• MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    6 months ago

    My point being, what are they going to achieve with this? Ask WhatsApp to pass over their encryption keys?

    It should be pretty obvious that you shouldn’t be sharing sensitive stuff on chat apps controlled by the NSA. Use element with encryption or something, maybe Briar etc. What are they going to do if you insist on using apps which use asymmetric client-side encryption, break TOR? Force you to use symmetric encryption and give the government your decryption keys?

    I don’t see how they are going to spy on sensitive details of Europeans with this. They might as well ban phones completely if they want to limit communication.

    • makeasnek@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      90
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      These laws are being passed by politicians who generally don’t understand technology. What they will achieve is a reduction in privacy and liberty for every citizen in the EU and easier methods to clamp down on dissent. Just because it’s not technically perfect or difficult to implement fully doesn’t mean it’s not a threat. It’s one step closer totalitarianism, and what’s stopping totalitarianism is everyday people, one step at a time, battling it back.

      • 1984@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        46
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        A more cynical take is that they understand very well, but are being compensated by big tech for looking the other way.

        Good people often can’t comprehend how evil people work, and they say “everyone makes mistakes”, or “they don’t understand fully”. Because we want to think that everyone is mostly good.

        It’s not like that. :/

        • far_university1990@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          6 months ago

          It was found that johannson was lobbied by non-profit funded by ai startup that develop csam detect and groom detect and other bullshit. startup from the us

          our politician now get bribed by us company. what the fuck?

      • MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Well I get that they are stupid, but unless it’s their fetish to catch 14 year olds trying to spread rubbish propaganda, I doubt they’re going to get much. Any reporter, activist and consumer knows that anything they put on these apps goes straight to the NSA’s and MI6’s AI algorithms at the very least, and now they’re going to go to the rest of Europe.

        Yes, we should be protesting against this. Does Europe have an equivalents of the EFF to fight for such rights?

        • Eheran@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          6 months ago

          I have to strongly disagree, you overestimate what people know/can/want to do. Some, sure, but not the majority. They either stay ignorant or are too lazy. Just look at add blocker usage. I can not even imagine to live without them, but here we are, I am the tiny minority! Most either do not care or are too stupid or somehow happen to not know about them.

    • ByteWelder@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      It’s literally in the article: They want to use client-side scanning. The client already has the data decrypted. This is much like what Apple wanted to introduce with CSAM scanning a while back. It’s a backdoor in each client and it’s a matter of time until it will be abused by malicious entities.

    • GravitySpoiled@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      6 months ago

      You are 100% right.

      They can’t ban encryption, yet they can make it difficult. If all noobs don’t use encryption, only the pros are left. That means they only have to spy on 10 instead of 100 people. Those that don’t use encryption aren’t interesting.

      The problem is that they can’t spy on the 10 and hence they spy on the 90 and wait for the 1 guy making a mistake and becoming one of the 90.

      • MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Fairly sure my good Eastern Europeans don’t give a fuck about what France and Germany think and will pirate and TOR and I2P their merry life away (or so I’d like to think - you tell me)

    • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      34
      ·
      6 months ago

      It died long ago, when you people started to pay half of your money as taxes, while your country regardless of party in power was subservient to USA and NATO.

        • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          6 months ago

          Taxes are a bad thing when the imbalance of rich vs poor is colossal, especially in a capitalist economy. Taxing the rich will generate far more development, by your assumptions. And public usually does not get returns proportionate to paying taxes.

        • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          6 months ago

          I bet I’m at least as much of a leftist as you are, but taxes don’t pay for public infrastructure. In fact taxes don’t pay for anything. In the EU, taxes are paid in Euros, the same currency that the European Central Bank can create at will. Why would the European states need to collect taxes denominated in the currency the EU creates? They don’t.

          Taxes have many purposes. Most importantly they define the area where a given currency is used (if you tax in a given currency, you force the people to earn it to be able to pay for it). But they also serve to disincentivize certain behaviours (tax on alcohol or tobacco), to remove money from the economy to prevent macroeconomic imbalances (if the state creates too much money without removing enough through taxes, there might be some problems), or simply to reduce inequality by charging more taxes to wealthier people or companies.

          This is an important point, because it shifts the framing of taxes from a made up “we all need to contribute” mindset, to a more realistic “ok where do we want to remove money and by how much, what do we want to disincentivize, and how can we reduce inequality”. And it also shows that states can pay for things without the need to collect taxes for this, for example we saw this during COVID, when sizeable amounts of money were created to give an impulse to the economy and to the people who temporarily lost their income sources.

          • makeasnek@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            And it also shows that states can pay for things without the need to collect taxes for this, for example we saw this during COVID, when sizeable amounts of money were created to give an impulse to the economy and to the people who temporarily lost their income sources

            And surely printing money doesn’t cause inflation right. Value isn’t free. If you have the same demand for a currency and increase it’s supply by 10%, it’s going to cost 10% more of that currency to buy any given item.

            • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              I’m sorry, but that’s empirically proven false time and time again. That’s not to say we should be creating as much money as possible, but for example I’m an EU citizen. Do you have any idea how much currency was created between 2010 and 2020? Look up any measure of the M2 or M3 monetary aggregate for the EU in that period, and look at the inflation rates for the period.

