Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- > the fundamental misunderstanding of encryption technology continues to plague policy discussions across Europe.
> Client-side scanning, the technical approach favored by Chat Control advocates, attempts to circumvent this limitation by analyzing messages on users’ devices before encryption or after decryption. While this might sound like a clever workaround, it fundamentally breaks the security model of encryption.
It's not a misunderstanding, it's deliberate circumvention. It doesn't do anyone any good to pretend that they just don't understand.
by IshKebab - If you're going to do this, I wish people would go the other way. Don't work to prevent the worst from happening.
Write a law that end-users have an unlimited right to execute their own programs on their own devices, on par with the producers of said devices, just any code they want. A device doesn't support that? No selling in the EU for you ...
Such a right would make chat control impossible and unworkable as well, for the same reason that open source encryption can't be hacked. It will be impossible to prevent secure messengers to be installed.
by spwa4 - Will we get new cute domains for websites against the initiative when it is reintroduced once again?by ewuhic
- 25th time's the charmby meowface
- While True: ProposeChatControl() and returnby p0w3n3d
- the real question is: when and in what form will it be re-proposed next?by vb-8448
- Or done quietly outside of the public's attention, assuming it's not already being done.by gblargg
- Probably combined with a bunch of unrelated laws, in an unrelated legislative committee, all to try to keep it out of public attention.
- As often as possible. They only have to win once. The people need to win every single time.by ryandrake
- Comparing electronic chats to former communication methods... Would people have objected to the government scanning all of their physical postal letters for keywords that might suggest something illegal? Don't they need some legal ground to do this in advance of the act?
Why are chats different?
by beezlewax - You mean to the indiscriminate reading of ALL the letters without the court order?
Ummmmm....yeah? You don't? It's enough the metadata is collected already.
by subscribed - You can't break encryption "only sometimes"by cerved
- The speed of communication has changed a little bit, but still, a hard "no" to the government reading everything I say.
Digital communication is more direct speech, including maybe whispering, than it is writing a letter.
by YeahThisIsMe - Arbitrary interception of messages is a violation of the constitution in several European countries. The expectation of privacy in messaging is also codified in Article 8 of the ECHR, although with the usual nebulous exceptions.
This is an excerpt of Swedish Regeringsformen[1]:
> Everyone is also protected against body searches, house searches and similar intrusions, as well as against the examination of letters or other confidential mail and against the secret interception or recording of telephone conversations or other confidential messages.
- They are not. For example, according to Italian Constitution [1], chat control is unconstitutional:
note the "EVERY" other form of communication. (Maybe somebody will be able to twist in a way that makes chat control constitutional, or somebody else will argue that since it is an EU law the constitution doesn't matter, but the spirit is clear)Art. 15 Freedom and confidentiality of correspondence and of every other form of communication is inviolable. Limitations may only be imposed by judicial decision stating the reasons and in accordance with the guarantees provided by the law.[1] https://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costi...
- I really don’t think this has anything to do with pressure from the 10% of the public that can afford to care about this.
Politicians, and more importantly influential people, also rely on the same tech as we do and they have infinitely more to lose if their communications leak.
by fguerraz - They won't have the same phones we do. Elites don't follow rules. They push them into others.by isaacremuant
- Von der Leyen's phone was convenintly erased before it could be used as evidence in a court case against her. So no. Maybe stuff will leak but this isn't South Korea with two presidents in jail and thd last one on his way to jail.by petre
- The politicians gave themselves an exemption from the scanning. This is just from the top search result but this is widely reported.
“The scanning would apply to all EU citizens, except EU politicians. They might exempt themselves from the law under “professional secrecy” rules” https://nextcloud.com/blog/how-the-eu-chat-control-law-is-a-...
by djcannabiz - I don’t get how this debate keeps cropping up. Is there not some career disincentive/consequence where if you try to push Encryption back doors, you get demolished in your re-electionby gnarlouse
- That's why they do it so stealthily, most of the time encryption isn't even mentioned. What they often do is talk about the need to "protect the children" at the responsibility of the service provider, who in order to comply would have to disable encryption on their own. It would technically remain legal, only banned de jure.
Also most average people don't know anything about encryption or backdoors, not even the meaning of those words. In their minds they have nothing to be concerned or mad about.
by ntoskrnl_exe - Gotta get the average voter to know/care more for that to happen.by mpalmer
- They only have to get "lucky" once, we have to get lucky every time so it makes sense if you want this to keep pushing it - once the law is passed it's much harder to revoke it later.
The people pushing it are ~bribed~ lobbied hard by groups who want this so they don't care about wasting their time or resources since they are getting paid for it.
> Is there not some career disincentive/consequence where if you try to push Encryption back doors, you get demolished in your re-election
In a somewhat ironic turn of events we don't know who was pushing it this time as they where protected by anonymity - one rule for them I guess and another for everyone else.
by noir_lord - Having taken a closer look, there's nothing really nefarious going on: what is mainly happening is that every step of the very long process of passing a EU regulation is getting lots of attention.
Back in 2020 or so the commission first proposed the reform that contains the chat control provisions, then there was like a year or two of well published fighting in the European Parliament (EP) before they reached a position on the entire reform (notably excluding chat control).
Meanwhile the council of minister (effectively the upper house of the EP) didn't get around to forming an opinion before the parliament, so they are doing that now, which means it the same fight over chat control all over again but with different people.
After the council of ministers agrees on a position on the entire reform proposal from the commission we'll get even more rounds of bickering over what the final text should be: the trialogue. Those tend to be very closed, but with how much attention chat control is getting expect lots of leaks and constant news about who's being an ass during that step too.
Note that it is explicitly expected that each of the thee bodies will come up with different positions on many aspects of a regulation proposal, so there is nothing strange with the commission or the council suggesting some the parliament has opposed.
- At least in Sweden, almost all established parties support this legislation making it difficult for voters to vote against it without voting for fringe parties outside parliament (piratpartiet for example). Further, mainstream media hasn’t given it much attention so politicians has been able to be pro this legislation while in general being pro peoples integrity. Quite incoherent, but not challenged by anyone.
- Who wants this?
Who is driving it?
Who wants this so much that they have gone to the massive expense and effort?
Whoever it is - they know thet defeat is only temporary, and if they keep bringing it back from the dead, eventually it will succeed.
by wewewedxfgdf - > Who wants this?
FAANG, various 3 letter agencies.
> Who is driving it?
FAANG lobbists. Stupid politicians who think they can only use it on adversaries.
by hulitu - Most of all this noise is just the product of the drawn out legislative process of the EU, the commission included chat control in a larger package suggested ca 2021 and it's been working itself through the system since then, generating headlines every few months.
By now it's just too late to take it back and start over without including chat control.
- There is a nascent AI industry trying to sell their surveillance tech to governments.by irusensei
- The ultimate goal is to make anonymous speech online seem shady and suspicious (only trust thoughts from certified citizen accounts) and to make people more cautious about what they write online. Politicians are really tired of being mocked by anonymous people immune to being shamed with the help of the fourth estate (press). This legislation is one piece of the puzzle.
The people pushing this come from the usual power centers in European politics, the (current) centrists. They feel motivated to protect their positions against encroachments from what they consider extremist positions (be it e.g. economic left or right, or a or b on some other scale.)
by lysace