels like a leftover enemy from the early 2000s that just doesn't make sense post-internet.
    - icameron 1y ago
      "According to data from Nielsen, Fox News — from the period spanning June 20 through Sept. 1 — finished as the no. 1 network in all of broadcast television during the primetime hours of 8-11 PM. During those hours, Fox News averaged 2.43 million total nightly viewers in primetime — topping ABC at 2.38 million, NBC at 2.21 million, and CBS at 2.03 million. It is the second time in the network’s history they accomplished that feat — with the other coming in the summer of 2020." Whlie it sounds accurate that maybe 1-2% of the population watches it live, it is also the most highly rated and influencing "news" outlet in the US. Their reach is far deeper than 1-2%. It gets retweeted, talked about, and trickles down. It sure seems like at least 1/3rd of the population has a FOX brainworm infection. I've seen in on 24/7 in hotels and some sport bars or restaurants too.
      - bongodongobob 1y ago
        Exactly. Come to the Midwest and you'll see Fox News on in bars, oil change waiting rooms, dentist offices, etc. The other thing to keep in mind is that thanks to the electoral college, that percentage of viewers translates to a higher percentage of electoral votes.
CGMthrowaway 1y ago
> I wonder why there has been such silence on this Yes, I would think that if there were any real journalism left, they would be all over this. For the sake of their profession, and the protection of their sources.
- HPsquared 1y ago
  Maybe it's safer not to say anything.
  - mr90210 1y ago
    Safer for whom?
    - reactordev 1y ago
      The news outlet
      - godelski 1y ago
        In the moment, yes. In the long run, no.
        KetoManx64 1y ago
        Majority of news outlets have government subsidies of one sort or another, I wouldn't be surprised if those are the things keeping a lot of the legacy outlets in the green.
        godelski 1y ago
        > Majority of news outlets have government subsidies of one sort or another In the US? That's basically NPR and PBS, both of which are not in good graces with the current administration. So I don't think that's really the motivating factor. Or are you calling ads subsidies? Sure, gov pays these news outlets for ads, but that's because of their size and reach. They aren't spending nearly as much for smaller outlets, though yeah, local outlets get ads for local campaigns. Either way, I think the argument falls short. I said in the short term yes. That includes ads. But in the long run it is a bad strategy. Lack of quality journalism has been making the public more distrusting of the news. It gives legitimacy to claims of "fake news" even if such a thing is not binary and if those claims are being used liberally. I'll put it this way. Would you rather have a million dollars now or make $10m per year for the rest of your life? I'd call someone a fool for taking the former option, yet it is the option most take. The only difference is I said the second option out loud.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
varispeed 1y ago
This is coming from WEF and major operators are members of that organisation. In the end, these organisations want to slice and dice private conversations. It will be a goldmine for AI training and hence the push and silence. This is all corrupt.
chairmansteve 1y ago
Anybody who thinks they have online privacy is deluded. Regardless of Chat Control.
- freddyym 1y ago
  It would appear that you suffer from acute privacy nihilism [0]. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/the-age-of-privacy-nihilism-is-here/568198/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/the-a...
  - chairmansteve 1y ago
    I would call it despair.
- petertodd 1y ago
  Nonsense. If online privacy was that impossible Ukraine couldn't successfully organize sabotage operations in Russia. They do it all the time.
  - asdff 1y ago
    On the open internet? The drone strike in January that made headlines was not quite that simple. The drones were directed using dead reckoning. The drivers of the trucks were not informed what was happening with their cargo. Even the American government was kept in the dark.
    - petertodd 1y ago
      Not at all. Ukraine had operatives inside Russia. The trucks were not driven in from outside Russia. The system was assembled inside Russia. Also, every single drone had its own pilot: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq69qnvj6nlo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq69qnvj6nlo That's also just one of many operations inside Russia. There's lots of sabotage and assassinations that have been done. You just can't do operations like that without secure communications.
- 1y ago
bigfishrunning 1y ago
"including end-to-end encrypted ones" How? If they're end-to-end encrypted, they really can't be monitored unless there's a flaw in the encryption system. Don't trust messages to systems that aren't auditable.
- Terr_ 1y ago
  Most likely the service-provided will have simply a copy of the key. Encryption without protection.
- shiandow 1y ago
  You will be forced to run surveillance on yourself on your own device. No you will not have freedom to choose how to use your own property.
- petertodd 1y ago
  Chat control will require client-side AI scanning of all messages, bypassing end-to-end encryption. Since the AI will be an unauditable blackbox, it will make it effectively illegal to have secure end-to-end encryption. Yes, it is that fascist.
  - puppycodes 1y ago
    I predict a massive uptick in linux use
    - petertodd 1y ago
      Installing open source software on phones is becoming more and more difficult. It used to be the case that bootloaders were generally unlocked or unlockable. That is no longer true, including on Android. Google is also planning on banning APKs from unregistered sources soon. We need end-to-end encryption on phones to have reasonably convenient privacy. We can definitely lose that, and open source software won't help. Worse, once phones are locked down desktops and laptops can be locked down as well.
    - asdff 1y ago
rhizome 1y ago
>I wonder why there has been such silence on this Some combination of cowardice, conflict of interest, and fear of ICE.
- atty 1y ago
  Which ICE are you referring to? This is an EU law.
JoshTriplett 1y ago
Among many other reasons: because the proponents are using the usual "think of the children" tactics to impugn and libel the opposition.
port11 1y ago
I agree with most reasons others have pointed out (fatigue, lack of good journalism, deplatforming, alienation…). Another one: it's holiday season, a clever time to get things through. Another one: most EU parties stand for it, even my usual go-tos, namely Greens, S&D, and The Left.
- mbrochh 1y ago
  Time consider your party affiliation then.
  - port11 1y ago
    I'd love to, but we're very limited right now. The right-wingers aren't exactly against Chat Control either; or some are but also voted against very good legislation. The EPP is so corrupt it makes the Balkans seem clean. What's left? I'm not a single-issue voter.
Tixx7 1y ago
Its obviously not broadly announced, they're silently trying to push it through. But its also fatigue, Chat Control or the same thing under a different name is a thing the EU has been trying to push for a couple years. Every time the internet complains, somtimes on a larger scale, sometimes just the privacy niche and until now it luckily has always failed because not enough member states agreed on it. They will try until it goes through.
- munksbeer 1y ago
  > Chat Control or the same thing under a different name is a thing the EU Correction, not the EU, the member nations.
egorfine 1y ago
> why there has been such silence on this Government trying to break your privacy is routine at this point.

