Top
Best
New

Posted by Improvement 4 days ago

Chat Control Must Be Stopped(www.privacyguides.org)
782 points | 255 commentspage 3
jongjong 4 days ago|
The only long term solution for this is for people to use more different platforms. Communities should be seeking out new platforms, building their own chat platforms with their own protocols. There is no such thing as a single 'decentralized protocol' - There are incompatible protocols and then there are centralized protocols. When it comes to censorship resistance, incompatibility is a feature. Lack of adoption (unpopularity) is a feature.

If other people around you recognize the name of a chat platform you're using, then it's not decentralized and it's almost certainly monitored.

0xc0ff338 4 days ago||
I fear we're long past the point of no return. We are exactly one 'policy update' away from not being able to install non-compliant messengers on our phones. Sure, there are still some devices that will let you unlock the bootloader and you can still sideload unverified apps, but let's be honest, most people today barely manage to install an app from the store. If installing a decentralized messenger is more involved than that, 99% of people aren't going to do it.
jongjong 3 days ago||
What about web-based apps which users can access in the browser without download? They can be very user-friendly. Big companies which do surveillance make their browser-based web apps crappy on purpose in order to coerce people into using their app-store app; precisely because it gives them more surveillance capabilities (e.g. location, file access, camera access, ...). A well-intentioned chat app does not need such permissions so a web app is a good medium.
sterlind 4 days ago||
those platforms will be banned. this will doom Signal, the fediverse, and countless smaller platforms. anything that isn't compatible will become illegal.
EGreg 4 days ago||
Would chat control also force open source software to put in backdoors? Like if users run their own little servers somewhere, and those load websites, or they sideload apps to the app store (thanks to EU hehe).
sterlind 4 days ago|
I'd personally like to have a FOSS, privacy-aware CSAM (or even generic gore/porn) detector I could plug into Matrix/Lemmy/Mastodon servers. something self-hostable, so I could run those services without worrying about pedos and trolls ruining my platform.

I'm not sure if something like it exists. I'm not sure if it could exist. PhotoDNA (the old CSAM detector) ended up being somewhat reversible, so that you could actually turn signatures back into obscene material. because of this, the signature databases were shared under strict NDA, only to large players.

probably the most realistic solution is a generic porn classifier convnet. if it blocks adult porn, it should block CSAM too (hopefully?)

they are not reliant on image hashes, and reversibility concerns apply less because the dataset used to train it was presumably legal (if distasteful.)

beeflet 4 days ago||
I am working on something like this using multimodal models
nashashmi 4 days ago||
The Usual. Govt trying to harness private systems for the purpose of public surveillance.

They do this using warrants. And subpoena.

We need a personal declaration of rights that says private systems are not in anyway obligated to extend the reach of govt surveillance networks, without the consent of the private party.

It is a small protective measure. The next step will be for govt to bully everyone to give consent to their surveillance systems … or else.

But as of right now, the law is arbitrarily taking for granted that private surveillance systems belong to govt regulations.

0x008 4 days ago||
This is one of many laws the EU and member states are pushing in order to implement more online surveillance. I always wonder why individuals (representatives) would push for these kind of surveillance laws? I think politicians usually pass laws which help themselves or their lobbies gain power and influence on economical levels, but I wonder why anyone would push for these kind of legislation even before an authoritarian state is on place. What is there to gain on an individual level?
pas 4 days ago||
individuals mostly have a few things they care about, but most people don't understand shit

especially technology

especially information technology

politicians are selected for being people-oriented therefore most are hopelessly underinformed

and it's very very very easy to get caught up in ideologies

and then means to an end seems like business as usual

dchftcs 4 days ago||
Even if a system doesn't look authoritarian, corruption happens all the time. Those involved in corruption naturally want more power for themselves. Additionally some people actively thirst for more power for whatever reasons, and most people don't want to be constrained in their jobs, and they are all aligned in expanding governmental power. You need some discipline to commit to the idea that "I don't want the ability to see encrypted chats, even if that makes my job 90% easier to do", and I don't trust most people to have it.
petermcneeley 4 days ago||
The people of europe need to stop pretending that whatever controls europe is interested in democoracy, free speech, justice or freedom.
Nursie 4 days ago|
Why?

