4 ms·

If the cost of the proposal is "let's throw democracy under the bus" as it is in this case, it better be damn close to 100% effective to be worth it! I have a

If the cost of the proposal is "let's throw democracy under the bus" as it is in this case, it better be damn close to 100% effective to be worth it! I have a hard time imagining this will be more than 10% effective. This proposal is a joke

palata 1y ago
A few decades ago, all communications were unencrypted. Would you say that democracies did not exist then?
- buildbot 1y ago
  This is completely untrue! Important communications have always been enciphered since language has been created I’d wager, whether that cipher is specific terms (grog means attack that person in 10 seconds!) or a book cipher, e.i. The first letter of a bible verse than the second letter of the next verse etc. Humans have been encrypting communication since communication was possible. It is now only recently possible to dragnet in mass many communications, store, and analyze them. The past decades have brought new threats to privacy democracy through breaking encryption at the state scale.
  - palata 1y ago
    > Humans have been encrypting communication since communication was possible. Were most people encrypting their handwritten letters? Were most people encrypting their messages before sending them by SMS or with WhatsApp? Really?
    - thfuran 1y ago
      Not most but some.
    - Levitz 1y ago
      No, because there was an expectation of privacy. That expectation is no longer there.
      - palata 1y ago
        Privacy from who? Law enforcement has been leveraging that forever. But ChatControl won't prevent the encryption for anyone who is not the receiver of the reports. And the receiver is the equivalent of "law enforcement", right?
        nazgul17 1y ago
        The scalability of spying has exploded. Back before re-election comms, the government had no way to spy on communications and sieve out opposers - now they do, with encryption the only thing standing in the way.
        Levitz 1y ago
        >Privacy from who? Law enforcement has been leveraging that forever. Not without legal proceedings. The population would have been absolutely outraged if the government just decided to read all of their mail one random day in the 90s. There's a reason the whole idea was supposed to be a conspiracy theory, the population literally didn't believe something like that could happen.
        palata 1y ago
        I think that there is a big difference, for the population, between "somebody is reading and keeping a copy of all your mail" and "Some algorithm looks for illegal material locally on your phone. If you don't have illegal material, it won't do anything". Nobody would want to carry a microphone recording them 24/7 and storing everything on a server, but everybody is fine with TooBigTech simply promising that they don't store the data. We have to accept that people are fine with the idea. The problem (both with the connected mic and ChatControl, btw) is that it can be abused. That's the problem. Again: we have to convince people that it is at risk of being abused. Not that they should be outraged. They just are not.
        GoblinSlayer 1y ago
        >TooBigTech simply promising that they don't store the data. Instead they notify you that you gave them perpetual license to reuse your data.
- buellerbueller 1y ago
  A few decades ago, few communications were tracked. When everything is tracked (as it is now), the only way to have privacy is with encryption.
  - palata 1y ago
    Snowden said otherwise, more than a decade ago.
    - thfuran 1y ago
      Which part are you disputing?
      - palata 1y ago
        The fact that ChatControl is killing democracies. It's a tool that could be abused, but I wouldn't say that it is enough to kill a democracy all by itself.
        amarant 1y ago
        To make a silly analogy: A stone in go has 4 liberties. Take away all four and the stone dies. Chat control takes away one liberty from democracy. Ask any half decent go player what will happen to that stone if we just ignore the attack upon it?
        palata 1y ago
        If they suspect that you own CSAM material, law enforcement will check your devices. Actually if they have convincing arguments, the way they get access to your devices may touch your physical integrity. You don't have the liberty to avoid that, today. By design. My point being that if one could prove that the ChatControl detection is only running locally and that it is only reporting what's acceptable to report, then it wouldn't hurt your freedom (except for your freedom to do illegal stuff, but that's the whole point). The problem is that it is not possible to prove this. Fundamentally. We need to talk about that. Not throw some "it will kill democracy because you should trust me when I say it".
- amarant 1y ago
  Are least where I'm from, there are pretty strong laws against reading snailmail post of others. To this day, any law enforcement that tries to open people's snail mail will laughed out of the courtroom, and quite possibly out of their jobs too! Today nobody uses snail mail. This proposal is the equivalent of proposing to read everyone's private letters back in the day. Technical details are technical details
- AlexandrB 1y ago
  Encryption is not the only privacy assurance that exists in democracies. For example, the government is (or at least was[1]) not allowed to open your mail. You could send CSAM Polaroids back and forth and nothing would happen. Chat Control amounts to routine, warrantless interception of private communication. Something you see in states like the USSR. [1] https://www.westernstandard.news/news/liberals-push-bill-to-let-canada-post-open-mail-without-a-warrant/67553 https://www.westernstandard.news/news/liberals-push-bill-to-...
reenorap 1y ago
It's going to be 0% effective. It won't take long for criminals to use their own encrypted communication systems, and only law-abiding citizens will be monitored. And then you'll get into a scenario that the government will punish you for wrong-speak, like when people had their bank accounts frozen for donating to the trucker protests. Or they will turn off your access to social media the way the Biden Administration did during the Pandemic.