              If you’re a US citizen, I beg you take a graph of inflation for the USA since WW2, look at the inflationary periods, and tell me: what happened in those periods? Consistently, inflationary periods have been caused by external events such as oil crises, or wars like the current one in Ukraine, or such phenomena. Money creation is a very poor predictor for inflation

              I know the neoliberal dogma has poisoned the public discourse for decades and it seems obvious and common knowledge that money creation leads to inflation. But it really, REALLY, hasn’t been historically the case, and this has been proven empirically time and time and time again.

  • Majestic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    6 months ago

    So first it’s client-side scanning for CSAM. Not without some nobility. But the problem is once you wedge open that door it’s technically possible to do it for other things and so you become compelled to.

    It’ll move from just CSAM to stopping and tracking “propaganda” as deemed by them which will be narrow-ish at first (anything pro-Russia, RT links, etc) but gradually expand over time to anything outside the mainstream branded as extremist (and guess what, privacy advocates will definitely fall within that label). And once that’s in place the private stake-holders, copyright holders will come knocking, they’ll say rightly so “hey you have the capability right now, we demand you implement client-side scanning to detect copyright violations” and then that will be ordered by a court, further enshrined by a law and oh look now you can no longer send political thought that the ruling regime disagrees with, can no longer surf the high seas, and so on and so forth. Congratulations and please enjoy living in the “garden” of Europe.

    • /home/pineapplelover@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      6 months ago

      The US uses the Patriot Act to spy on innocent people under the guise of terrorism. Once you open the door, they knock the wall down.

  • fluckx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    6 months ago

    Well. Now seems to be a good time to be ashamed to be Belgian.

    Shameful politicians :(

    • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      Reading it, it looks like it doesn’t require invasive oversight as long as the chat apps and app stores have sufficient detection and such.

      really, that’s what such places already should have, considering how much profit they make off of our data

      • It does require invasive oversight. If I send a picture of my kid to my wife, I don’t want some AI algorithm to have a brainfart and instead upload the picture to Europol for strangers to see and to put me on some list I don’t belong.

        People sharing CSAM are unlikely to use apps that force these scans anyway.

        • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          The proposal only does so under specific circumstances, which makes sense. Try to read more than three words before your respond

          • The point is is that it should never, under no circumstances monitor and eavesdrop private chats. It’s an unacceptable breach of privacy.

            Also, please explain what “specific circumstances” you are referring to. The current proposal doesn’t limit the scanning of messages in any way whatsoever.

            • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              No, I actually read the current proposal. Maybe try that before regurgitating random stuff that matches your opinion

              • https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=COM:2022:209:FIN

                Here’s the text. There are no limits on which messages should be scanned anywhere in this text. Even worse: to address false positives, point 28 specifies that each provider should have human oversight to check if what the system finds is indeed CSAM/grooming. So it’s not only the authorities reading your messages, but Meta/Google/etc… as well.

                You might be referring to when the EU can issue a detection order. This is not what is meant with the continued scanning of messages, which providers are always required to do, as outlined by the text. So either you are confused, or you’re a liar.

                Cite directly from the text where it imposes limits on the automated scanning of messages. I’ll wait.

                • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  ey there you go, you bothered to actually read. Your chats remain with your provider!

                  It’s not like you were expecting privacy while sending your content through other people’s platform, were you?

  • anticurrent@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    6 months ago

    It is already law in the UK, they are just waiting for the right moment to activate it.

    Maybe this move by the EU will embolden other countries to follow suite. the best thing to do is to move to a corner of the internet they can’t control. like Tor , I2P and similar projects

    • ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yah, but the UK has been an Orwellian nightmare since Maggie’s day. Everyone expects laws that completely negate privacy there and just roll over for it.

  • Fijxu@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    6 months ago

    Keep me updated Europe friends. If they implement this, for sure other countries will implement this as well.

  • TheWonderfool@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    6 months ago

    The article is from May 19, 2022. I can find very little information about the vote of this Wednesday. While I don’t doubt its authenticity, I find it unlikely that it would pass. Last time they tried, doing it much more loudly and going as far as spreading disinformation campaigns on TV and in social media, they still completely failed at having the legislation passed. To me it looks like someone is finishing their mandate, so they are scrambling to show that they are doing the work they have been paid to do (by lobbist, obviously not by the people).

    I hope I will not be proven wrong.

  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    It’s somewhat amusing how western liberals once touted freedom of speech as a defining characteristic separating them from states like China, which impose stricter limitations on freedom of expression. The argument was made that the pursuit of personal liberties is what sets western liberal culture apart and makes it superior to others.

    However, this narrative succeeded primarily due to broad public agreement within mainstream Western society. When economic conditions were favorable and people generally content with their system, there was little reason to suppress dissenting views. In fact, allowing such opinions on the fringe even served to reinforce the narrative. But now that growing discontent is causing this illusion of freedom they once believed in to unravel.

  • kylian0087@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    Regarding email which provider would be best suited if this goes true? Because Tuta is hosted in Germany it seems less optimal then say Proton?

    • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Before privacy guides changed there was a spreadsheet with all providers, security details and wether or not they have ever complied to government requesting access.

      If i recall correctly proton did not score very great. Disroot did very well on paper but was considered new and had yet to proof itself

      Anyone know if this (updated) information still exists?

      • Jako301@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Proton pretty much always complies with government access requests, and they never claimed otherwise. They, however, don’t have access to the content of your emails due to their encryption, meaning the data they give to governments is restricted to what you give them. They can at most give out your name, payment information, and backup mail if you voluntarily gave that info to them.

    • starman@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      It doesn’t make a big difference. You are going to send emails to Gmail most of the time anyway.