Remix.run Logo
inigyou 4 hours ago

The Chat Control 1.0 rule is simply that organisations like Meta are allowed to scan messages if they want to. In other words your Facebook messages are not private from Facebook. Surely we already knew and expected that.

Chat Control 2.0 is the worrying one because it mandates scanning and bans E2EE.

These two things should not have both been given the same branding.

john_strinlai 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>These two things should not have both been given the same branding.

the confusion is purposeful, because it is easier to convince people that 1.0 is okay, which makes 2.0 appear like a version bump of the same thing.

layer8 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

“Chat Control”, along with the version numbers, is a naming invented by the opponents, not by the proponents.

john_strinlai 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

huh, i stand corrected. what a massive blunder in that case.

inigyou 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

and they should not have done that

QuantumNomad_ an hour ago | parent [-]

I guess calling it Chat Stasi would be too on the nose :/

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

iLoveOncall 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think it's the contrary. People don't want Zuckerberg reading their private messages, and everyone in Eutope uses WhatsApp, which is advertised as E2E encrypted.

Therefore it makes Chat Control 2 a harder sell.

To be fair I think "<anything> Control" makes it pretty clesr it's nefarious. They missed the opportunity to call it "Chat Safety".

Cider9986 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The name "Chat Control" is great because it implies a lockdown on free speech and the exact consequences that are going to happen to everyone.

AshamedCaptain 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think the name is meaningless to the average layman, therefore useless. Something like "(private) chat police" would probably transmit what this is about but is not as catchy.

SpicyLemonZest 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I think that framing would be much more vulnerable to companies saying "no no, there's no human reading your chats, we just want to apply these fixed filters".

inigyou 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's suitable for Chat Control 2.0. Applying the same name to v1 just muddies the waters, probably intentionally..

Cider9986 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Agreed.

chronogamous 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Not everyone. Politicians and all their communication are to be excluded, for they have decided it is obvious that we can trust them. It's just the rest of the world that is considered untrustworthy. This also absolves them from having to go through a trial period of having the software tested on themselves, so they will never have to know about any ridiculous false positives. Or worse: all the stuff they communicate which they never considered to be problematic - it would have been so nice if they had at least had such a trial run, for say, about one or two years, with anything that is being flagged open for anyone who wishes to see.

The problem with this software is at the very core of why any sane person should reject it; a company like Thorn has no incentive whatsoever to actually come up with something that would work properly, especially since the target demographic that is to be monitored, is European. No worries if some firmware update bricks a massive amount of devices. Good for business. And I bet the US Government would also prefer if they prioritized having the backdoors work properly for listening in, over having the software scan properly (taking all the cultural and linguistic differences across the continent into account) just so that it will be capable of actually flagging what it is (for now) meant to flag.

Having your entire infrastructure of digital devices augmented with surveillance software is a bad idea in itself, but it's sheer madness if you're having this done for the whole of Europe, by using an American software endlosung/solution that was pushed by a Hollywood-actor who was so genuine in his motivation to save the children... truly impressive show of tears for someone who had the chance to save a number of girls from his predatory co-star a long time ago, like, to save them for real, yet he chose not to intervene... Years later, he's with Thorn, but still what he knows best is acting, so instead of focussing on actual victims, he's acting as if he gives a toss about present day children, knowing full well he is selling a dodgy technology using horror-scenarios they actually invented themselves for this very purpose.

In subsequent years this has led to an actual increase in number and variety of perpetrators in the field of sexual abuse and/or trafficking of minors - where it was quite a niche field in crime before - niche and overall way more predictable, making it possible to prevent quite a bit of it, too. Thanks to the fearmongering and constant need for succesfull detection of victims (as it is the metric they've used for years to keep the people providing them with money and power excited about the project) it has become much more problematic. The efforts of groups like Thorn have so effectively spread these horrorstories by pushing them as 'news' using so many newsoutlets, that this in itself caused a whole new demographic of messed up people to act them out, making the horrors a reality.

All this should be enough for anyone to know that, if you're totally hellbent on having a thing like chat control implemented, doing so by choosing to stick with software sold by these people or anyone from their circles will be disastrous.

amarcheschi 2 hours ago | parent [-]

As far as I remember, law enforcement officers or army people were to be exempted too

IshKebab 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes but that's how all of these objectionable legislations are introduced - first it's voluntary, then they wait a bit and say "companies aren't doing it, we'll need to make it mandatory".

Easier to push through if the only thing they're changing is "may" to "must".