1y ago

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

www.patrick-breyer.de 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 messag

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/6469594

How to contact your MEP.

Free and Open Source Software @beehaw.org

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

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

154 29

Europe @feddit.de

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

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

321 71

Privacy Guides @lemmy.one

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

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

176 24

You're viewing a single thread.

124 comments

citizens have the right to private communication.
- Not in places where constitutions are not the ultimate authority AND written such that they form negative rights by only limiting the governments power. That's in all those places whose immigrants to America get on TV and call America's constitution anachronistic.
  
  You forget to mention, a constitution that is written (and properly commented) in such a way that it doesn't require any interpretation; and that will receive periodic review and updating according to cultural and historical development; and that holds actual punishment for lawmakers who violate the constitution. Not saying that i know of any such thing.
- I sometimes wonder about this. I hugely value my private communication, and I grew up in a world with that ideal. But with the rise of more cleverly invasive apps and tracking, and ease of someone else putting a video of you online, and so on, I sometimes think about a world where non face-to-face communication isn't private any more.
  I don't know what I think of that world.
  After all, we haven't always had private, at-a-distance communication, especially for all people
  
  We always had. Many people wrote personal notes/letters in cryptic ways to prevent unwanted readers from deciphering it.
  Imagine a word where we would teach children not to make their own cypher because this is illegal. What a distopian society.
  
  Kind of, but written communication for everyone hasn't even always been a thing. And cryptic letters perhaps aren't reliable secrecy for ordinary people against trained spying. And anonymity... not without other layers to your communication. And all of that not for your ordinary postcard home: it's something you do in special situations.
  I don't think the new law would outlaw encrypting messages to your friend with PGP; nor having a second phone that you leave at the library for anonymity.
  
  I think it's fair to say that secure ways to communicate have largely scaled with our social circles. Without writing you can't keep in touch at a distance anyway.
  
  Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
  This still applies.
  
  But what liberty is essential? Proveably secret postcards to people on the other side of the world?
  That's also quite a harsh quote to bring in the context of the many hidden erosions of privacy - would you say the tick-tockers don't deserve privacy or safety because they chose that social ability over a privacy they little understand?
  
  Essential in the sense of privacy being central to our nature. We all deserve, and indeed, need our privacy. In the USA, the 4th Amendment guarantees "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." without sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. Any reasonable modern interpretation of that amendment should include electronic documents and communication.
  I'm not sure why you would think that I believe tick-tockers should not have privacy protection. Any app that invades the users 'privacy should be banned for the same reason that end-to-end encryption should not be banned. If Tick-Tock refuses to respect the privacy of people's non-Tick Tock communication then the app should be banned.
  
  Essential in the sense of privacy being central to our nature
  Yeah, I'm on board with that. Really what I was thinking about was imagining a world where internet presence is not a place where there's privacy - like if you meet a friend in public, and talk on a park bench, you can't assume no one will see you. You know that, and accept that, and adapt accordingly.
  I want a world where internet communications are private and their metadata are also private, and my internet use is private... But I'm contemplating the what ifs of a different world, and how best to live in it, and how to help my children and children's children live in it. I do think fighting for better laws and protections is part of that and I'm incredibly grateful for people like the eff; but I think it's also worth thinking about how we can find ways to live in a new environment, understanding that society's rules around us don't always work in the best ways.
  (On that note: you're quoting the US Constitution a matter of EU ruling...)
  I'm not sure why you would think that I believe tick-tockers should not have privacy protection.
  Just your quote, that says such people who give up some liberty don't deserve any. I suppose you didn't mean it that way but it seemed harsh.
  
  Just your quote, that says such people who give up some liberty don’t deserve any. I suppose you didn’t mean it that way but it seemed harsh.
  Fair. Old Ben meant it harshly, I'm sure.
  As for the internet being a public space where privacy shouldn't be assumed, I have to disagree. There is far too much activity on the net that would never be conducted in a place where there is no assumption of privacy. Clearly things like banking matters need to be private and secure, but I include in this things like romantic matters. If any government can access any data on the internet that they want they any oppressive government will do so. In addition, any opening for government will be exploited sooner or later by criminals as well.
  
  Tangential, but Lemmy is filled with smart people so I'm going to ask: is it possible to legally make it impossible for wireless signals to work within your own home? That is, how would one dampen access to wireless networks? Would this require illegal use of signal jamming devices as I imagine a Faraday cage would be too difficult to make in a room.
  Edit: where else on Lemmy could I ask this sort of question?
  
  I imagine you could come up with something relatively easy to put on the walls/ceilings to block signals if you really felt like it.
  Making it look like a sane person's house might be a little more difficult though
  
  Yeah shielding. Totally passive.
  mobsters did that in their houses, people who buy them often only learn about the previous owner after realizing that one or two rooms are faraday cages - zero wifi or cellular.
  
  The FCC has a lot of regulations on it. From what I remember active jamming within the home is still wildly illegal. Depending on the size of your house/room, a far as at cage wouldn’t be too difficult, especially if you did it during construction. If you’re on a budget and don’t mind looking crazy you can line a closet with tinfoil and connect it to ground.

124 comments