mr_toad 1y ago

Having the service provider handle the encryption is very convenient for the users. And, it turns out, the government.

Humorist2290 1y ago
Sure, but the way this was written it also includes everything from Gmail to root access servers hosted by Hetzner. Gmail has been doing this for years, but (I assume) not Hetzner. If even hosting providers are dragged into this the scale grows dramatically. Can Hetzner really not even be bothered about having to comply with such ridiculous requirements? To give a simple example: imagine a script that constantly dumps /dev/urandom into JPG-like files nonstop onto a 16 TB disk, then repeats. I've seen enterprise systems that aren't so dissimilar. If indeed the EU commission wants all files scanned, then will Hetzner need to spy on all of their machines at least enough to check for compliance? I'm guessing their board members think it can't possibly be so dumb, or stand to gain handsomely and privately.

api 1y ago

Big tech would be for this -- it would create a huge moat in terms of costly and complicated compliance overhead that would keep small challengers and startups out. Complicated or costly regulation is a regressive tax -- it affects smaller companies a lot more than larger ones and tends to prevent new entrants to a market.

ortusdux 1y ago
I hadn't thought of the regulatory capture implications. As if this could not get worse.
- spwa4 1y ago
  Add to this that law enforcement is human, and famously opposed to checking their members. Resulting in things like this: https://www.heraldnet.com/news/investigation-seattle-cop-used-police-database-to-stalk-ex-girlfriend/ https://www.heraldnet.com/news/investigation-seattle-cop-use... https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article291059560.html https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article29105... If the lowest level of law enforcement can figure out how to use the system for this, imagine what a government ministry can do.
Humorist2290 1y ago
That's exactly my point though. Google, AWS, Meta etc all stand to gain from this. But plenty of middle tier providers are entirely silent even if it poses a potentially existential threat. Some people are going to get rich from this of course, but many will be ruined. And that's before even accounting for the lives to be destroyed by a blurry photo of a tree being classified as abuse material.
- varispeed 1y ago
  This is because they are one audit away from being off the market. This is how companies stay silent in authoritarian regimes. One wrong comms and company is toast.
marcus_holmes 1y ago
Except that it creates a market for circumvention tech that would also cut Big Tech out from understanding what its users are saying to each other. Age restriction laws don't stop underage folks from doing anything, they just increase the market demand for VPNs, and improve VPNs so they get less easily detected. The net result is that platforms can't use IP addresses to meaningfully infer anything about their users. Same with this. This legislation will create a demand for private encryption tech that isn't part of the platform. Someone is going to provide that and make money, and in the process may remove the demand for the platform in the first place. I get the logic you're talking about, and agree that they must be thinking this, but it's very short-sighted.