palata 1y ago

A few decades ago, all communications were unencrypted. Would you say that democracies did not exist then?

buildbot 1y ago
This is completely untrue! Important communications have always been enciphered since language has been created I’d wager, whether that cipher is specific terms (grog means attack that person in 10 seconds!) or a book cipher, e.i. The first letter of a bible verse than the second letter of the next verse etc. Humans have been encrypting communication since communication was possible. It is now only recently possible to dragnet in mass many communications, store, and analyze them. The past decades have brought new threats to privacy democracy through breaking encryption at the state scale.
- palata 1y ago
  > Humans have been encrypting communication since communication was possible. Were most people encrypting their handwritten letters? Were most people encrypting their messages before sending them by SMS or with WhatsApp? Really?
  - thfuran 1y ago
    Not most but some.
  - Levitz 1y ago
    No, because there was an expectation of privacy. That expectation is no longer there.
    - palata 1y ago
      Privacy from who? Law enforcement has been leveraging that forever. But ChatControl won't prevent the encryption for anyone who is not the receiver of the reports. And the receiver is the equivalent of "law enforcement", right?
      - nazgul17 1y ago
        The scalability of spying has exploded. Back before re-election comms, the government had no way to spy on communications and sieve out opposers - now they do, with encryption the only thing standing in the way.
      - Levitz 1y ago
        >Privacy from who? Law enforcement has been leveraging that forever. Not without legal proceedings. The population would have been absolutely outraged if the government just decided to read all of their mail one random day in the 90s. There's a reason the whole idea was supposed to be a conspiracy theory, the population literally didn't believe something like that could happen.
        palata 1y ago
        I think that there is a big difference, for the population, between "somebody is reading and keeping a copy of all your mail" and "Some algorithm looks for illegal material locally on your phone. If you don't have illegal material, it won't do anything". Nobody would want to carry a microphone recording them 24/7 and storing everything on a server, but everybody is fine with TooBigTech simply promising that they don't store the data. We have to accept that people are fine with the idea. The problem (both with the connected mic and ChatControl, btw) is that it can be abused. That's the problem. Again: we have to convince people that it is at risk of being abused. Not that they should be outraged. They just are not.
        GoblinSlayer 1y ago
        >TooBigTech simply promising that they don't store the data. Instead they notify you that you gave them perpetual license to reuse your data.
buellerbueller 1y ago
A few decades ago, few communications were tracked. When everything is tracked (as it is now), the only way to have privacy is with encryption.
- palata 1y ago
  Snowden said otherwise, more than a decade ago.
  - thfuran 1y ago
    Which part are you disputing?
    - palata 1y ago
      The fact that ChatControl is killing democracies. It's a tool that could be abused, but I wouldn't say that it is enough to kill a democracy all by itself.
      - amarant 1y ago
        To make a silly analogy: A stone in go has 4 liberties. Take away all four and the stone dies. Chat control takes away one liberty from democracy. Ask any half decent go player what will happen to that stone if we just ignore the attack upon it?
        palata 1y ago
        If they suspect that you own CSAM material, law enforcement will check your devices. Actually if they have convincing arguments, the way they get access to your devices may touch your physical integrity. You don't have the liberty to avoid that, today. By design. My point being that if one could prove that the ChatControl detection is only running locally and that it is only reporting what's acceptable to report, then it wouldn't hurt your freedom (except for your freedom to do illegal stuff, but that's the whole point). The problem is that it is not possible to prove this. Fundamentally. We need to talk about that. Not throw some "it will kill democracy because you should trust me when I say it".
amarant 1y ago
Are least where I'm from, there are pretty strong laws against reading snailmail post of others. To this day, any law enforcement that tries to open people's snail mail will laughed out of the courtroom, and quite possibly out of their jobs too! Today nobody uses snail mail. This proposal is the equivalent of proposing to read everyone's private letters back in the day. Technical details are technical details
AlexandrB 1y ago
Encryption is not the only privacy assurance that exists in democracies. For example, the government is (or at least was[1]) not allowed to open your mail. You could send CSAM Polaroids back and forth and nothing would happen. Chat Control amounts to routine, warrantless interception of private communication. Something you see in states like the USSR. [1] https://www.westernstandard.news/news/liberals-push-bill-to-let-canada-post-open-mail-without-a-warrant/67553 https://www.westernstandard.news/news/liberals-push-bill-to-...

reenorap 1y ago

It's going to be 0% effective. It won't take long for criminals to use their own encrypted communication systems, and only law-abiding citizens will be monitored. And then you'll get into a scenario that the government will punish you for wrong-speak, like when people had their bank accounts frozen for donating to the trucker protests. Or they will turn off your access to social media the way the Biden Administration did during the Pandemic.