To me this means:
-
They couldn’t figure out how to do it, or
-
It was too expensive to implement, and
-
They’ll just get the NSA to share the data with them at a fraction of the cost
this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2023
632 points (99.4% liked)
Privacy
31876 readers
444 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
You forgot one:
- They'll quietly re-introduce it in another 6-18 months.
Ha, yes. I was thinking about that after I posted the comment.
Quick politics primer. The EU Parliament is not all-powerful. It cannot even propose legislation (yet). The EU is still mostly a confederation so it's the governments that hold the reins. But the EP has to say yes for anything to pass. And since it is essentially a consultative body, the EP also tends to contain at least a handful of earnest idealists and specialists (usually Germans) who know when to say no, and how to amend legislation. They are often from the Greens-EFA parliamentary group and sometimes from the liberal Renew group. That is likely what happened here, yet again. It is very important for EU citizens to vote for these parties and candidates in EU elections. The next election is coming up in 6 months.
More likely they were forced to change course due to public lobbying allegations and "expert" list comprised of big tech and cops being exposed.
I think the headline is missleading, if I understand it correctly.
ChatControl is already possible, and implemented for major communication service providers that most of the people use. It's just not mantadory.
Currently a regulation is in place allowing providers to scan communications voluntarily (so-called “Chat Control 1.0”). So far only some unencrypted US communications services such as GMail, Facebook/Instagram Messenger, Skype, Snapchat, iCloud email and X-Box apply chat control voluntarily (more details here). source
~~The article states that they decided that they will not blanketly require it, but I don't think it says anything about rolling back the first version of ChatControl that's already in effect.~~
EDIT: I was wrong, the article actually does mention it, even though on pretty vague terms:
The current voluntary chat control of private messages (not social networks) by US internet companies is being phased out. Targeted telecommunication surveillance and searches will only be permitted with a judicial warrant and only limited to persons or groups of persons suspected of being linked to child sexual abuse material."
The new law would have required breaking end-to-end encryption (E2EE) as the companies would be required to scan messages. CSAM is just the pretext they use to compromise all communication. Same as "think of the children" is used to steal other rights.
That is true, but can't they (a company that wants to, not the goverment) do that already if they want to, under ChatControl 1.0? And I wouldn't say that whether a service is E2EE or not makes any difference here - scanning private user messages shouldn't be allowed, whether they are encrypted or not. IMO if ChatControl 2.0 passed and was made mantadory for everyone, the fact that it is mostly noticable on E2EE apps is only a side-effect of blanket surveilance, and not the main issue with the proposition.
What's the point of them agreeing that they will let the 1% of users of E2EE services keep their privacy, while they already scan 90% of communication (I mean, just GMail + FB/IG + iCloud, that is already being scanned, makes for most of the worlds communication) for the past year or so?
Now I'm curious whether Facebook/Instagram, who does offer encrypted chats and also scans all your content under ChatControl 1.0 voluntarily, also scans the encrypted chats or not. I'd vager they do, but that's just a speculation.
But they did briefly mention that they will begin "phasing out" chatcontrol 1.0. I wonder what does that means, and how long will it take.
That's the goal of end-to-end encryption. To make it impossible to scan. With E2EE company doesn't have the decryption key, so there is no legible content to scan.
P.S. It's still possible to collect metadata like when or who the message was sent, which is why services like WhatsApp which have E2EE are not recommended, but the content is safe.
the fact that it is mostly noticable on E2EE apps is only a side-effect of blanket surveilance, and not the main issue with the proposition.
Isn't it though? We moved past the non encryption communication being safe a long time ago. And just because they will phase the old law, it doesn't remove the ability of companies to still scan the messages or cops to request that data from those companies. Those companies still have access to the server and your encryption key where your messages are stored. E2EE on the other hand makes it technically impossible even if they want to do that or court orders them to do that.
Facebook says they plan to roll out full E2EE by 2024.
In my opinion, the most significant achievement lies in giving justice authorities the power to make decisions regarding time-limited and targeted enforcement responses. Regardless of the technology employed, it is crucial to have independent decision-making processes that prioritize the preservation of individual liberties.
I hope it encompasses enough so companies can't worm their way around it.
Let's gooooo!
I'll pray to Allah that this doesn't get reintroduced to fuck us in the ass a couple years later. Y'all pray to whoever else to cover our bases.
I'll pray to u.
Google and Facebook in shambles.
this does not affect Google, Meta or any other Big Tech at all. This law was trying to break encryption or do some sort of client side scanning. And it didn't got approved.
This does not force Google or Meta to encrypt your chats if they weren't doing so. Or to remove their own backdoors in the encryption if they had them. It's just a law that was not passed. So your comment does not make any sense.
PS: it's not like Google or Meta care too much about encrypting the contents. They'll happily take your metadata which is super valuable. This is what Meta does with WhatsApp.
Actually, isn't this a win for big tech companies? The gvt can't surveil us, but Whatsapp can use and sell big data.