moffkalast 1y ago

We've been mostly deplatformed for any kind of organized action against it, there's just writing an email to your MEP or... a change.org petition. Yes really. Nothing official one could sign their name under. But even so, the commission does whatever it wants anyway, they are complete autocrats when it comes to law proposal, it's up to the parliament and the courts to something about it afterwards. And they should given that it's unconstitutional in many EU countries and incompatible with GDPR as it currently exists.

api 1y ago
Would it be correct to compare the EU's autocratic pronouncements to Presidential executive orders in the US? In the sense that they can pass whatever they want with little feedback but then the courts can tear them apart?
- pas 1y ago
  It's ridiculously different, there's no single person or country that can do anything like that there are multiple ways to make EU law, there are regulations (that apply directly) and directives that member states need to implement (basically ratify) the Commission proposed something and then the Council votes on it and then there's the EP which votes on it this one is a regulation proposal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_to_Prevent_and_Combat_Child_Sexual_Abuse https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_to_Prevent_and_Co... the treaties have some areas that are under "Special legislative procedures" where the EP cannot propose amendments, but still has consent power, but in some cases like internal market exemptions and competition law only consultation right https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/decision-making/special-legislative-procedures/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/decision-makin...
  - varispeed 1y ago
    Why this even got to a stage of being official? It's something a Nazi regime would implement today had it existed. There is no one in the EU that would tell those people are you fkin insane and give them a sack?

BoredPositron 1y ago

Fatigue? We are fighting this with different names since 2002. I guess normal people just can't hear about it anymore and that's probably on purpose.

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
It's hard to reach normal people, too. At least here in America the right wing has consolidated a lot of propaganda power into cable news like Fox
- ToValueFunfetti 1y ago
  Cable everything is dead. FOX is doing relatively well, but they reach maybe 1% or 2% of the population, and presumably that's almost all already unshifting right-wing people. I'm not saying it's impossible that it's a propaganda power center, but I don't personally know how that would work. It feels like a leftover enemy from the early 2000s that just doesn't make sense post-internet.
  - icameron 1y ago
    "According to data from Nielsen, Fox News — from the period spanning June 20 through Sept. 1 — finished as the no. 1 network in all of broadcast television during the primetime hours of 8-11 PM. During those hours, Fox News averaged 2.43 million total nightly viewers in primetime — topping ABC at 2.38 million, NBC at 2.21 million, and CBS at 2.03 million. It is the second time in the network’s history they accomplished that feat — with the other coming in the summer of 2020." Whlie it sounds accurate that maybe 1-2% of the population watches it live, it is also the most highly rated and influencing "news" outlet in the US. Their reach is far deeper than 1-2%. It gets retweeted, talked about, and trickles down. It sure seems like at least 1/3rd of the population has a FOX brainworm infection. I've seen in on 24/7 in hotels and some sport bars or restaurants too.
    - bongodongobob 1y ago
      Exactly. Come to the Midwest and you'll see Fox News on in bars, oil change waiting rooms, dentist offices, etc. The other thing to keep in mind is that thanks to the electoral college, that percentage of viewers translates to a higher percentage of electoral votes.

CGMthrowaway 1y ago

> I wonder why there has been such silence on this Yes, I would think that if there were any real journalism left, they would be all over this. For the sake of their profession, and the protection of their sources.

HPsquared 1y ago
Maybe it's safer not to say anything.
- mr90210 1y ago
  Safer for whom?
  - reactordev 1y ago
    The news outlet
    - godelski 1y ago
      In the moment, yes. In the long run, no.
      - KetoManx64 1y ago
        Majority of news outlets have government subsidies of one sort or another, I wouldn't be surprised if those are the things keeping a lot of the legacy outlets in the green.
        godelski 1y ago
        > Majority of news outlets have government subsidies of one sort or another In the US? That's basically NPR and PBS, both of which are not in good graces with the current administration. So I don't think that's really the motivating factor. Or are you calling ads subsidies? Sure, gov pays these news outlets for ads, but that's because of their size and reach. They aren't spending nearly as much for smaller outlets, though yeah, local outlets get ads for local campaigns. Either way, I think the argument falls short. I said in the short term yes. That includes ads. But in the long run it is a bad strategy. Lack of quality journalism has been making the public more distrusting of the news. It gives legitimacy to claims of "fake news" even if such a thing is not binary and if those claims are being used liberally. I'll put it this way. Would you rather have a million dollars now or make $10m per year for the rest of your life? I'd call someone a fool for taking the former option, yet it is the option most take. The only difference is I said the second option out loud.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

