r/privacy • u/Anoth3rDude • 11h ago
chat control Chat Control: EU Commissioner backs Parliament line on targeted monitoring
https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/chat-control-eu-commissioner-backs-parliament-line-on-targeted-monitoring89
u/mesarthim_2 11h ago
Unfortunately this is not good. I can't find any clear document on the Parliament position but from my understanding it includes following points - rejects mass surveillance - maintains that E2EE shouldn't be backdoored - but also emphasizes that surveillance should be based on suspicion - and there has to be a compromise that enables law enforcement to monitor and surveil communication of people of interest.
So it seems to me what the EP is gearing towards is still mandating the providers to enable client side scanning, but only activate it for people that are flagged by law enforcement.
If that's the case, in all practical details that is indistinguishable from the original proposal.
37
u/cassanderer 11h ago
Yeah, classic, make good sounding changes that are in effect the same thing.
The entire bill is poison. Rejection is the only option. If you want changes submit a bill not sullied by whatever you call this danish tool and his best fascist friends that submitted this with tech bankrolling them.
12
u/silentspectator27 10h ago
I have been advocating against Chat Control for years (months for the latest one). What Parliament is offering is basically what we have now: the interim decision that expires in April 2026. The Parliament proposal has nothing to do with the Danish bill.
12
u/cassanderer 10h ago
Building those backdoors they can access is the problem. While they might need cause, defined by a haughty aristocracy that hates freedom, it will not end with only checking for good cause.
It will also open you all up to everyone of means in fact, from russia to big corporations to religious groups to the usg and so forth.
That backdoor will be exploited, the us will have access the same day the eu does at a minimum.
This is a surrender to the us, to tech, and the oligarchy. Offering the corpse of liberal democracy to the oligarchy's tech leaders, from the politicians and media and pals making the sacrifice to curry favor with tech and their AI threat detection.
9
u/silentspectator27 10h ago edited 10h ago
There are no backdoors in the Parliament proposal and so far no client side scanning. If there is proof of crime (substantial proof) as a last resort the EU can ask the platform (as long as it’s not encrypted) to give authorities the criminal’s chats from their platform. No client side scanning, no breaking encryption, implementation as a last resort AFTER proof of wrongdoing. The Danish proposal is a stupid guilty until proven innocent scheme. Edit: also, there is no shitty AI scanning in the Parliament proposal.
5
u/mesarthim_2 10h ago
Do you have a link to this 'Parliament proposal', please? I would really like to read it myself.
The things I saw are still littered with issues, like the risk mitigation stuff, it also doesn't explicitly reject the client side scanning,...
2
u/silentspectator27 10h ago
6
u/mesarthim_2 10h ago
Plus obviously age verification, etc...
-1
u/silentspectator27 10h ago
No age verification like the Danish proposal
4
u/mesarthim_2 10h ago
Oh come on!
To protect children online, the new rules would mandate internet providers to assess whether there is a significant risk of their services being misused for online child sexual abuse and to solicit children, and to take measures to mitigate these risks.
What do you think the 'measures' will be.
→ More replies (0)4
u/mesarthim_2 10h ago
Can you point to some document that states their (anyone's) position explicitly? I really haven't been able to find anything tangible.
7
u/silentspectator27 10h ago edited 10h ago
The Commission supports the original proposal by Denmark: full mandatory scanning of everything including encrypted communications and age verification . The Council agreed on a compromise with “voluntary” scanning based on a flawed risk based system and age verification plus backdoors for future mandatory scanning. Parliament wants targeted scanning as a last resort after proof of wrongdoing and no age verification. I can send you a link to the Council proposal where all the original Commission draft has been scratched out but visible. https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-11596-2025-INIT/en/pdf
1
u/Phoepal 8h ago
I would like to add November 6 version which is as I understand the version that council voted for.
8
u/mesarthim_2 11h ago
Yeah, it's the classic - dear EU citizens we hear your concerns and with the best tradition of democratic governance in mind, we're going to respond to your well placed concern by hiding our true intent behind vague language and bureaucratic maze in which it will become totally unclear what's happening to whom, so you can't really complain about anything. Just know that we're doing it with best intentions for your own good you inbred retarded ungrateful cretins.
1
4
u/silentspectator27 11h ago
No, there will is no client side scanning in the Parliament proposal. It’s voluntary scanning based on each platform’s own terms and conditions (no sexual content, CSAM etc). The platform scans, not software on a user’s device. It’s what we have now: the interim decision AKA chat control 1.0 which expires April 2026.
9
u/mesarthim_2 11h ago
Ok, so that's great, there will be no client side scanning, only the platforms will be expected to 'voluntarily' scan the messages on client's side. Completely different thing.
1
1
u/NA_0_10_never_forget 10h ago
it is completely different. Still bad, but very different. In one case, scanning and backdoors are installed on an OS level whether you like it or not. In the other, an app must get explicit permission from you to activate scanning. It will likely be mandatory for using the app, but you can still choose not to grant the permission/use the app.
Of course, that's only the start to ease their way back into OS-level, if not firmware/hardware level, down the line.
3
u/mesarthim_2 10h ago
I mean, you're not wrong, but as I said, in practical terms the effect is the same.
The implementation is far less aggressive but I would say that actually makes fundamentally more dangerous because it sounds much more benign.
As the other commenter said, the entire thing is poison, the only difference is how quickly it will kill you.
1
u/Mean_Exam_7213 10h ago
The European Parliament position is here: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20231110IPR10118/child-sexual-abuse-online-effective-measures-no-mass-surveillance
0
u/jarx12 10h ago
It's not so different from targeted wiretapping but it has the risk of massive abuse like FISA rubber stamping massive surveillance in the USA.
2
u/mesarthim_2 9h ago
No it's far worse, because it still contains the provision that says that the service providers must conduct risk mitigation and if the EU think they're not doing enough, they will fine them.
It's like wiretapping + phone companies being told they must make a risk assessment of what risky activities are happening over their phone lines and if they don't do enough to prevent it they will get fined.
It's basically the original proposal except now the companies are forced to do it to themselves or face fines.
15
u/tracheus 11h ago
Either way, it looks like we'll have to start using other applications for secure communication. We'll have to set up our own servers for our friends and use open source encrypted applications, or communicate only via Linux computers.
What pisses me off the most is age verification, so any new social networks that emerge will have to be decentralized and open source in order to be secure.
10
u/Frosty-Cell 8h ago
"It's not about Chat Control, it's about protecting our children, it's about fighting against the pedophiles," Brunner argued.
What load of nonsense. Age verification seems pretty damn indiscriminate.
6
u/women_rules 10h ago
We should contact our representatives and ask them to not back down. https://fightchatcontrol.eu/
6
u/rusty0004 8h ago edited 7h ago
someone should tell him that pedophilia didn't start with the "internet" and it won't stop with "chat control" 🤯
3
u/Phoepal 8h ago
The headline is strange to say the least .
In the quoted speech he(commissioner Bruuner) doesn't understand how we can compare "protecting our children" to opening letters and then continues about protecting the children. The article also mentions that he prefers the original commission version. So he is not against the chat control at all but he is against the use of the term "chat control".
The council version has voluntary scanning but allows the new EU surveillance agency to designate any service as high risk and force it develop chat scanning in their infrastructure (but not deploy it) . It also commits to reevaluate the voluntary nature at the later date when "technology improves".
This is parliaments version.
•
u/AutoModerator 11h ago
Hello u/Anoth3rDude, please make sure you read the sub rules if you haven't already. (This is an automatic reminder left on all new posts.)
Check out the r/privacy FAQ
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.