6 ms·

I can't read the full article, but I would like to remind everyone that this is not the first time the EU has done something like this. In 2006 the EU passed t

by Aerroon 11mo ago

I can't read the full article, but I would like to remind everyone that this is not the first time the EU has done something like this. In 2006 the EU passed the Data Retention Directive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive >According to the Data Retention Directive, EU member states had to store information on all citizens' telecommunications data (phone and internet connections) for a minimum of six months and at most twenty-four months, to be delivered on demand to police authorities. This was actually law for 8 years until the Court of Justice of the EU found it to be violating fundamental rights and was declared invalid.

tbrownaw 11mo ago
> can't read the full article Reader mode seems to work.
8fingerlouie 11mo ago
It's still a law in Denmark, despite being rendered illegal in the EU, and likewise in national courts. It was last used to convict a murderer of the murder of Emilie Meng (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Emilie_Meng https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Emilie_Meng). At the time, he had kidnapped a 13 year old girl (IIRC), that he had sexually assaulted for 24+ hours, and various dashcam recordings were used to piece together what had happened. He was also convicted of attempted kidnapping of a 15 year old girl from a school. They found the 13 year old in his home, so not much doubt about that, but the other two cases were partially proven with phone metadata logging, proving he had been in the area at the time. In the light of that, it's hard to disagree 100% that it's a "bad idea". It's a question of balance I guess, and the mass surveillance proposed in ChatControl is way out of balance. Not only does it scan in the background, it also scans for things that are unknown to you, and alerts authorities without alerting you. That's the perfect tool for facist regimes to get rid of political dissents.
- stavros 11mo ago
  It's always a tradeoff. Nothing is ever going to have zero benefit, the problem is that these laws use the marginal benefit as an excuse to institute something that actually has massive downsides.
  - TeMPOraL 11mo ago
    > It's always a tradeoff. Nothing is ever going to have zero benefit Realizing that is the first step to having any kind of productive discourse, much less a chance of influencing the outcome. It's also the step I see most commenters in discussions on this and related topics here, are unable to take. But then, the follow-up step is: > the problem is that these laws use the marginal benefit as an excuse to institute something that actually has massive downsides Are they marginal though, and are the downsides that big? Or does it only seem that way from our armchairs, as we debate computer philosophy and look at the world as a diagram of interacting systems, instead of, you know, the real world? I'm not saying these particular regulatory ideas are good - I just have a problem with this assumption (not even implicit, it's often outright spelled out here), that it's some evil elites that try to strip us off our privacy and freedom, and keep trying to push the same laws hoping to catch our vigilant protectors off-guard. Truth is, there's plenty of people who push for these things because they actually think of the children and honestly think these are good trade-offs, and they may be even more right than we are. They definitely sit closer to the real world and real people, real problems and real policing, than we do. They may be fatally misguided, too, but we won't achieve anything unless we try and see their perspective and honestly address the issues they're concerned with.
    - stavros 11mo ago
      Eh, I don't know, I feel like "is complete population surveillance a net good?" has been answered a million times, I'm not sure we need to go into it from first principles.
      - TeMPOraL 11mo ago
        "Complete population surveillance" is an ill-defined category; depending on how you slice it, it's something very undesirable, or a status quo we've been living in for the past couple decades.
- Hizonner 11mo ago
  Um, the data retention directive didn't apply to dashcams, only network metadata... and that Wikipedia article isn't curing my confusion.
  - 8fingerlouie 11mo ago
