2 ms·

In my eyes this is just a technicality. "Mit der CDU/CSU wird es keine anlasslose Chatkontrolle geben, wie sie von einigen Staaten in der EU gefordert wird."

In my eyes this is just a technicality. "Mit der CDU/CSU wird es keine anlasslose Chatkontrolle geben, wie sie von einigen Staaten in der EU gefordert wird." Anlass is cause/reason here, so keine anlasslose literally translated means: not without cause/reason. What about "reasonable causes", and the infrastructure enabling those? Be it legal/bureaucratic/technical? IMO it's already in place, mostly, and got abused many times, already. This is just "weasel wording", changing nothing for so called "lawful interception". If you got flagged by some algorithm somewhere, or got reported by someone behind your back, there will be Anlass! Automagically... Because neither the algorithms, nor the organizations handling the flagging, enabling the reporting are transparent. They are unaccountable (to the public/affected) black boxes by design, be it for economic, organizational, or political reasons. Inevitably leading to kafkaesque absurdities like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial

DocTomoe 1y ago
That's the main crux with the current EU proposition: that they want to surveil all chat, regardless of whether the citizen involved is suspected of a crime. Wiretapping a chat if the citizen is suspected of a crime AND after a judge has reviewed the evidence and green-lit such surveillance is - imho - more acceptable. We do that with phones, why would we not do it with chats?
- indigo945 1y ago
  > Wiretapping a chat if the citizen is suspected of a crime AND after a judge > has reviewed the evidence and green-lit such surveillance is - imho - more > acceptable. We do that with phones, why would we not do it with chats? The problem is that it's not technologically possible. Many major messaging apps - including WhatsApp, which is the market leader by far in Europe - provide end-to-end encryption, and have done so for years. After a judge has ruled that an individual's WhatsApp chats are to be surveilled, how would you achieve this? In the current situation, there's just nothing you can do. You might try to wiretap the phone, but there's really not that many zero-days left: both iOS and Android are quite secure these days, so this isn't even an alternative. The only way to make court-mandated surveillance possible is to ensure that nobody's chat is encrypted to begin with, such that after a court order has come in, the data can be easily read. So to outlaw end-to-end encryption entirely is what this proposal is really about: break privacy guarantees for everybody to enable surveillance in a few outlier cases. Of course, once encryption has been broken, three-letter agencies the world over will be reading your chats whether they have a warrant or not. There is no way to have private communication for good people only. Either you have freedom for all, or freedom for none.

DocTomoe 1y ago

That's the main crux with the current EU proposition: that they want to surveil all chat, regardless of whether the citizen involved is suspected of a crime. Wiretapping a chat if the citizen is suspected of a crime AND after a judge has reviewed the evidence and green-lit such surveillance is - imho - more acceptable. We do that with phones, why would we not do it with chats?

indigo945 1y ago
> Wiretapping a chat if the citizen is suspected of a crime AND after a judge > has reviewed the evidence and green-lit such surveillance is - imho - more > acceptable. We do that with phones, why would we not do it with chats? The problem is that it's not technologically possible. Many major messaging apps - including WhatsApp, which is the market leader by far in Europe - provide end-to-end encryption, and have done so for years. After a judge has ruled that an individual's WhatsApp chats are to be surveilled, how would you achieve this? In the current situation, there's just nothing you can do. You might try to wiretap the phone, but there's really not that many zero-days left: both iOS and Android are quite secure these days, so this isn't even an alternative. The only way to make court-mandated surveillance possible is to ensure that nobody's chat is encrypted to begin with, such that after a court order has come in, the data can be easily read. So to outlaw end-to-end encryption entirely is what this proposal is really about: break privacy guarantees for everybody to enable surveillance in a few outlier cases. Of course, once encryption has been broken, three-letter agencies the world over will be reading your chats whether they have a warrant or not. There is no way to have private communication for good people only. Either you have freedom for all, or freedom for none.