varispeed 1y ago

This is coming from WEF and major operators are members of that organisation. In the end, these organisations want to slice and dice private conversations. It will be a goldmine for AI training and hence the push and silence. This is all corrupt.

chairmansteve 1y ago

Anybody who thinks they have online privacy is deluded. Regardless of Chat Control.

freddyym 1y ago
It would appear that you suffer from acute privacy nihilism [0]. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/the-age-of-privacy-nihilism-is-here/568198/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/the-a...
- chairmansteve 1y ago
  I would call it despair.
petertodd 1y ago
Nonsense. If online privacy was that impossible Ukraine couldn't successfully organize sabotage operations in Russia. They do it all the time.
- asdff 1y ago
  On the open internet? The drone strike in January that made headlines was not quite that simple. The drones were directed using dead reckoning. The drivers of the trucks were not informed what was happening with their cargo. Even the American government was kept in the dark.
  - petertodd 1y ago
    Not at all. Ukraine had operatives inside Russia. The trucks were not driven in from outside Russia. The system was assembled inside Russia. Also, every single drone had its own pilot: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq69qnvj6nlo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq69qnvj6nlo That's also just one of many operations inside Russia. There's lots of sabotage and assassinations that have been done. You just can't do operations like that without secure communications.
1y ago

bigfishrunning 1y ago

"including end-to-end encrypted ones" How? If they're end-to-end encrypted, they really can't be monitored unless there's a flaw in the encryption system. Don't trust messages to systems that aren't auditable.

Terr_ 1y ago
Most likely the service-provided will have simply a copy of the key. Encryption without protection.
shiandow 1y ago
You will be forced to run surveillance on yourself on your own device. No you will not have freedom to choose how to use your own property.
petertodd 1y ago
Chat control will require client-side AI scanning of all messages, bypassing end-to-end encryption. Since the AI will be an unauditable blackbox, it will make it effectively illegal to have secure end-to-end encryption. Yes, it is that fascist.
- puppycodes 1y ago
  I predict a massive uptick in linux use
  - petertodd 1y ago
    Installing open source software on phones is becoming more and more difficult. It used to be the case that bootloaders were generally unlocked or unlockable. That is no longer true, including on Android. Google is also planning on banning APKs from unregistered sources soon. We need end-to-end encryption on phones to have reasonably convenient privacy. We can definitely lose that, and open source software won't help. Worse, once phones are locked down desktops and laptops can be locked down as well.
  - asdff 1y ago

rhizome 1y ago

>I wonder why there has been such silence on this Some combination of cowardice, conflict of interest, and fear of ICE.

atty 1y ago
Which ICE are you referring to? This is an EU law.

JoshTriplett 1y ago

Among many other reasons: because the proponents are using the usual "think of the children" tactics to impugn and libel the opposition.

port11 1y ago

I agree with most reasons others have pointed out (fatigue, lack of good journalism, deplatforming, alienation…). Another one: it's holiday season, a clever time to get things through. Another one: most EU parties stand for it, even my usual go-tos, namely Greens, S&D, and The Left.

mbrochh 1y ago
Time consider your party affiliation then.
- port11 1y ago
  I'd love to, but we're very limited right now. The right-wingers aren't exactly against Chat Control either; or some are but also voted against very good legislation. The EPP is so corrupt it makes the Balkans seem clean. What's left? I'm not a single-issue voter.

Tixx7 1y ago

Its obviously not broadly announced, they're silently trying to push it through. But its also fatigue, Chat Control or the same thing under a different name is a thing the EU has been trying to push for a couple years. Every time the internet complains, somtimes on a larger scale, sometimes just the privacy niche and until now it luckily has always failed because not enough member states agreed on it. They will try until it goes through.

munksbeer 1y ago
> Chat Control or the same thing under a different name is a thing the EU Correction, not the EU, the member nations.

egorfine 1y ago

> why there has been such silence on this Government trying to break your privacy is routine at this point.