this would break all encrypted messaging
this would break all encrypted messaging
easily contact your MEP: https://fightchatcontrol.eu/
Comments
75-
-
Oh shit - I thought they dropped this! JFC, EU! What TF are you doing?
-
There seems to be some kind of group repeatedly pushing this crap every other year, with increasingly shady tactics.
I would for sure like to know from where this emanates...
-
It's the pro-surveilance people that want to monetize your data. They try and lean on fear and push this "only ISIS uses Signal" narrative that is obviously false.
It's just so preposterous - businesses and payment processors rely on e2ee just as much as anyone else does. The one time we're on the same team they just want a carve out for businesses or something I expect.
-
-
-
-
This would not break encrypted messaging but forbid it.
-
The claim I've seen from an MEP is that they wouldn't compromise the e2e encryption itself but instead mandate a backdoor so they can remotely access the unencrypted messages on your device. Which is arguably worse.
-
Any Dutch people here? Follow nerdvote.nl, to help decide who to vote for this election. They are suggesting technical minded people should unite and form a block in elections, so that parties will try to cater to us. If you want our vote, come up with plans an proposals to create digital sovereignty and freedom. As a member of PVDA/GL I am probably voting Barbara Kathmann , as she is fighting for digital sovereignty. Without preferential votes she probably won't make it in so your preferential vote matters!
-
Ok how do they plan to enforce that?
By banning HTTPS at the ISP level?
Edit: and then how do they enforce GPDR? Because you better believe everyone and their mother is going to snoop on every communication made.
-
Blocking HTTPS would be frighteningly hilarious. My employer is one of thousands of websites that utilizes HSTS, which tells web browsers to use HTTPS. Our implementation of HSTS, like lots of banks etc. is also listed with HSTSpreload, which means browsers like chrome will only ever use HTTPS with our site.
-
By forcing Whatsapp Signal etc to implement backdoors
-
Signal wouldn't, or if it did, it would be labeled as such as an insecure fork for EU conpliance only and make that fork stale immediately.
-
-
Don't need to ban encryption, just control top level certificate authorities and have access to private keys.
I'd like to see them try to get mine lol.
-
And any CA doing so would lose their certificate authority status pretty damn quickly.
-
-
By banning HTTPS at the ISP level?
I think you might not be aware of it but big institutions like governments and such can basically already circumvent HTTPS encryption by supplying fake root certificates and forcing the ISP to redirect traffic through their own servers.
That is why End-to-End encryption is such a big deal. Because it cannot be circumvented by the government alone. If done right (proper key exchange), it cannot be broken by anyone but the legitimate recipients. The way WhatsApp does it today, Meta could technically break it too, though i'm not sure whether they do.
-
That's not necessarily very easy. These certs would have to show up in public certificate transparancy logs for most browsers to accept them. If this happens on a government scale it would surely get noticed, though the question remains what you're left to do if the government forces it anyways...
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_Transparency section "Mandatory certificate transparency"
-
-
-
Operation Rubicon!
This is such a bad idea that even the US stopped doing it to all their enemies (i.e. their allies). Of course they have PRISM instead now which can't be cracked by their enemies (i.e. their enemies and allies).
-
One point of hope is that they mandated cross platform chat compatibility too, and every platform is just... Ignoring it and not doing it with zero consequences.
Maybe this just also won't happen.
-
Feeling hopeful about giant tech companies ignoring attempts to reign them in is unwise, even when it occasionally lines up with something you personally want. And I even say that as someone with permanent distrust of the big power structures doing the regulating.
-
Don't get your hopes up. The police and secret services don't care about cross platform compatibility, but they're chomping at the bit for mass surveillance.
-
Of course chat control would be practically infeasible. But it's not even about that. It's about the simple fact that the EU commission ignores the will of the people, when the people have already clearly said NO. It's about the disrespect that the EU commission exerts against the people. That in itself is unacceptable.
-
-
I'm just so tired of it all. At this point I would not be surprised about ending up in prison a decade from now for using encrypted communication.
-
Aren't Europeans supposed to be the good guys?
-
There are no "good guys" or "bad guys" in geopolitics, just shades of grey. On quite a few topics, the EU is better, but any government is capable of doing stupid shit.
-
good take
-
-
No, the EU is just as much liberal capitalisim as the US. They have a better social safety net and looked better in comparison.
-
The competition is pretty weak.
-
The EU's been veering right for a few years now.
-
the EU commission is absolutely dumb and definitely not on the side of the people though. by the way, it's also not democratically elected.
-
-
Thanks for sharing the link to contact the MEPs. Thats actually very useful.
-
-
It's ironic to use a meme from a movie depicting a fascistic government, to protest against a fascistic measure.
-
I suppose the better meme would be "it ain't much, but it's honest work"
-
-
-
In many cases this could be argued as unconstitutional.
-
In germany, it's not technically unconstitutional (i checked last week because i assumed it should be) but it definitely feels like it should be unconstitutional. After WW2, there was a consensus to not surveil your own population, and this is a very important constraint to keep in mind.
-
Where did you check that? The Vorratsdatenspeicherung has been ruled unconstitutional twice for example
-
In Lithuania privacy is defined as a fundamental right and it includes correspondence, digital or otherwise.
Would that prevent passing laws enabling chat control? Doubt it, but I can see it as a good legal argument against it.
-
-
According to the EU constitution?
-
Yes, the right to privacy is a fundamental right in the eu charter.
-
According to constitutions of member states.
At least here it's worded in a way that chat control could be argued as unconstitutional (not a lawyer tho).I would not be surprised that any other sane constitution protects privacy, and by extension digital correspondence, under fundamental rights.
-
-
-
I've contacted them yesterday evening. Funnily enough, all the AfD opposes chat control. They're clever. If chat control were to pass, they could campaign on having opposed it, and then mission creep it once elected.
-
If it passes in the EU, it will pass in the United States. This affects all of us.
-
Also get those MPs imprisoned
-
EU politicians are probably the only ones who ought to be scanned
-
I'm not an EU citizen yet, and as a non-citizen brown man, i doubt the MEP would listen to me. How can I do my part anyway?
-
The site failed at the last step... Fortunately all my reps are opposed
-
?
-
This is why Russian, Chinese and other messaging apps (good one is Telegram) are spiking in EU. The kremlin will have my chats, but I never plan on travelling to Russia anyways.
This is the worst thing in ages. I'm 50+, very good with IT, and I understand that we MUST act against it.
But I'm tired, boss.
Surrounded by lemmings and sheep that love Facebook and WhatsApp. People are stupid. I don't have the energy to fight so much ignorance and stupidity - willful or otherwise.
Also, they keep trying. You fight it one year, they're back the next. Extremely undemocratic.
Precisely. You need to keep winning, while they just need to win once. Would love it if repeat offenders like these would just stop being considered entirely after being rejected multiple times.
I'm overwhelmed by this stupidity and collective ignorance all the time. Not just in data privacy regards.
Some days I just want to give up and say "screw it". But damn, I can't. And a lot of others will not stop. If you do, thats alright, it is okay to rest.
Thank you, kind stranger.
The provided link will let you contact MPs with just a few lazy clicks.
Just a few years older, in IT as a career, and absolutely the same.
You know what though, when encryption was first developed in the form of pgp, the whole point was that it was to sidestep the government being able to spy on you.
Perhaps we just need to accept that we need to take encrypted communication into our own hands and not rely on messaging apps to protect us