4 ms·

I don't know where you get your information, but that was not in the chat control proposal I read.

Telaneo 1y ago
Patrick Breyer has some good thoughts on this.[1] The relevant points I believe to be: > All citizens are placed under suspicion, without cause, of possibly having committed a crime. Text and photo filters monitor all messages, without exception. No judge is required to order to such monitoring – contrary to the analog world which guarantees the privacy of correspondence and the confidentiality of written communications. And: > The confidentiality of private electronic correspondence is being sacrificed. Users of messenger, chat and e-mail services risk having their private messages read and analyzed. Sensitive photos and text content could be forwarded to unknown entities worldwide and can fall into the wrong hands. [1] https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/ https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/
- delusional 1y ago
  > All citizens are placed under suspicion > No judge is required to order to such monitoring That sounds quite extreme, I just can't square that with what I can actually read in the proposal. > the power to request the competent judicial authority of the Member State that designated it or another independent administrative authority of that Member State It explicitly states otherwise. A judge (or other independent authority) has to be involved. It just sounds like baseless fear mongering (or worse, libertarianism) to me.
  - tiagod 1y ago
    Didn't the proposal involve automated scanning of all instant messages? How isn't that equivalent of having an automated system opening every letter and listening to every phone call looking for crimes?
    - delusional 1y ago
      Not from what I can tell. From what I can read, it only establishes a new authority, under the supervision and at the digression, of the Member state that can, with judicial approval mandate "the least intrusive in terms of the impact on the users’ rights to private and family life" detection activities on platforms where "there is evidence [... ] it is likely, [...] that the service is used, to an appreciable extent for the dissemination of known child sexual abuse material". That all sounds extremely boring and political, but the essence is that it mandates a local authority to scan messages on platforms that are likely to contain child pornography. That's not a blanket scan of all messages everywhere.
      - iamnothere 1y ago
        > platforms that are likely to contain child pornography So every platform, everywhere? Facebook and Twitter/X still have problems keeping up with this, Matrix constantly has to block rooms from the public directory, Mastodon mods have plenty of horror stories. Any platform with UGC will face this issue, but it’s not a good reason to compromise E2EE or mandate intrusive scanning of private messages. I would not be so opposed to mandated scans of public posts on large platforms, as image floods are still a somewhat common form of harassment (though not as common as it once was).
  - rdm_blackhole 1y ago
    The proposal is about deploying automated scanning of every message and every image on all messaging providers and email client. That is indisputable. It therefore breaks EtoE as it intercepts the messages on your device and sends them off to whatever 3rd party they are planning to use before those are encrypted and sent to the recipient. > It explicitly states otherwise. A judge (or other independent authority) has to be involved. It just sounds like baseless fear mongering (or worse, libertarianism) to me. How can a judge be involved when we are talking about scanning hundreds of millions if not billions of messages each day? That does not make any sense. I suggest you re-read the Chat control proposal because I believe you are mistaken if you think that a judge is involved in this process.
    - delusional 1y ago
      > That is indisputable. I dispute that. The proposal explicitly states it has to be true that "it is likely, despite any mitigation measures that the provider may have taken or will take, that the service is used, to an appreciable extent for the dissemination of known child sexual abuse material;" > How can a judge be involved Because the proposal does not itself require any scanning. It requires Member states to construct an authority that can then mandate the scanning, in collaboration with a judge. I suggest YOU read the proposal, at least once.
      - rdm_blackhole 1y ago
        You must be trolling. > it is likely, despite any mitigation measures that the provider may have taken or will take, that the service is used, to an appreciable extent for the dissemination of known child sexual abuse material That is an absolute vague definition that basically encompasses all services available today including messaging providers, email providers and so on. Anything can be used to send pictures these days. So therefore anything can be targeted, ergo it is a complete breach of privacy. > Because the proposal does not itself require any scanning. It requires Member states to construct an authority that can then mandate the scanning, in collaboration with a judge. Your assertion makes no sense. The only way to know if a message contains something inappropriate is to scan it before it is encrypted. Therefore all messages have to be scanned to know if something inappropriate is in it. A judge, if necessary, would only be participating in this whole charade at the end of the process not when the scanning happens. This is taken verbatim from the proposal that you can find here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2022%3A209%3AFIN https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A20... > [...] By introducing an obligation for providers to detect, report, block and remove child sexual abuse material from their services, ..... It is an obligation to scan not a choice based some someone's opinion like a judge, ergo no one is involved at all in the scanning process. There is no due process in this process and everyone is under surveillance. > [...] The EU Centre should work closely with Europol. It will receive the reports from providers, check them to avoid reporting obvious false positives and forward them to Europol as well as to national law enforcement authorities. Again here no judge involved. The scanning is automated and happens automatically for everyone. Reports will be forwarded automatically. > [...] only take steps to identify any user in case potential online child sexual abuse is detected To identify a user who may or may not have shared something inappropriate, that means that they know who the sender is, who the recipient was , what bthe essage contained and when it happened. Therefore it s a complete bypass of EtoE. This is the same exact thing that we are seeing know with the age requirements for social media. If you want to ban kids who are 16 years old and under then you need to scan everyone's ID in order to know how old everyone is so that you can stop them from using the service. With scanning, it is exactly the same. If you want to prevent the dissemination of CSAM material on a platform, then you have to know what is in each and every message so that you can detect it and report it as described in my quotes above. Therefore it means that everyone's messages will be scanned either by the services themselves or this task will be outsourced to a 3rd party business who will be in charge of scanning, cataloging and reporting their finding to the authorities. Either way the scanning will happen. I am not sure how you can argue that this is not the case. Hundreds of security researchers have spent the better part of the last 3 years warning against such a proposal, are you so sure about yourself that you think they are all wrong?

