Top
Best
New

Posted by rapnie 12 hours ago

EU Parliament greenlights Chat Control 1.0(www.patrick-breyer.de)
875 points | 425 commentspage 6
Avicebron 11 hours ago|
I'm curious where I can go to see real regularpeople who support this, is there like a different side of reddit, comments section? I don't know anyone who is blatantly anti-privacy and I want to hear their reasoning. Otherwise this just seems to be the EU rolling into a weird distributed autocracy without anyone blinking an eye.
budududuroiu 10 hours ago||
"We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back". -- Jean-Claude Juncker, VDL's predecessor
xienze 11 hours ago|||
It's not so much "support" as "not caring." Most "regular" people, when they hear about measures like this, say "oh no, the government can see my boring text messages to grandma, who cares", much they same way they shrug off the dangers of having a robot vacuum live-streaming the inside of their house to China ("there's nothing interesting in my house, who cares").
expedited123 11 hours ago||
The thing is... It's not even reported on the news here (Lithuania).

Just now I scrolled through our most popular news sites. 0 mentions. Wasn't on TV either.

The vast majority of the population didn't even have a clue that the vote was happening.

I checked the top 5 most popular local news sites. There was one article about chat control in April and then 2 more from 2025. That's it.

Imagine an issue as big as this and it's not even reported. Yeah I don't feel confident about the future at all.

zelphirkalt 2 hours ago||
State owned news will follow orders or people be removed. Arrrrr! They will have their incentives, even if people at the top of news reporting institutions are highly paid. Wouldn't want that dirt they have hidden be uncovered, now would they? Better dance to the tune and keep an overpaid job living by leeching off the tax payers.

Example: Look at Germany and how many Rundfunk Intendanten there are and how much they make a year, plus how little coverage such topics get.

37374848 7 hours ago||
free healthcare o algo
shevy-java 8 hours ago||
The lobbyists won this round.
lenerdenator 8 hours ago||
So, private companies can't track you, but the people with the state's monopoly on violence (which very much exists in the EU member nations) can?

Is there any sort of warrant needed for accessing this sort of information on devices?

Pazzaz 1 hour ago|
It's not accessed on devices. This is about people using messaging applications, like Messenger. Then, as the message isn't encrypted, Meta can read the message on their servers. And with this law they are allowed to scan and sometimes report it to the government.
EGreg 10 hours ago||
I do not believe solutions to these issues will be found with government regulators. I believe they can be enabled by new technology that is designed to balance interests on all sides and actually enforce the guarantees IN CODE AND PROTOCOLS.

Having said that, I don’t think the tech industry is what it once was, dominated by cypherpunks working to create a better world. It has been captured by greed and “moving fast and breaking things”, as well as infighting. Greed (both in the form of web3 numbers go up, and benefiting from the greater fool while delivering no utility) and moving fast (web2 facebook / VC / dump shares on the public / lock in / extract rents). So no wonder the government eventually steps in, when the industry spends a decade without adults steering the ship. We have giant platforms controlling everything, and the rest has devolved into zero sum games and memecoins. The tech industry hasn’t led or even organized enough to get behind technology that can liberate users. Instead it’s been captured by for-profit interests. Mozilla and Apache are rounding errors.

Here is what open source can do when it comes to mass surveillance, and this would also solve the Flock problem here in the States, too:

https://community.qbix.com/t/balancing-privacy-and-accountab...

More broadly, here is what needs to be done across the board:

https://www.laweekly.com/restoring-healthy-communities/

tryauuum 5 hours ago|
> new technology that is designed to balance interests on all sides and actually enforce the guarantees IN CODE AND PROTOCOLS.

They will just call your code illegal in law. And if you will run it anyway, use deep packet inspection to drop your protocol packets, like they do in Russia

EGreg 3 hours ago||
Unless they have backdoors to absolutely every form of encryption, including https certificates, etc. you can always use that to tunnel through.

https://www.reddit.com/r/privacytoolsIO/comments/cukcaf/goog...

tryauuum 2 hours ago||
Today they already analyze the SSL handshake and traffic patterns in Russia. And if your valid https traffic crosses the border but doesn't behave like https (I don't know how they do it. Frequency of TCP packets and their size and the delay between?) your IP-address will be blocked

I want to stress that I'm speaking from experience. I personally installed a telegram proxy project which aimed to mirror the pattern of traffic and fool the censors

like_any_other 12 hours ago||
> In these talks, the EU Parliament is pushing for a paradigm shift in how we approach online child safety, demanding: [..] Strict security standards for messaging apps (“Security by Design”) to prevent cyber grooming.

It's dispiriting to see a supposedly pro-privacy politician launder backdoors as "strict security standards".

vrganj 11 hours ago|
I think they mean local scanning for CSAM - which feels like a reasonable solution that preserves privacy, but still addresses the real problem of, y'know, child abuse?
simiones 11 hours ago|||
What is the false positive rate that you would be comfortable with such a scan having? What would be the risk of your personal photos and videos being recognized as CSAM and reported to your local police (and thus being shown to your local police) that you would be happy to accept?

Would you also be ok with not being allowed to send any mail unless you first scan the contents of everything in that envelope and include a generated signature that might tell the post office that you're sending CSAM? And then having the envelope delivered directly to police if the scan did indicate that?

budududuroiu 9 hours ago||||
If local scanning of CSAM flags a post, that post will have to be analysed by a human operator. If you send a sensitive photo of your kid's rash to your spouse, and it gets flagged, are you ok with a random cyber enforcement officer seeing your child in that way?
zelphirkalt 1 hour ago||
Pedos would definitely know what job to work in.
u8080 8 hours ago||||
Okay, since it is already working system - how could I verify it scans for CSAM, not my dissident books and saved eps*ein files?
ibejoeb 6 hours ago||||
I have a question: who trains the CSAM model?
like_any_other 10 hours ago|||
Weaponizing our own property against us, mandating that it spies and tattles on us, turning inanimate objects into policemen to construct the most total surveillance dystopia, is not in any way "reasonable". In no way does it "preserve privacy".

And let's not pretend there are not already many other ways in which child abuse is detected and fought. When schoolteachers or doctors or neighbors or other family members notice something is amiss, when a CSAM group is infiltrated by police, or when a predator falls for a honeypot. This triggers an investigation, and at that point no digital lock can withstand modern targeted covert surveillance. But we are supposed to pretend none of this exists, and that encryption is an unassailable castle, and play along with the "going dark" lie, despite being more surveilled than at literally any point in history, including under the Stasi.

They only don't address child abuse, if by "child abuse" is meant a photo existing in some private shared-with-nobody hard drive, and not an actual human child being abused.

dejournal 7 hours ago||
What can we do to try and stop this?
spwa4 9 hours ago||
Majority AGAINST, passes anyway:

314 against, 276 in favor, 17 abstentions

In case anyone wants to know: stopping it would have required 361 against.

hananova 8 hours ago|
And more than a hundred did not vote, if they wanted to vote no they could have. But they didn’t so they’re implicitly in favor.

The fact that governments worldwide do not force either a vote for or against is a much greater issue as it allows representatives to launder their beliefs through inaction.

ChrisArchitect 10 hours ago||
Related:

Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48818311

Chat Control passed first round in EU Parliament

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48819008

speedgoose 5 hours ago|
This is a very disappointing news. It weakens democracy and makes the EU hypocrite.

Why should one care about GDPR or some privacy shield thingy when this is going through ?

More comments...