6 ms·
For context, this refers to "Chat Control 1.0", allowing facebook and other messaging providers to scan chats for harmful content (which they had been temporari
by neobrain 3mo ago
For context, this refers to "Chat Control 1.0", allowing facebook and other messaging providers to scan chats for harmful content (which they had been temporarily allowed to do by a recently expired law).
This is still problematic, but the far more dangerous Chat Control 2.0 that would weaken end-to-end-encrypted messengers like Signal is not being discussed here.
Not to diminish the gravity of the new development, but the defeatist "no way to prevent this" narratives that are already popping up here are getting old -- when in fact it looks like 2.0 is off the table for good because protest against it has proven effective.
- flumpcakes 3mo agoIsn't this something they already do? I would be utterly shocked if facebook et al. were not scanning all of your messages (either in transit or at terminus to get around 'E2E' claims).
- neobrain 3mo agoYes, this had been temporarily permitted until recently, and AFAIK they continue doing so illegally at the moment.
- flumpcakes 3mo agoWhy is it currently illegal? If I have a service that let's users communicate, why is it illegal to look through those communications? (especially after they've signed my 400 page EULA). It would make moderation impossible otherwise. Or are we saying this is being used for something specific that happens to be illegal?
- masfuerte 3mo agoBecause the EU passed a law making it illegal and the temporary exemption recently expired.
- a2128 3mo agoWhy should you have any right to look through everyone's private communications? Nobody really has any choice to reject your EULA if they want to stay in contact with someone on your service. I could force you to sign a ToS that includes "By using our service you owe us $10 million and agree to donate your kidney to our CEO" in order to reach your overseas grandma, but that doesn't mean it's actually enforceable or legal...
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- NooneAtAll3 3mo agothe opposite question - why is it legal and was made legal? it's unconstitutional in most places to read letters - same thing should be applied to other form of communication as well
- wartywhoa23 3mo agoYou're most likely replying to a professional Overton window mover.
- NooneAtAll3 3mo agoyou getting downvoted means you're right
- logifail 3mo ago> It would make moderation impossible otherwise. Why would you need to moderate private messages between users?
- rvnx 3mo agoProtect the kids bla bla bla... Always the same political excuse
- TulliusCicero 3mo agoPeople sending unwanted DMs is an obvious reason. At the very least, users should be able to report DMs and then that should allow for moderation. It's very common in some spaces to get people who send unwanted (spam/harassment/etc) DMs to tons of people. Just expecting everyone to block those people makes for a horrible user experience, because it means new users might be suddenly met by a bunch of unwanted DMs from aggressive randos that remain unbanned. You really need to be able to ban these people (and that means being able to verify that they did what they're accused of).
- cwillu 3mo agoAre there any commonly-used platforms that _don't_ make a distinction between unsolicited messages and established conversations?
- iamnothere 3mo agoReporting features on apps often send a copy of the message to the central gatekeeper. This is not the same as scanning all messages (which makes E2EE moot).
- vintermann 3mo agoModeration is when others remove publicly posted content because you don't want to see it. (Censorship is when others remove publicly posted content because they don't want you to see it.) You don't need moderation for your private communication.
- embedding-shape 3mo ago> Why is it currently illegal? If I have a service that let's users communicate, why is it illegal to look through those communications? Not all services should be treated equally. We've figured this out earlier about letters, it's typically illegal, even for postal services, to open and read your letters without your consent, because there is an expectation about privacy. Fast forward some years since then, and now basically IMs are the new letters, and sadly we have few big actors (yet again) controlling the transportation of our communication. People generally still want privacy in their communications, so regulations were made that companies cannot open your messages ("letters") without your consent, so we humans still have more or less the same protections as before, just tailored to the new specific implementation.
- tremon 3mo ago> If I have a service that let's users communicate, why is it illegal to look through those communications? Because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrecy_of_correspondence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrecy_of_correspondence It guarantees that the content of sealed letters is never revealed, and that letters in transit are not opened by government officials, or any other third party. The right of privacy to one's own letters is the main legal basis for the assumption of privacy of correspondence. The principle has been naturally extended to other forms of communication, including telephony and electronic communications on the Internet, as the constitutional guarantees are generally thought to also cover these forms of communication
- mrighele 3mo agoIn some EU countries it is not only illegal, but also unconstitutional. For example, Art 15 of the Italian constitution [1]: "Freedom and confidentiality of correspondence and of every other form of communication is inviolable. Limitations may only be imposed by judicial decision stating the reasons and in accordance with the guarantees provided by the law." [1] https://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costituzione_inglese.pdf https://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costi...
- surgical_fire 3mo agoThose narratives pop up from users that have a clear anti-EU bias (and I suspect they might not even be from the EU considering how ignorant they seem to be about how it works, its function ans structure, etc.
- vrganj 3mo agoCall it what it is: Propaganda designed to stir anti-EU sentiment from groups that would benefit from being able to divide and conquer Europe.
- mdp2021 3mo agoThe EU already has in place, apparently, a Digital Services Act that basically stops access to some part of the web. That the slope may bring to enlarged web inaccessibility - and an unlivable eu ("What do you mean you have no internet, no web access?! We take it for granted"). That some actors may ride it, is not their stain, but the eu's.
- vrganj 3mo agoThe DSA doesn't stop access to any part of the web. This is precisely the misinformation I mentioned earlier.
