Yes, various groups trying to solve a problem that barely exists by creating problems orders of magnitude worse but gives them more power. But surely there are no nefarious motivations there.
I am not saying online grooming is not a problem, but as you said, it happens on public spaces like Roblox, where predators can find children. Chat Control is unnecessary to monitor those. Random youtubers have been able to do that. No need to build a massive spy apparatus. Instead, of adressing this, Chat Control tries to pry open secure communications like Signal used by journalists, protesters, etc. Applications where grooming is not much of an issue as you only communicate with your existing contacts.
Chat Control ignores the rampant grooming in plain sight while trying to spy on communications where it is rare. So tell me, am I paranoid to think they have different motivation to breach those and are only using “protecting kids” as an excuse?
So tell me, am I paranoid to think they have different motivation to breach those and are only using “protecting kids” as an excuse?
I don’t think you’re paranoid, more uninformed.
Chat Control proposed two things:
Some, let’s call them, ‘anti-grooming’, common sense rules by default. They propose identifying high risk services in which you can for example search users by age and send them private messages. Those services would be required to do things like age verification to separate children from adults. If services don’t want to do age verification they have to implement measures like not letting users send private messages to everyone, not being able to search by age, limiting what info is visible to other users (pictures? names? locations? interests?), limiting public spaces (do you need common, public chats in Roblox or can it be limited to chats with friends only?) and so on. I think this is way better than hoping youtube vigilantes will look for pedos for views.
The other thing they are trying to solve is using e2ee messaging apps to distribute CSAM. Here they don’t want to touch encryption in any way and the proposal is to let providers voluntarily scan media client side. This was proposed as mandatory at first but was changed later. This is the part people don’t like as it indirectly forces providers to scan media client side. Nobody likes it but no one proposed any other solution to limit distribution of CSAM.
So what you’re describing is not very accurate. No one is proposing large scale monitoring using some massive spy apparatus. They do actually propose common sense solutions implemented by individual services (how you search users, who can you contact, etc). No one is also proposing breaking e2ee and monitoring messages, the most controversial part is about client side scanning of media. And the original proposal was different but after talking with many privacy groups it was changed. Now it’s very close to what privacy advocates are proposing with the only problematic part being the client side scanning. Privacy advocates simply propose to ignore the issue of distributing CSAM and EU still wants to address it.
If you think client side scanning is not a massive spy apparatus, you don’t understand the technology. There is no such thing as purely on device CSAM detection. See Discord banning people for minecraft inventory pictures if you need an example how broken the automated part of the technology is. It’s just sending messagis to law enforcement to read with extra steps.
As for the first part, Chat Control is not mandating age verification. It’s identity verification. If a beraucrat decides lemmy.world is a risk, you will have to provide an ID to post here regardless of your age and the instance admin will have to use their limited abilities to store and protect them. Good luck with that shit. That is a spy apparatus. And it is unnecessary. The conversations are public. Instead of just letting the predators find a different place, create a better reporting system. Or hell, at least make it an actual age verification using Zero Knowledge proofs. But they don’t want to do that, they want our identities.
Same thing with CSAM, you don’t get born knowing the phone number of your local CSAM distributor. Law enforcement can monitor for people advertising. They can pose as interested people or distributors. There is no reason to break encryption over this. Nor is it even possible while open source exists.
If you think client side scanning is not a massive spy apparatus, you don’t understand the technology.
I think scanning of media is not a massive spy apparatus. Breaking e2ee and scanning of all communications would be. If they want to monitor journalists and protesters by only scanning media they are doing shit job at building their spy apparatus.
The conversations are public.
No they are not, most of social media (if not all) has some direct message mechanism.
Instead of just letting the predators find a different place, create a better reporting system.
Most kids don’t report those things. This is part of the problem and Chat Control does address that by mandating better reporting systems.
As for the first part, Chat Control is not mandating age verification.
It does:
“”" 3.Providers of interpersonal communications services that have identified, pursuant to the risk assessment conducted or updated in accordance with Article 3, a risk of use of their services for the purpose of the solicitation of children, shall take the necessary age verification and age assessment measures to reliably identify child users on their services, enabling them to take the mitigation measures. “”"
Chat Control only talks about identifying child users. I don’t see anything there that mandates storing of IDs. Can you point me to the relevant part of the legislation?
Same thing with CSAM, you don’t get born knowing the phone number of your local CSAM distributor. Law enforcement can monitor for people advertising. They can pose as interested people or distributors.