Democracy is being served. People want this stuff. HN people maybe not, but let's not pretend we represent anything but a noisy minority. It's entirely democratic AFAICT, "think of the children" and "think of the terrorists" won the argument some time ago.

Free speech is not held as an absolute in many countries as it is in the US, and never has been. It is in a bad state in some places (the UK seems to be performing poorly on this measure) but a lot of places feel the right to spew whatever toxic lies spring to mind without consequences might not be entirely healthy either.

Justice? I think justice is performed better in many European nations than most of the rest of the world.

And freedom... lots of people like to claim the US is the most free place on earth, but it's really not clear that's true. There are freedoms in other countries not enjoyed in the US. Here in Australia for example, I am free to collect the rainwater and filter it for my drinking-water supply, something that's not true in every state.

petermcneeley 4 days ago||
If you've seen nothing and if the crimes of the government remain unknown to you then ... well enough said. Enjoy your water.
Nursie 4 days ago||
The point is that things can be bad without being melodramatically the end of democracy.

Is this an authoritarian move that ought to be spoken against by those who know and care? Absolutely. Does it mean that there's no more democracy in Europe? No, that's a little ridiculous.

petermcneeley 4 days ago||
Who are you trying to convince? I cant help you.
Nursie 4 days ago||
I’m not trying to convince anyone, I’m poking holes in your silly hyperbole and lazy catastrophising.
petermcneeley 4 days ago||
The worst part is when you betray yourself for nothing.
chairmansteve 4 days ago||
Samizdat:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samizdat

BLKNSLVR 4 days ago|
Self-host may be the new Samizdat.
g42gregory 4 days ago||
Events like this always remind me of President George W. Bush's timeless saying: "Freedom is on the march!"
roscas 4 days ago||
Just read something on Reddit "Is WhatsApp lying about it's end-to-end encryption?" so no need to write down again here.

As long as you know when you're being used by their fake services.

thatxliner 4 days ago||
Regarding all the chat control posts, I've not seen any comments regarding the potential use for homomorphic encryption to abide by this law: if chat control is only used for the detection of CSAM (which is another issue in itself; Apple, for instance, already solved this with NeuraHash), then could "allowing the government to snoop" be letting them have the homomorphically encrypted ciphertext?

Disclaimer that I actually don't know what the full extent this chat control law is asking for, except for the fact that it will deeply compromise encryption

sterlind 4 days ago||
so you encrypt your image, send it to the government, the government runs its CSAM detector on the encrypted image and gets... an encrypted result.

then what? you decrypt the answer and send it back to them? promise that you totally didn't change the answer?

FHE is the wrong tool for the job. you'd want verifiable computation (e.g. ni-ZKP) instead. both are too complex and faaar too computationally expensive for actual use.

beeflet 4 days ago||
It would be useless because predators won't run the homomorphic encryption.

>Apple, for instance, already solved this with NeuraHash

"Solved"

spwa4 4 days ago|
I hate how people say things like "unquestionably well-intended law enforcement". This is being done for is to protect-the-children, as per usual.

So did anyone ask the question ... is law enforcement actually helping children, when they act? This of course often results in the state raising such children, so the real question is how well that works, compared to not acting at all. Turns out there's a huge study on this, and of course the answer is a big fat no. And that was before another 10+ years of funding cuts.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120609063509/https://www.usato...

https://mitsloan.mit.edu/shared/ods/documents?PublicationDoc...

So no, this is not about law enforcement helping children, because they don't provide a solution for the damage they do when acting. The result is law enforcement, on average, makes things worse for children, not better. These institutions are also getting systematically defunded across the EU, it's not getting better.

It is not reasonably believable this is about protecting children. You want to protect children? FIRST, you restore the budget of the institutions caring for children after law enforcement "helps".

More comments...