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.”
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 ??”
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.
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
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.
This law has nothing to do with CSAM or child abuse prevention. “Think of the Children” is just an effective rallying point because, of course, no one wants to come out against it publicly. The Surveillance State grows.
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.
They can’t. It’s unenforceable.
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
In their defence they don’t actually care about your privacy they just want to hold onto power. The cookie thing is getting ahead before everything starts to shit itself from a private companies destroying privacy perspective. This stuff is for governments to look good and they are notorious for thinking they won’t fuck this up even though they always do.
What the actual fuck…
Fairly fucking sure this is a nothingburger like Art. 13-17 was, and will not break E2EE messengers.
The reason:
Encryption plays an essential role in securing communications. The international human rights law test of legality, necessity and proportionality should be applied to any measures that would affect encryption. Both the UN Commissioner for Human Rights[1]and the European Data Protection Supervisor[2]have concluded that the EU’s proposal for a regulation on child sexual abuse material fails this test[3].
A recent article published by Wired[4]described a European Council survey of Member States’ views on regulating encryption. In its response to the survey, Spain stated that there should be legislation prohibiting EU-based service providers from implementing end-to-end encryption.
Requiring platforms and device manufacturers to build back doors to facilitate law enforcement access would make everyone more susceptible to malicious hacking from criminals and foreign adversaries alike[5]. Measures allowing public authorities to access the content of communications affect the essence of the right to privacy.
1.Which encryption experts did the Commission consult when preparing its proposal for a regulation on child sexual abuse material?
2.Will the Commission revise its position on encryption in view of the opinions of human rights associations and experts?
3.Given the abuse of Pegasus, how will the Commission ensure that the fundamental right to privacy is protected if a Member State, such as Spain, decides to ban encryption?
Submitted: 24.5.2023
[1] UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘The right to privacy in the digital age’, A/HRC/51/17, 4 August 2022, para. 28, https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc5117-right-privacy-digital-age. [2] https://edps.europa.eu/press-publications/press-news/press-releases/2022/combat-child-sexual-abuse-online-presents-serious-risks-fundamental-rights_en. [3] https://home.crin.org/readlistenwatch/stories/privacy-and-protection. [4] https://www.wired.com/story/europe-break-encryption-leaked-document-csa-law/. [5] https://cdt.org/area-of-focus/government-surveillance/encryption-and-government-hacking/.Source: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2023-001661_EN.html (EUP Parliamentary question E-001661/2023)
So yeah, it is now established that forcing law enforcement on E2EE messaging services goes against human rights. glhf EUC
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
