Context: Chat Control 2.0: EU governments set to approve the end of private messaging and secure encryption

“By making a minor concession EU governments hope to find a majority next week to approve the controversial ‘chat control’ bill. According to the proposed child sexual abuse regulation (CSAR), providers of messengers, e-mail and chat services would be forced to automatically search all private messages and photos for suspicious content and report it to the EU. To find a majority for this unprecedented mass surveillance, the EU Council Presidency proposed Tuesday that the scanners would initially search for previously classified CSAM only, and even less reliable technology to classify unknown imagery or conversations would be reserved to a later stage. The proposed „deal“ will be discussed by ambassadors tomorrow and could be adopted by ministers next week.”

Source: https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/chat-control-2-0-eu-governments-set-to-approve-the-end-of-private-messaging-and-secure-encryption/

  • Lauchmelder@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    Deutsch
    arrow-up
    153
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    A law like this would violate the rights of all EU citizens. The courts would (should!) strike this law down immediately

    • AlteredStateBlob@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      76
      ·
      1 year ago

      I sure hope the courts toss that thing. It would be the single worst violation of peoples privacy since the internet became a thing. It’s incredible that lobbyists and police unions have this much impact on policy creation.

    • Zyratoxx@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, just like the “Upload Filters”

      Poor Axel Voss showed everyone how much of a media company whore he is just to get his biggest lifetime achievement taken down by the EU court because those filters could result in censorship (something that literally everybody told the supporters would happen)

    • SummerIsTooWarm@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      The courts very likely will strike something like this down, but the people responsible know this. Court dealings can take years and during this time our privacy gets violated and some kind of profit is made.

      And even when this law is declared illegal the existing data will likely be kept, only new collection is stopped (happened in Germany)

      • ruination@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I wish people who proposes laws and regulations that violates human rights with provable intent to do just that would be fined or imprisoned.

  • frazw@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    140
    ·
    1 year ago

    1: “… and then we’ll be able to stop terrorist attacks. Simple”.

    2: “ok but if you put a back door into encryption, won’t others be able to find it?"

    1: "no we’ll be the only ones with the key. Great huh?“

    2: “and you don’t think the key will be leaked or be hacked?”

    1: “I said we’ll be the only ones with the key.”

    2: “so what’s your plan to make sure the key stays secure”

    1: “…”

    2: “what’s your contingency plan if the key *is * hacked or leaked?”

    1:“…”

    1: "I SAID WE’LL BE THE ONLY ONES WITH THE KEY. "

    2: “…”

    1: “don’t you want to protect our children ??”

      • AmIConcious@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        With quantum computing around the corner that key is useless. So not only is my data then shared with the EU, china and US will also have a little look

        • lud@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’s very speculative though. We don’t know yet the effect how large scale quantum computing will have on encryption.

          Fun fact: Quantum computers already exist and you can play around with one for free*: https://www.ibm.com/quantum

          *Max 10 min of system usage per month.

    • tweeks@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      And even that’s only in the optimistic situation where you can always fully trust “1”, also in the future.

  • zzzzzz@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    105
    ·
    1 year ago

    This seems to be a general theme. Those arguing loudest for better privacy are really saying “only we should be allowed to invade your privacy”. See: Google, Apple, the EU

    • ruination@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s such a shame though, since as far as I know, the EU have had such an amazing track record. I’d expect no less from big tech, but not the EU.

      • Ludwig van Beethoven@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        because (I firmly believe that) it won’t get passed. The Commission doesn’t have a majority yet, and it will be laughed out of the EUP. EVEN IF the EUP votes to pass it, the ECJ ought to step in, because the UNCHR and the European Data Protection Supervisor have already said that it goes against the (human(!)) right of privacy. There is no shot that this will get implemented by 27 member states.

  • Starkstruck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    103
    ·
    1 year ago

    Criminals aren’t going to be using services that comply anyways. They’ll have their own underground ones. This is just a violation of regular citizens rights.

  • MentalEdge@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    83
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is a level of bullshit that will straight up make me vote to leave the EU.

    Outlawing E2EE should just not be a thing. It just shouldn’t.

    • sexy_peach@feddit.deM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      67
      ·
      1 year ago

      As if European state governments aren’t also stupid and would come up with this idea.