    Probably because dash cams have a questionable legal status in Denmark. There's a law that prohibits all video monitoring of public spaces, and a register where you must register your video cameras if you're a business owner. Video surveillance in Denmark has a maximum legal retention of 28 days, unless there's an ongoing investigation. Considering that dash cams mostly monitor "public spaces" and are moving around, the legality of them have been questioned multiple times. They are however also becoming more and more common, so I'm guessing they will eventually be allowed with a relatively low retention, like 1-2 days, enough to get footage off of them in case of a crash.
- torginus 11mo ago
  I'm sorry but this whole thing stinks - The data was collected in 2016, and was used in 2023 - a retention period of 7 years, way longer than the specified maximum of 2 - I'd argue that the basis of lawmaking is weighing the advantages versus the costs - supplying partial evidence in a case once a decade does not meet the requirements for introducing mass surveillance with infinite retention The police work was sloppy, the facts as they stand are: - The guy was on a list of 1400 or so of suspects, and was convicted of abducting a 13yo in 2023, a different crime. It bears mentioning that the town had a population of 5k and the municipiality 63k, halving that just to count the men doesn't give you a short list - A white car was seen at the 2016 scene of the crime, suspected to be a Hyundai i30, but with a degree of uncertainty, just to illustrate how uncertain they were, the article mentions the police confiscated a white van - The guy owned and sold his 2016 Hyundai around the time - Thanks to Big Brother dragnet perma-retention surveillance (mobile cell info), it was established that the guy was in the area (a train station!) of the 2016 crime at the time (which is a large window considering the exact time of the disappearence of the first girl is not well known) From this it's unclear to me whether the same guy was the perp in the 2016 and 2023 cases. If he was, I'd argue the dragnet-collected evidence is only circumstantial. I feel like it was possible that the police wanted to pin the crime on him as they had an expectation to catch the 2016 killer and he was obviously a pedo. Even if he did it, I'd say the digital evidence was neither necessary nor that important in convicting him.
  - 8fingerlouie 11mo ago
    "- The data was collected in 2016, and was used in 2023 - a retention period of 7 years, way longer than the specified maximum of 2" Normally, when there's an ongoing police investigation, the police can either request and retain a copy of the data, or request the holder of the data retain it until "further notice". I'm assuming that's what was going on here. "If he was, I'd argue the dragnet-collected evidence is only circumstantial." The phone logging was not conclusive evidence, only used to establish that he had been in the area. They found various artifacts in his house, like a roll of duct tape with the dead girls DNA on, that he explained he had found while walking around the lake, the same type of duct tape used to bind the girl. They also found various other items with the girls DNA on. They used the logging data to establish his whereabouts for the night in question and compared it to his statement of where he'd been. They also used various financial transactions, like buying a cup of coffee with his credit card at a gas station, etc. In Denmark, DNA cannot be used as a single evidence, only as supporting evidence, and the same goes for phone logging. But combined, if your location data says you've been there, and your DNA is found at the crime scene, even though it may not by itself be enough to get you convicted, it makes all other evidence much more believable.
zoobab 11mo ago
In 2006, when it was discussed, FFII made the analysis that it was violating fundamental rights. It took 10 years to reach the CJEU. And cherry on the cake, countries like France decided to ignore the CJEU ruling using the joker card of 'national security'.
- zoobab 11mo ago
  Found some press releases from 2005/6: https://ffii.org/ffii-asks-meps-to-reject-big-brother-directive/ https://ffii.org/ffii-asks-meps-to-reject-big-brother-direct... https://ffii.org/eu-law-making-process-cracking-under-pressure/ https://ffii.org/eu-law-making-process-cracking-under-pressu... https://ffii.org/eu-adopts-big-brother-directive-ignores-industry-and-civil-society/ https://ffii.org/eu-adopts-big-brother-directive-ignores-ind...