And I’m sure law enforcement already does that. As I said, privacy advocates think that’s enough and this problem should not be addressed by EU. EU think it should. Chat Control was not approved yet, there are discussions to find the right solution.
You are reading the text and not thinking what it looks like in reality.
I think scanning of media is not a massive spy apparatus. Breaking e2ee and scanning of all communications would be. If they want to monitor journalists and protesters by only scanning media they are doing shit job at building their spy apparatus.
What happens when the scan identifies an image as CSAM? If the answer is notify authorities with unencrypted chat, then it is a spy apparatus. The false positives are high enough that they will get to read countless innocent conversations and there are ways to intentionally induce false positives if you want specific conversations. And if it does not report, then what does it do?
No they are not, most of social media (if not all) has some direct message mechanism.
Those are rarely available to strangers by default and I have no issue in banning direct DMs to strangers.
Most kids don’t report those things. This is part of the problem and Chat Control does address that by mandating better reporting systems.
So there is one decent thing in this law, let’s pass all the privacy invasive stuff as well. /s I have no issue with better reporting, but the chat monitoring needs to go.
Chat Control only talks about identifying child users. I don’t see anything there that mandates storing of IDs. Can you point me to the relevant part of the legislation?
Sure, so how is a company supposed to implement it? Only to government issuing IDs can realistically provide Zero Knowledge proofs. If they don’t support this option, companies can’t really use it. And companies generally need to keep records that prove they are complying with the law, which is again impossible while preserving privacy unless the government helps.
And I’m sure law enforcement already does that.
Just google how underfunded to agencies responding to existing reports are. They are not doing anywhere near what they could.
Chat Control was not approved yet, there are discussions to find the right solution.
The reason it did not pass so far is because of privacy advocates spreading awareness of how fucking broken the law is and creating push back. The time to consult experts and improve the law was in the EU commission, before putting it to vote in the Parliament. Clearly they did not care to protect privacy until people pushed back. The commission and other supporters are still looking for ways to pass it without addressing the privacy issue. See recent emergency measure passed using vacations to bypass a proper vote.
I am sure there are people that support the bill with good intentions but I have lost any fate in the EU to care for the privacy of its citizens.
I am sure there are people that support the bill with good intentions but I have lost any fate in the EU to care for the privacy of its citizens.
That’s ok, you can be outraged about it. I’m not. I don’t support Chat Control but I’m also not worried police is going to monitor my chats on Signal looking for messages criticizing the government or that I will be prosecuted for my comments on lemmy. I have better things to be outraged about. You’re just another person on the internet insisting I should be outraged about it but I simply don’t care.
Chat Control. It’s not evil EU trying to read everyone’s messages. It’s EU working with various groups to solve an issue, like they do all the time.
Yes, various groups trying to solve a problem that barely exists by creating problems orders of magnitude worse but gives them more power. But surely there are no nefarious motivations there.
Online grooming barely exists? I’ve seen reports that it’s quite common in Roblox for example but I don’t have kids so I don’t know.
I am not saying online grooming is not a problem, but as you said, it happens on public spaces like Roblox, where predators can find children. Chat Control is unnecessary to monitor those. Random youtubers have been able to do that. No need to build a massive spy apparatus. Instead, of adressing this, Chat Control tries to pry open secure communications like Signal used by journalists, protesters, etc. Applications where grooming is not much of an issue as you only communicate with your existing contacts.
Chat Control ignores the rampant grooming in plain sight while trying to spy on communications where it is rare. So tell me, am I paranoid to think they have different motivation to breach those and are only using “protecting kids” as an excuse?
I don’t think you’re paranoid, more uninformed.
Chat Control proposed two things:
Some, let’s call them, ‘anti-grooming’, common sense rules by default. They propose identifying high risk services in which you can for example search users by age and send them private messages. Those services would be required to do things like age verification to separate children from adults. If services don’t want to do age verification they have to implement measures like not letting users send private messages to everyone, not being able to search by age, limiting what info is visible to other users (pictures? names? locations? interests?), limiting public spaces (do you need common, public chats in Roblox or can it be limited to chats with friends only?) and so on. I think this is way better than hoping youtube vigilantes will look for pedos for views.
The other thing they are trying to solve is using e2ee messaging apps to distribute CSAM. Here they don’t want to touch encryption in any way and the proposal is to let providers voluntarily scan media client side. This was proposed as mandatory at first but was changed later. This is the part people don’t like as it indirectly forces providers to scan media client side. Nobody likes it but no one proposed any other solution to limit distribution of CSAM.
