5 ms·
How do you make sure that "suspicion based" Chat Control can't be exploited? All client side scanning must be explicitly banned. The EU had an opportunity to do
by nickslaughter02 1y ago
How do you make sure that "suspicion based" Chat Control can't be exploited? All client side scanning must be explicitly banned. The EU had an opportunity to do just that with their AI Act.
- some_random 1y agoWe have infrastructure and precedent for it, you should need a warrant.
- nickslaughter02 1y agoThat would require trust in the same governments that try to pass this mass surveillance law again and again. Needless to say I don't share that trust.
- bluGill 1y agoYou have to trust something though. There are people out to get you - maybe not you personally, but there are evil people. We need to handle criminals, letting them go free isn't not a good answer. You seem to be saying that letting them go free is the best answer we have. This may be correct - it is something we as society need to debate in great depth. However it still isn't a good answer.
- nickslaughter02 1y agoYes, we should be willing to accept a certain level of crime if it means privacy and security for hundreds of millions of regular people. Even more so when their cure is worse than the disease.
- bluGill 1y agoNote that other threads in this post have said "with a warrant" which is different from general lack of privacy. These are things we need to debate as a society and it means understanding details not making two sentences on a discussion board with less than 15 minutes of thought... (I of course have no idea how much thought you may have put into this before this topic came up, I only see the time stamps on our comments... This is why I hate debates - you don't have time to make a well thought response to something new and so you can lose to a bad idea if you don't come up with the right counter)
- baobun 1y ago> Note that other threads in this post have said "with a warrant" I think there's some confusion and people talking past each other there. With a warrant, LE can extract messages from devices, request and receive data dumps from service providers, and attempt to crack encrypted data. In many places they can also insert backdoors (server or client side) with a warrant. We see some people pointing this out as being sufficient. This is different from every device and citizen (except politicians) preemtively having their devices backdoored with access granted after a warrant (which you seem to be arguing for). Most of us agree that this is unacceptable and is already unconstitutional in several EU countries.
- raxxorraxor 1y agoWe would need massive improvement of these mechanisms with secondary audits to even consider that. Because in reality these mechanisms are broken as well. Fixing that first is a necessary requirement. Currently there is simply no capacity for warrants to be seriously vetted. Hence they become arbitrary.
- koolala 1y agoWhat kind of boogiemen do you mean?
- bluGill 1y agoThere are hundreds of options. Some are imaginary, some are very real. The real ones often feel imaginary until they affect you (or someone close to you) and suddenly you realize how real they are.
- koolala 1y agoI agree but can you name some? As justification for surveillance like this?
- AlienRobot 1y agoIf everyone cooperates, you can catch more criminals, but if you force them to cooperate, that's authoritarianism. "Why don't you want a government camera implanted in your eyeballs? Do you want to let criminals go free?"
- electricboots 1y agoI don't understand where the obligation to trust something, aside from the intended recipient, with my private communications comes from. It seems to me there is no such obligation and giving into surveillance is not a requirement, but a choice, and a poor one in my opinion.
- JoshTriplett 1y agoWarrants do not justify backdooring everyone's encryption or everyone's devices.
- babypuncher 1y agoAny backdoor fundamentally breaks the promise of any end-to-end encryption. This isn't a problem of process like requiring warrants and just cause. Even if said process is designed to be perfect and is executed flawlessly, it is still hinged on a fundamental breakage of the security model a given chat software is built on. If a trusted government has a magic password that can read anybody's encrypted text messages, then it must be assumed more nefarious actors can figure out that password and use it themselves. It creates a single point of failure that would compromise literally everyone.
- whatshisface 1y agoYou lose some civil rights when you decide to become a criminal (or join the Army). ;-) One of the things courts are allowed to do to a criminal is force them to wear a GPS tracker on their ankle, as a method of enforcing that they are not within some distance of an elementary school. It would not be so different to force them to install software on their phone, and the analogy to forcing everyone to wear a GPS tracker is clear. Your civil rights include not being told where to go, something you also lose as a criminal (or a soldier, obviously). It is how civil rights work in our society. Authoritarians want to turn everyone into criminals or permanent soldiers.
- layer8 1y agoBy requiring a court warrant for installation of a backdoored app update (or OS update). This is analogous to tapping a phone line.