by Aerroon 11mo ago

tbrownaw 11mo ago

> can't read the full article Reader mode seems to work.

8fingerlouie 11mo ago

It's still a law in Denmark, despite being rendered illegal in the EU, and likewise in national courts. It was last used to convict a murderer of the murder of Emilie Meng (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Emilie_Meng https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Emilie_Meng). At the time, he had kidnapped a 13 year old girl (IIRC), that he had sexually assaulted for 24+ hours, and various dashcam recordings were used to piece together what had happened. He was also convicted of attempted kidnapping of a 15 year old girl from a school. They found the 13 year old in his home, so not much doubt about that, but the other two cases were partially proven with phone metadata logging, proving he had been in the area at the time. In the light of that, it's hard to disagree 100% that it's a "bad idea". It's a question of balance I guess, and the mass surveillance proposed in ChatControl is way out of balance. Not only does it scan in the background, it also scans for things that are unknown to you, and alerts authorities without alerting you. That's the perfect tool for facist regimes to get rid of political dissents.

stavros 11mo ago
It's always a tradeoff. Nothing is ever going to have zero benefit, the problem is that these laws use the marginal benefit as an excuse to institute something that actually has massive downsides.
- TeMPOraL 11mo ago
  > It's always a tradeoff. Nothing is ever going to have zero benefit Realizing that is the first step to having any kind of productive discourse, much less a chance of influencing the outcome. It's also the step I see most commenters in discussions on this and related topics here, are unable to take. But then, the follow-up step is: > the problem is that these laws use the marginal benefit as an excuse to institute something that actually has massive downsides Are they marginal though, and are the downsides that big? Or does it only seem that way from our armchairs, as we debate computer philosophy and look at the world as a diagram of interacting systems, instead of, you know, the real world? I'm not saying these particular regulatory ideas are good - I just have a problem with this assumption (not even implicit, it's often outright spelled out here), that it's some evil elites that try to strip us off our privacy and freedom, and keep trying to push the same laws hoping to catch our vigilant protectors off-guard. Truth is, there's plenty of people who push for these things because they actually think of the children and honestly think these are good trade-offs, and they may be even more right than we are. They definitely sit closer to the real world and real people, real problems and real policing, than we do. They may be fatally misguided, too, but we won't achieve anything unless we try and see their perspective and honestly address the issues they're concerned with.
  - stavros 11mo ago
    Eh, I don't know, I feel like "is complete population surveillance a net good?" has been answered a million times, I'm not sure we need to go into it from first principles.
    - TeMPOraL 11mo ago
      "Complete population surveillance" is an ill-defined category; depending on how you slice it, it's something very undesirable, or a status quo we've been living in for the past couple decades.
Hizonner 11mo ago
Um, the data retention directive didn't apply to dashcams, only network metadata... and that Wikipedia article isn't curing my confusion.
- 8fingerlouie 11mo ago
  Probably because dash cams have a questionable legal status in Denmark. There's a law that prohibits all video monitoring of public spaces, and a register where you must register your video cameras if you're a business owner. Video surveillance in Denmark has a maximum legal retention of 28 days, unless there's an ongoing investigation. Considering that dash cams mostly monitor "public spaces" and are moving around, the legality of them have been questioned multiple times. They are however also becoming more and more common, so I'm guessing they will eventually be allowed with a relatively low retention, like 1-2 days, enough to get footage off of them in case of a crash.
torginus 11mo ago
I'm sorry but this whole thing stinks - The data was collected in 2016, and was used in 2023 - a retention period of 7 years, way longer than the specified maximum of 2 - I'd argue that the basis of lawmaking is weighing the advantages versus the costs - supplying partial evidence in a case once a decade does not meet the requirements for introducing mass surveillance with infinite retention The police work was sloppy, the facts as they stand are: - The guy was on a list of 1400 or so of suspects, and was convicted of abducting a 13yo in 2023, a different crime. It bears mentioning that the town had a population of 5k and the municipiality 63k, halving that just to count the men doesn't give you a short list - A white car was seen at the 2016 scene of the crime, suspected to be a Hyundai i30, but with a degree of uncertainty, just to illustrate how uncertain they were, the article mentions the police confiscated a white van - The guy owned and sold his 2016 Hyundai around the time - Thanks to Big Brother dragnet perma-retention surveillance (mobile cell info), it was established that the guy was in the area (a train station!) of the 2016 crime at the time (which is a large window considering the exact time of the disappearence of the first girl is not well known) From this it's unclear to me whether the same guy was the perp in the 2016 and 2023 cases. If he was, I'd argue the dragnet-collected evidence is only circumstantial. I feel like it was possible that the police wanted to pin the crime on him as they had an expectation to catch the 2016 killer and he was obviously a pedo. Even if he did it, I'd say the digital evidence was neither necessary nor that important in convicting him.
- 8fingerlouie 11mo ago
  "- The data was collected in 2016, and was used in 2023 - a retention period of 7 years, way longer than the specified maximum of 2" Normally, when there's an ongoing police investigation, the police can either request and retain a copy of the data, or request the holder of the data retain it until "further notice". I'm assuming that's what was going on here. "If he was, I'd argue the dragnet-collected evidence is only circumstantial." The phone logging was not conclusive evidence, only used to establish that he had been in the area. They found various artifacts in his house, like a roll of duct tape with the dead girls DNA on, that he explained he had found while walking around the lake, the same type of duct tape used to bind the girl. They also found various other items with the girls DNA on. They used the logging data to establish his whereabouts for the night in question and compared it to his statement of where he'd been. They also used various financial transactions, like buying a cup of coffee with his credit card at a gas station, etc. In Denmark, DNA cannot be used as a single evidence, only as supporting evidence, and the same goes for phone logging. But combined, if your location data says you've been there, and your DNA is found at the crime scene, even though it may not by itself be enough to get you convicted, it makes all other evidence much more believable.

zoobab 11mo ago

In 2006, when it was discussed, FFII made the analysis that it was violating fundamental rights. It took 10 years to reach the CJEU. And cherry on the cake, countries like France decided to ignore the CJEU ruling using the joker card of 'national security'.

zoobab 11mo ago
Found some press releases from 2005/6: https://ffii.org/ffii-asks-meps-to-reject-big-brother-directive/ https://ffii.org/ffii-asks-meps-to-reject-big-brother-direct... https://ffii.org/eu-law-making-process-cracking-under-pressure/ https://ffii.org/eu-law-making-process-cracking-under-pressu... https://ffii.org/eu-adopts-big-brother-directive-ignores-industry-and-civil-society/ https://ffii.org/eu-adopts-big-brother-directive-ignores-ind...