- mdp2021 3mo agoKindly explain why some platforms have issued notice that access would be restricted pending age verification. To my inquiries, that is owing to the DSA. Was I fed wrong information? Where, in which part? And, about «precisely the misinformation I mentioned earlier»: you think this infomess was caused by foreign agents, instead of internal european lack of clarity?
- sunaookami 3mo agoYou see an article about how the EU tries to force a law after it got struck down by forcing it through with a legal trick and all you can think of is how any comment that critizes this is propaganda? Get a grip
- Thraway198 3mo agoWow. Talk about ragebait.
- tremon 3mo agoThat exemption had an expiration date for a reason. That they failed to consolidate that practice into a better law does not make forcefully overriding that expiration any more democratic.
- vrganj 3mo agoAlso, another key fact to bring up here once again: The institution that forced this through is the EU Council, the body that represents national governments and is composed of heads of government. The reason they have to force it through and couldn't do 2.0 is because the EU Parliament stopped them. In other words, it's the nation states that want this and the EU institutions that are blocking it, not the other way around as often framed online. If not for the EU, a much worse version of this would already be law in the nation states. You can see this play out in real-time in the UK, which has gone real dystopian ever since Brexit.
- inglor_cz 3mo ago"If not for the EU, a much worse version of this would already be law in the nation states." In some, in some not. Not everyone is the UK. Many nations which had a totalitarian government in the 20th century are more wary about this sort of sweeping surveillance power. The "charm" of pushing this through the circuitous path via Brussels is that few people and even few media outlets are paying attention to what happens in Brussels. Everyone is still obsessed with their national politics.
- constantius 3mo agoExactly. As demonstrated by several countries pronouncing themselves against it every time this comes up. If the government of Denmark really wants to implement this, let them, but the idea that a tiny country's officials, elected by a population of 6M that their media managed to convince of the utopia to come when privacy doesn't exist, manages to make another 450M in 26 countries comply to their will (not to call it delusion) is frightening.
- inigyou 3mo agoThey are face-saving. Again, if the country didn't want this, their Council representative would have voted against it.
- 3mo ago
- riedel 3mo agoI think the problem is really that law enforcement have got used to outsourcing this kind of policing to private operated platforms (at least here in Germany). I was actually at the local police station because I notified them via an online mechanism about sth that looked very CSAM to me in a random forum tracking some gossip/Internet meme (actually I did not really look further than a title because that can be already illegal). Just dropping the link (which I thought would be just auto scanned and sent into some central pool), led to the fact that I had to go there in person, wait and had to listen to a speech about the fact that it can be easily illegal to be in certain places in the Internet and that I should be careful because I had a daughter in the age. It was almost that they are threatening me. They told me that all the CSAM stuff anyways comes through the provider and that they would do raids if needed. They cannot do much anyhow on the state level if they do not get the local ISP and IP delivered. It felt rather absurd and somewhat scary/dystopian that there are Internet companies that sent cops out to do raids based on some IP. According to the police officer it seemed very effective.
- inigyou 3mo agoYou wouldn't be the first person to try reporting a crime and then discover that police care about arresting people a lot more than they care about arresting the right people, as they threaten you with arrest yourself. That was my first experience with police too. I was under investigation for a year before they dropped the charges.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- philjohn 3mo agoIIRC they used to catch a lot of child groomers by scanning messages.
- constantius 3mo agoWould be interested in seeing your sources for this. I've yet to see evidence that this has the significant upsides that would, definitely not justify, but at least explain, the push towards limiting fundamental freedoms. There's a reason "who will think of the children" is ridiculed: there's no evidence that this is the intent or that there are outcomes. Everything I've read to date shows that surveillance is not effective in curbing CSAM, that the people (and especially organised crime) that engage into such activity are not using plain text and twitter to talk to each other, that those solutions that are known to have outcomes are not being invested in or enforced, etc.
- jasonvorhe 3mo agoIf any of this was about protecting children, that Epstein thing wouldn't have been buried and forgotten already.
- embedding-shape 3mo agoThe whole Epstein sage is very closely tied to the current US administration, I haven't seen much of it being tied to anything about the EU Council. I think you might confuse the government ties Epstein had, at least the ones we knew about.
- Yokolos 3mo agoYou think the European wealthy are innocent of pedophilia? What about Prince Andrew? This goes far beyond just the current US administration.
- embedding-shape 3mo ago> You think the European wealthy are innocent of pedophilia? You think children should be executed in the streets? Neither of us said any such thing, why ask that as a question even? My only point being that Epstein himself doesn't seem related to EU Council, based on facts, while he was very close friend of the current sitting US president, and the whole thing is still being actively swept under the rug by the US Justice Department. Two governments located on two different continents...
- JensRantil 3mo agoThanks for clarifying this!
- sharken 3mo agoIndeed, reusing "Chat Control" and giving it a new meaning is a surefire way to cause confusion. And the underhanded way of trying to get something as controversial as this to pass, says a lot about the politicians pushing this agenda. Chat Control is about allowing mass surveillance and removing privacy, no should be the obvious answer here.
- SpicyLemonZest 3mo agoI think you're misunderstanding something here. "Chat Control" is a term invented and popularized by privacy groups who oppose any scanning of private chats for any purpose; any confusion caused by having the same term refer to different things has to be laid at their feet, although they argue it's appropriate because any kind of scanning is abusable in basically the same ways. The people who support scanning private chats don't use the term "Chat Control".
- sharken 3mo agoWell, of course politicians will try and hide what the law is about, so I find it necessary to clearly communicate what this legislation is about. CSAM hides behind an acronym and seems benign at first, but taking away the citizens right to private chats is anything but that.