| ▲ | mrtksn 6 hours ago |
| FTA: What changes with the return of Chat Control 1.0—and what stays the same: *What is coming back:*
US tech companies are once again allowed to scan private messages without a warrant or prior suspicion. This affects direct messages on platforms like Instagram, Discord, Snapchat, Skype, and Xbox, as well as emails via Google’s Gmail and Apple’s iCloud. *What remains unchanged:*
Public social media posts and files hosted in cloud storage could already be scanned without this law. Furthermore, private messages can always be reported by users, or monitored by authorities using targeted, court-ordered wiretapping. *What is still NOT being scanned:*
End-to-end encrypted chats, such as those on WhatsApp, have always been exempt from these scans. Additionally, European providers of messaging and email services have never implemented chat control measures. So, E2E is unaffected? |
|
| ▲ | budududuroiu 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The Internet Watch Foundation, the group, funded almost entirely by big tech, who pushed for this vote to be held under emergency procedure, is already at work lobbying for the end of E2EE [1]. In a couple years time, Chat Control 2.0 will come about, and the same tyrants will use the EU admission [2] that there is no evidence that suspicionless scanning of private communications has led to an increase in criminal convictions or in rescued children to argue that we need to go further, and break E2EE. [1]: https://www.iwf.org.uk/resources/end-to-end-encryption-and-k...
[2]: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE... |
| |
| ▲ | Ruphin an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Why would big tech be in favor of having to scan message content? It puts more regulatory requirements in place on their activities. Would they not be in favor of _less_ regulation so they can provide services to their users with fewer legal considerations? If big tech _wanted_ to they could already backdoor their encryption and scan the message content, they don't need regulation to do that. The only thing that changes with regulation is that they now _have_ to, which cannot possibly be in their favor. | | |
| ▲ | belval an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > Would they not be in favor of _less_ regulation so they can provide services to their users with fewer legal considerations? Regulatory capture. If the handling of user messages requires constant scanning and there are enough rules that you need a team of lawyers, then only Google, Meta and Apple will be able to afford it. | | |
| ▲ | omnimus 42 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Also without chat control they would have to follow much stricter eprivacy directive laws that makes many of their monetisation strategies ilegal. It's briliant really... instead of trying to dismantle privacy regulations you push for new regulation that overrides them and make data mining users even mandatory. | |
| ▲ | inglor_cz 2 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I cannot imagine Musk simply submitting to this sort of EU demand, and he has enough hue-and-cry capability on X to maneuver other tech firms into very uncomfortable positions in the same regard. | |
| ▲ | elictronic 39 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | That is regulatory capture but it really feels like it should be called something else. If the laws are designed to directly benefit it makes sense like with the FAA allowing Boeing to self regulate to the point of killing a few hundred people. This feels more like bureaucratic capture or some other name, where the entity must be so large to interact. It has the same effect and you are not wrong, I just wish it was clearer. |
| |
| ▲ | boredpeter an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
| |
| ▲ | ratorx 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Do you have source for IWF funding being by big tech? Haven’t found anything that breaks their funding down by source and the majority on the UK govt site is from “charitable activities” (https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/en/ch...) |
|
|
| ▲ | lrae 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yes. Chat Control 2.0 was the big one in those regards. (Also, LOL @ Skype mention.) |
| |
| ▲ | mrtksn 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Then I'm not very moved about this. I always assumed that anything unencrypted is scanned one way or another. What I care is not having a backdoor for E2E, i.e. like client-side scanning telling me what I am allowed to talk about like with the LLMs. CSAM excuse is a great excuse to turn every conversation to what we have with AI today. | | |
| ▲ | alanwreath an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I assume the same, but not because it’s sanctioned. Sanctioning is a slippery slope or a degree change as has been mentioned. | |
| ▲ | stavros 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | And the temperature of the frog pot rises by one degree. | | |
| ▲ | mrtksn 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | kode-targz 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I disagree.
The definition of "bad actor" constantly changes. Something you do legally today can and will become illegal in the future, and if you don't change your ways, you will be a bad actor, too. The people pushing for this under the guise of protecting children are the same people who went on The Island, or at least protect those who did. They never cared about children's safety. The biggest criminals of all are the very same people pushing for these laws, this surveillance, this control. Don't be fooled. | | |
| ▲ | mrtksn 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sure, the definition changes but whoever are the bad actors now create the desire to deal with them, which creates a motive or excuse to create or change systems for that. No matter how fair or unfair the treatment is, if you actually manage to stonewall that through technological or other means, those will be destroyed. | | |
| ▲ | kode-targz 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't think I understand what you're trying to say in this comment, but if by:
>if you actually manage to stonewall that through technological or other means, those will be destroyed You mean some kind of resistance against tyrannical policies, then those "other means", if I understand what you're saying, are often illegal. True resistance that causes true societal change isn't parading the streets with signs or talking to your local representative. It's sabotage, vandalism, and in extreme cases, violence. True activism. The surveillance state's main goal is disrupting such initiatives before they can even get off the ground. |
|
| |
| ▲ | hnhg 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's a metaphor for a process. Calling people names like "maxxers" is unhelpful and probably against the rules here. | | |
| ▲ | mrtksn 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | >It's a metaphor for a process. Calling people names like "maxxers" is unhelpful and probably against the rules here. Yeah we don't mean frogs, that's obvious. Calling people maxxers being offensive is surprising. Maybe you should consider offended for being called cancer instead? |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | bombcar 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Don't downplay Skype, as Teams is still just rebranded Skype for Business (LYNC). | |
| ▲ | raverbashing 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Are my AIM chats safe?! /s | | |
|
|
| ▲ | sneak an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > What is coming back: US tech companies are once again allowed to scan private messages without a warrant or prior suspicion. This affects direct messages on platforms like Instagram, Discord, Snapchat, Skype, and Xbox, as well as emails via Google’s Gmail and Apple’s iCloud. They are already allowed to do this, and already are doing this. When you provide data to the service provider in a non-e2ee fashion, it's their data as much as it is yours. They can scan it, data mine it, analyze it, whatever. |
| |
| ▲ | omnimus 34 minutes ago | parent [-] | | This is the whole point though. They are allowed to do this because of the original chat control from 2021 which was temporary and expired in march. Without chat control it is very debatable what companies can legally thanks to eprivacy directive. |
|
|
| ▲ | nonethewiser an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Skype? |
|
| ▲ | phito 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Does this apply only to new messages or also to history? |
|
| ▲ | scotty79 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Are the messages to LLMs scanned (beyond normal collection for future training purposes) or is that just for human-to-human messenging? |
| |
|
| ▲ | armchairhacker 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