Patrick Breyer has some good thoughts on this.[1] The relevant points I believe to be: > All citizens are placed under suspicion, without cause, of possibly having committed a crime. Text and photo filters monitor all messages, without exception. No judge is required to order to such monitoring – contrary to the analog world which guarantees the privacy of correspondence and the confidentiality of written communications. And: > The confidentiality of private electronic correspondence is being sacrificed. Users of messenger, chat and e-mail services risk having their private messages read and analyzed. Sensitive photos and text content could be forwarded to unknown entities worldwide and can fall into the wrong hands. [1] https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/ https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/

delusional 1y ago
> All citizens are placed under suspicion > No judge is required to order to such monitoring That sounds quite extreme, I just can't square that with what I can actually read in the proposal. > the power to request the competent judicial authority of the Member State that designated it or another independent administrative authority of that Member State It explicitly states otherwise. A judge (or other independent authority) has to be involved. It just sounds like baseless fear mongering (or worse, libertarianism) to me.
- tiagod 1y ago
  Didn't the proposal involve automated scanning of all instant messages? How isn't that equivalent of having an automated system opening every letter and listening to every phone call looking for crimes?
  - delusional 1y ago
    Not from what I can tell. From what I can read, it only establishes a new authority, under the supervision and at the digression, of the Member state that can, with judicial approval mandate "the least intrusive in terms of the impact on the users’ rights to private and family life" detection activities on platforms where "there is evidence [... ] it is likely, [...] that the service is used, to an appreciable extent for the dissemination of known child sexual abuse material". That all sounds extremely boring and political, but the essence is that it mandates a local authority to scan messages on platforms that are likely to contain child pornography. That's not a blanket scan of all messages everywhere.
    - iamnothere 1y ago
      > platforms that are likely to contain child pornography So every platform, everywhere? Facebook and Twitter/X still have problems keeping up with this, Matrix constantly has to block rooms from the public directory, Mastodon mods have plenty of horror stories. Any platform with UGC will face this issue, but it’s not a good reason to compromise E2EE or mandate intrusive scanning of private messages. I would not be so opposed to mandated scans of public posts on large platforms, as image floods are still a somewhat common form of harassment (though not as common as it once was).
- rdm_blackhole 1y ago
  The proposal is about deploying automated scanning of every message and every image on all messaging providers and email client. That is indisputable. It therefore breaks EtoE as it intercepts the messages on your device and sends them off to whatever 3rd party they are planning to use before those are encrypted and sent to the recipient. > It explicitly states otherwise. A judge (or other independent authority) has to be involved. It just sounds like baseless fear mongering (or worse, libertarianism) to me. How can a judge be involved when we are talking about scanning hundreds of millions if not billions of messages each day? That does not make any sense. I suggest you re-read the Chat control proposal because I believe you are mistaken if you think that a judge is involved in this process.
  - delusional 1y ago
    > That is indisputable. I dispute that. The proposal explicitly states it has to be true that "it is likely, despite any mitigation measures that the provider may have taken or will take, that the service is used, to an appreciable extent for the dissemination of known child sexual abuse material;" > How can a judge be involved Because the proposal does not itself require any scanning. It requires Member states to construct an authority that can then mandate the scanning, in collaboration with a judge. I suggest YOU read the proposal, at least once.
    - rdm_blackhole 1y ago
      You must be trolling. > it is likely, despite any mitigation measures that the provider may have taken or will take, that the service is used, to an appreciable extent for the dissemination of known child sexual abuse material That is an absolute vague definition that basically encompasses all services available today including messaging providers, email providers and so on. Anything can be used to send pictures these days. So therefore anything can be targeted, ergo it is a complete breach of privacy. > Because the proposal does not itself require any scanning. It requires Member states to construct an authority that can then mandate the scanning, in collaboration with a judge. Your assertion makes no sense. The only way to know if a message contains something inappropriate is to scan it before it is encrypted. Therefore all messages have to be scanned to know if something inappropriate is in it. A judge, if necessary, would only be participating in this whole charade at the end of the process not when the scanning happens. This is taken verbatim from the proposal that you can find here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2022%3A209%3AFIN https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A20... > [...] By introducing an obligation for providers to detect, report, block and remove child sexual abuse material from their services, ..... It is an obligation to scan not a choice based some someone's opinion like a judge, ergo no one is involved at all in the scanning process. There is no due process in this process and everyone is under surveillance. > [...] The EU Centre should work closely with Europol. It will receive the reports from providers, check them to avoid reporting obvious false positives and forward them to Europol as well as to national law enforcement authorities. Again here no judge involved. The scanning is automated and happens automatically for everyone. Reports will be forwarded automatically. > [...] only take steps to identify any user in case potential online child sexual abuse is detected To identify a user who may or may not have shared something inappropriate, that means that they know who the sender is, who the recipient was , what bthe essage contained and when it happened. Therefore it s a complete bypass of EtoE. This is the same exact thing that we are seeing know with the age requirements for social media. If you want to ban kids who are 16 years old and under then you need to scan everyone's ID in order to know how old everyone is so that you can stop them from using the service. With scanning, it is exactly the same. If you want to prevent the dissemination of CSAM material on a platform, then you have to know what is in each and every message so that you can detect it and report it as described in my quotes above. Therefore it means that everyone's messages will be scanned either by the services themselves or this task will be outsourced to a 3rd party business who will be in charge of scanning, cataloging and reporting their finding to the authorities. Either way the scanning will happen. I am not sure how you can argue that this is not the case. Hundreds of security researchers have spent the better part of the last 3 years warning against such a proposal, are you so sure about yourself that you think they are all wrong?