      The EU sucks sometimes but where ever you live in the EU your gov would totally come up with this on their own…

      • MentalEdge@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        Obviously. The point is that it’s the kind of thing that will make me reject the very society I’m living in, and I would change it wholly to avoid this.

        If the source was my own government, for the first time in my life, I’d be considering moving to a new country.

    • Dra@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well, this is being implemented in the UK separately so I wouldnt be too hasty

    • hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      One could think you’re proposing this as an alternate solution. It’s not. And Brexit is the biggest proof.

      That said implementing backdoors is so backwards it’s creative in the worst way. You basically prepare the tools for a rogue government, rogue government employee, or a knowledgeable malicious actor to grab secure information from the silver plater. It’s the dumbest shit.

      • MentalEdge@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        No shit. Only reason I bring it up is as a way to illustrate how badly I do not want this.

        What a world we live in, when there’s a possibility my use of a private matrix server between family, might become criminal.

        • Ferk@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          There are plans for Matrix to move to P2P someday… I wonder what would happen in that case. Or if we just used https://tox.chat/

          Would the regulation apply at all when it’s just a protocol used between the users, with no intermediary or central server offering the service?

  • guy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    ·
    1 year ago

    With a little knowledge, it’s not very hard to make your own messaging app and share it with those you know. And there’s plenty projects online that give you what you need without having to write the code yourself. Alternatively, there’s just plenty dark web and under the radar apps already that won’t bend to this ruling.

    What it is, though, is very inconvenient and annoying to do so.

    But if you’re an actual criminal, then there is this solution here that can never be subject to this ruling.

    So what this clearly means is that the EU will violate the privacy of all the everyday people that don’t handle that inconvenience, pushing the serious criminals to dark channels.

  • riodoro1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well they can go fuck themselves. Even if they pass it and messenger or whatsapp start (as in they totally dont already) scanning your chats and snitching I wonder how they are going to force other messaging services to comply.

      • ruination@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d imagine if, say Signal, refuses to comply and gets banned from the EU, one could always use a VPN. I think that nothing short of either a full global ban or implementing a version of The Great Wall of China would allow these ridiculous laws to be enforced. Even then, there will always be ways around it for those willing to go the extra mile.

        • Ferk@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Why not just go for Tox or some other P2P serverless communication system? They can’t ban / go after a system that has no central servers, can they?

  • whoisearth@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    1 year ago

    Friendly reminder it’s never about consumer rights. It’s about who is in control of the data.

    A question you can all ask yourself. Despite the warts in both who would you rather control your data (you have no choice here. Someone is controlling your data and it is not you)

    A. Google, Amazon, Microsoft, etc.

    B. Government

    You’ll get strong answers either way. Personally I’d rather the government strictly from an accountability perspective but that also warrants governments not electing shitheads which unfortunately the world is leaning towards with these populist right wing politicians gaining favour.

    • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      A, by a goddamn long shot. If google mistakenly thinks I’ve advocated for a crime against a massive corporation, they’ll remove my account and ban me from their services. If the government mistakenly thinks I’ve advocated for a crime against a massive corporation, they’ll arrest me and ruin my life. Microsoft doesn’t give a shit if you acquired the 1s and 0s that comprise a popular TV show without paying for them. The government will fine you more than the average person will make in their entire life.

      It also depends on where you live. Facebook doesn’t care if you’re gay or trans, if anything that’s valuable monetizable data about you. Iran will straight up fucking kill you.

    • makeasnek@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      1 year ago

      It can be you. It doesn’t have to be Big Corps or Government. It can be federated instances, it can be self-ownership of data, it can be E2E encrypted.

    • jlow (he/him)@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      This one is completely about the people who pretend to “care about the children” but coincidentally also sell the software that does the proposed CSAM scanning. It’s a money making-scheme for them. Shit like this makes me lose the last bit of hope I have for democracy (really hard to not put this into quotes by this point … +__+).

  • Chaos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 year ago

    Here’s what this bill does for children: reduces pedos from sharing images of them yay! Here’s also what it does for Children: un-encrypts their chats so pedos know what they are doing, where they are, who they are with, what they like, their vulnerabilities and much much more. Trading safety for a viewing crackdown. Congratulations

  • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    1 year ago

    We need to collect the list of names of every politican and such who has advocated for this. These humans are dangerous to society, and we need to be on the lookout regarding what are they doing next. We also need to raise awareness about them so that given the chance, they can be removed from positions of power.