So what you’re describing is not very accurate. No one is proposing large scale monitoring using some massive spy apparatus. They do actually propose common sense solutions implemented by individual services (how you search users, who can you contact, etc). No one is also proposing breaking e2ee and monitoring messages, the most controversial part is about client side scanning of media. And the original proposal was different but after talking with many privacy groups it was changed. Now it’s very close to what privacy advocates are proposing with the only problematic part being the client side scanning. Privacy advocates simply propose to ignore the issue of distributing CSAM and EU still wants to address it.
If you think client side scanning is not a massive spy apparatus, you don’t understand the technology. There is no such thing as purely on device CSAM detection. See Discord banning people for minecraft inventory pictures if you need an example how broken the automated part of the technology is. It’s just sending messagis to law enforcement to read with extra steps.
As for the first part, Chat Control is not mandating age verification. It’s identity verification. If a beraucrat decides lemmy.world is a risk, you will have to provide an ID to post here regardless of your age and the instance admin will have to use their limited abilities to store and protect them. Good luck with that shit. That is a spy apparatus. And it is unnecessary. The conversations are public. Instead of just letting the predators find a different place, create a better reporting system. Or hell, at least make it an actual age verification using Zero Knowledge proofs. But they don’t want to do that, they want our identities.
Same thing with CSAM, you don’t get born knowing the phone number of your local CSAM distributor. Law enforcement can monitor for people advertising. They can pose as interested people or distributors. There is no reason to break encryption over this. Nor is it even possible while open source exists.
I think scanning of media is not a massive spy apparatus. Breaking e2ee and scanning of all communications would be. If they want to monitor journalists and protesters by only scanning media they are doing shit job at building their spy apparatus.
No they are not, most of social media (if not all) has some direct message mechanism.
Most kids don’t report those things. This is part of the problem and Chat Control does address that by mandating better reporting systems.
It does:
“”" 3.Providers of interpersonal communications services that have identified, pursuant to the risk assessment conducted or updated in accordance with Article 3, a risk of use of their services for the purpose of the solicitation of children, shall take the necessary age verification and age assessment measures to reliably identify child users on their services, enabling them to take the mitigation measures. “”"
Chat Control only talks about identifying child users. I don’t see anything there that mandates storing of IDs. Can you point me to the relevant part of the legislation?
And I’m sure law enforcement already does that. As I said, privacy advocates think that’s enough and this problem should not be addressed by EU. EU think it should. Chat Control was not approved yet, there are discussions to find the right solution.
You are reading the text and not thinking what it looks like in reality.
What happens when the scan identifies an image as CSAM? If the answer is notify authorities with unencrypted chat, then it is a spy apparatus. The false positives are high enough that they will get to read countless innocent conversations and there are ways to intentionally induce false positives if you want specific conversations. And if it does not report, then what does it do?
Those are rarely available to strangers by default and I have no issue in banning direct DMs to strangers.
So there is one decent thing in this law, let’s pass all the privacy invasive stuff as well. /s I have no issue with better reporting, but the chat monitoring needs to go.
Sure, so how is a company supposed to implement it? Only to government issuing IDs can realistically provide Zero Knowledge proofs. If they don’t support this option, companies can’t really use it. And companies generally need to keep records that prove they are complying with the law, which is again impossible while preserving privacy unless the government helps.
Just google how underfunded to agencies responding to existing reports are. They are not doing anywhere near what they could.
The reason it did not pass so far is because of privacy advocates spreading awareness of how fucking broken the law is and creating push back. The time to consult experts and improve the law was in the EU commission, before putting it to vote in the Parliament. Clearly they did not care to protect privacy until people pushed back. The commission and other supporters are still looking for ways to pass it without addressing the privacy issue. See recent emergency measure passed using vacations to bypass a proper vote.
I am sure there are people that support the bill with good intentions but I have lost any fate in the EU to care for the privacy of its citizens.
That’s ok, you can be outraged about it. I’m not. I don’t support Chat Control but I’m also not worried police is going to monitor my chats on Signal looking for messages criticizing the government or that I will be prosecuted for my comments on lemmy. I have better things to be outraged about. You’re just another person on the internet insisting I should be outraged about it but I simply don’t care.
Nah, it’s clueless actionism.
👍