4 ms·

I regularly see similar articles with similar comments here, but there's one thing I still don't understand: From the European Convention on Human Rights[1]:

I regularly see similar articles with similar comments here, but there's one thing I still don't understand: From the European Convention on Human Rights[1]: ARTICLE 8 Right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. So I wonder, what is the legal argument solid enough to justify interfering with everybody's right to privacy? My layman understanding of the usual process is like, we want surveillance over those people and if it seems reasonable a judge might say ok but for a limited time. Watching everyone's communications also seems at odds with the principle of proportionality[2]. [1]https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Convention_ENG https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Convention_ENG [2]https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12016M005 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12...

palata 1y ago
> what is the legal argument solid enough to justify interfering with everybody's right to privacy? "... except such as is in accordance with the law" And the "interfering" coming from ChatControl is that "some algorithm" locally scans and detects illegal material, and doesn't do anything if there is no illegal material. > Watching everyone's communications also seems at odds with the principle of proportionality It's a bit delicate here because one can argue it's not "watching everyone's communications". The scanning is done locally. Nobody would say that your OS is "watching your communications", right? Even though the OS has to "read" your messages in order to print them on your screen. Note that I am against ChatControl. My problem with it is that the list of illegal material (or the "weights" of the model deciding what is illegal) cannot be audited easily (it won't be published as it is illegal material) and can be abused by whoever has control over it.
- pests 1y ago
  > Nobody would say that your OS is "watching your communications", right? No what? Everyone has been hating on the spying Microsoft has been doing in windows for years. How do you ask this with a straight face.
  - palata 1y ago
    That's not what I meant. Would you say that a minimal install of Linux or *BSD is "watching your communications"? It has to "read" your data in order to show them to you, but you wouldn't count this as "watching communications" or "surveillance". Siri running locally is not considered "surveillance". The problem is when your data is exfiltrated, which is what you complain about with your Microsoft example. But again that's not what I meant.
    - pests 1y ago
      It’s not what you meant but it’s what you said. I understand what you meant, but others might not. Many people think their phones/computers are watching their communications. This was in response to your ‘Nobody would say that your OS is "watching your communications", right?’, which I cannot agree with as everybody I know says those exact words about android/windows/etc.
      - palata 1y ago
        > It’s not what you meant but it’s what you said. Technically, I did not say it, I wrote it. Normally, the way it works is that you don't take a single sentence out of its context and then say it's wrong. You take the context. I specified my thought in the next sentence: > Even though the OS has to "read" your messages in order to print them on your screen. Nobody would say that the OS is watching your communications, even though the OS has to "read" your messages to print them on your screen.
- blaze33 1y ago
  I understand but frankly "doesn't do anything if there is no illegal material" reminds me too much of the old anti-privacy argument "nothing to hide, nothing to fear". It is about control and purpose, "my OS watches my communications" is true but weird to say because there's an expectation, unless compromised, that the OS is under my control so no problem. A third-party controlling the local scan of all my data specifically to report whatever it wants is a huge problem. Too often are some specific issues left insufficiently addressed for too long and it seems like the answer ends up like, ok we give up, here's some collective punishment, that should do the trick.
jcarrano 1y ago
Item (2) is so broad that you could fit anything trough it.

palata 1y ago

> what is the legal argument solid enough to justify interfering with everybody's right to privacy? "... except such as is in accordance with the law" And the "interfering" coming from ChatControl is that "some algorithm" locally scans and detects illegal material, and doesn't do anything if there is no illegal material. > Watching everyone's communications also seems at odds with the principle of proportionality It's a bit delicate here because one can argue it's not "watching everyone's communications". The scanning is done locally. Nobody would say that your OS is "watching your communications", right? Even though the OS has to "read" your messages in order to print them on your screen. Note that I am against ChatControl. My problem with it is that the list of illegal material (or the "weights" of the model deciding what is illegal) cannot be audited easily (it won't be published as it is illegal material) and can be abused by whoever has control over it.

pests 1y ago
> Nobody would say that your OS is "watching your communications", right? No what? Everyone has been hating on the spying Microsoft has been doing in windows for years. How do you ask this with a straight face.
- palata 1y ago
  That's not what I meant. Would you say that a minimal install of Linux or *BSD is "watching your communications"? It has to "read" your data in order to show them to you, but you wouldn't count this as "watching communications" or "surveillance". Siri running locally is not considered "surveillance". The problem is when your data is exfiltrated, which is what you complain about with your Microsoft example. But again that's not what I meant.
  - pests 1y ago
    It’s not what you meant but it’s what you said. I understand what you meant, but others might not. Many people think their phones/computers are watching their communications. This was in response to your ‘Nobody would say that your OS is "watching your communications", right?’, which I cannot agree with as everybody I know says those exact words about android/windows/etc.
    - palata 1y ago
      > It’s not what you meant but it’s what you said. Technically, I did not say it, I wrote it. Normally, the way it works is that you don't take a single sentence out of its context and then say it's wrong. You take the context. I specified my thought in the next sentence: > Even though the OS has to "read" your messages in order to print them on your screen. Nobody would say that the OS is watching your communications, even though the OS has to "read" your messages to print them on your screen.
blaze33 1y ago
I understand but frankly "doesn't do anything if there is no illegal material" reminds me too much of the old anti-privacy argument "nothing to hide, nothing to fear". It is about control and purpose, "my OS watches my communications" is true but weird to say because there's an expectation, unless compromised, that the OS is under my control so no problem. A third-party controlling the local scan of all my data specifically to report whatever it wants is a huge problem. Too often are some specific issues left insufficiently addressed for too long and it seems like the answer ends up like, ok we give up, here's some collective punishment, that should do the trick.

jcarrano 1y ago

Item (2) is so broad that you could fit anything trough it.