by budududuroiu
4 subcomments
- The Internet Watch Foundation, an organisation funded by almost all of big tech, is already at work pushing for client side scanning next [1], for the children, of course.
[1] https://www.iwf.org.uk/policy-work/preventing-the-upload-of-...
- The Chat Control 1.0 rule is simply that organisations like Meta are allowed to scan messages if they want to. In other words your Facebook messages are not private from Facebook. Surely we already knew and expected that.
Chat Control 2.0 is the worrying one because it mandates scanning and bans E2EE.
These two things should not have both been given the same branding.
by PowerElectronix
10 subcomments
- Tough week for euros. Cars that record your face while driving and now apps snooping on communications.
- Of course they are. They will boil the frogs slowly until they get the frog soup they so desire. Each time the water gets a little bit too hot (public outrage) they will turn it back down for a bit.
Every major global region has this problem. I would tell you the slope is slippery, but I already fell down and cracked my head open.
Joking aside, this privacy invasion will keep happening until there are laws passed (a foundational constitution perhaps?) that make it impossible to attempt to even create such laws/rules.
- For my fellow EU citizens, you can contact your representatives here: https://fightchatcontrol.eu/
by wewewedxfgdf
1 subcomments
- Even if defeated, this is Terminator legislation - it will never stop coming back until it wins.
- Can anyone explain something? Since there are so many open source chat applications, what keeps anyone from "just" exchanging a key with someone else out of band, and then modifying the client so that it uses that key to encrypt all communication? I understand that this does not scale to big groups, but surely whoever is pushing this crap must have thought about this? Or is the idea that we will have completely locked down PCs as well ala android and ios so you can't run anything unapproved?
by red_admiral
2 subcomments
- This is about 1.0, which sounds ok - it basically allows providers a legitimate exception from data privacy laws to scan for CSAM in not E2EE communications. I reckon gmail, iCloud mail and the like already scan attachments for malware and emails for phishing scams, now they can also scan for child abuse.
cc 2.0 is a different beast.
by red_admiral
0 subcomment
- What is the US legislation on this - I thought providers were already mandated to take action against distribution of CSAM, or is that only for public-facing posts?
- When is it coming online? I have seen so many of these headlines that I feel it's always about to kick in, but I never get any closure.
by tangenter
1 subcomments
- Waiting to see what the Europeans do. They talked the talk. Let’s see what is the next move.
by shevy-java
0 subcomment
- Slaves also have no right to privacy. This EU variant is doomed to failure.
by mattrighetti
0 subcomment
- Give it time. I’ll see you in 5 years
- I don't understand the EU's position on privacy. On the one hand, they enacted GDPR to give you control over access to your personal data.
On the other, they need access to all of your data.
- They won't scan my messages since I run my own XMPP server and clients using only free software - prosody for the server, Conversations/dino/gajim/converse.js for the clients. OMEMO (the encryption scheme used by 'modern' XMPP systems) uses the same double-ratchet encryption as Signal without the dependency on a central Signal server.
Prosody can run on just about anything and is mostly maintenance-free, give it a try I'd say. You'll want to get a domain for it but that's easy and cheap.
by ChrisArchitect
2 subcomments
- [dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48819008
- Each passing day we are moving closer to a dystopian state and nobody is doing anything.
by luizamarns
0 subcomment
- nice
by bellowsgulch
1 subcomments
- lol, say someone publishes an E2E distributed extension to an existing chat protocol.
Are you going to arrest someone for writing code? Are you going to arrest people who use private communications? Sounds like a legislator carve out hot and ready to happen.
I get the point, ban E2E, OK sure, but what if some software is designed in such a way that the company doesn't provide it, but it just happens to be compatible with the protocol extension? Are you going to arrest the authors if they don't explicitly ban it?
Yeah, right.
- [flagged]
- [flagged]
Hacker News