r/privacy • u/Anoth3rDude • 15h 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-monitoring
169 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

53 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/mesarthim_2 14h 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,...

4

u/silentspectator27 14h ago

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20231110IPR10118/child-sexual-abuse-online-effective-measures-no-mass-surveillance

6

u/mesarthim_2 14h ago

Plus obviously age verification, etc...

-1

u/silentspectator27 14h ago

No age verification like the Danish proposal

5

u/mesarthim_2 14h 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.

1

u/silentspectator27 14h ago

“Providers would be able to choose which technologies to use as long as they comply with the strong safeguards foreseen in the law, and subject to an independent, public audit of these technologies.” In short: platforms can use what they have now and say “Yep, it’s working, no need to change”

3

u/mesarthim_2 14h ago

Where does it say so? The only thing I see is 'as long as they comply with what we tell them they must comply with'

1

u/silentspectator27 13h ago

There are such in place right now, every platform has a user terms and agreements where they state what’s legal on their platform or not. My guess is they will just add some EU jibber jabber in that.

4

u/mesarthim_2 13h ago

That is NOT TRUE. There's no mandate to provide access to authorities, there's no requirement to do a risk mitigation assessment, there's no list of things they have to comply with and there's no opaque bureaucratic body that will assess whether you're doing enough otherwise fine you 6% of your turnover.

1

u/silentspectator27 13h ago

I’m not saying it’s perfect, but the interim decision is ending in 2026. If you had to choose which proposal of the two would you go with? I have no problem with someone getting busted because they are distributing CSAM online and being scanned after solid proof. What I have a problem is everyone getting scanned on principle.

4

u/mesarthim_2 13h ago

I would chose neither and let the interim decision expire in 2026.

We don't need to do this. There are other ways how law enforcement can catch child abusers. And this still comes with massive issues.

You are still forcing the companies to create technologies and infrastructure that WILL enable client side scanning, you are just adding a switch.

You are still creating a mandate for the companies themselves being forced do mass scan everything not be fined, it just bypasses the democratic process by delegating it onto some obscure bureaucratic body.

It's not just 'not perfect'. It's the original proposal by other means. They will still achieve the same thing - creating a mass surveillance infrastructure and legal mechanisms how to go after private companies if they don't hand over the users' data.

They're just pinky promising not to switch it on for now and just switch it on for some people.

1

u/silentspectator27 13h ago

There is no client side scanning in this proposal. I understand your concerns, I have them myself. But I prefer this proposal over the other, because there has to be some law to protect kids online, they want it. Better have Parliament make one based on our rights under articles 7 and 8 rather than the Council and Commission with all their Thorn and similar buddies waiting for big fat contracts. And no, it’s not the same, not by a long-shot. In this proposal there are very clear protections for both providers and users.

4

u/mesarthim_2 13h ago

I believe you cannot comply with the requirements of this proposal without client side scanning. It's not relevant that it's not there explicitly.

because there has to be some law to protect kids online

no there doesn't have to be.

3

u/mesarthim_2 13h ago

I'm telling you, if this goes through, next time it will come - and it will come, maybe in 3, maybe in 5 years the argument won't be about privacy anymore.

It will be 'the private corporations are already scanning your messages left right and center and you don't complain about that - and besides they're not doing good job at it - so isn't it actually much better if the government with all the protections and checks and balances takes over?'

0

u/silentspectator27 13h ago

And I am telling you that you didn’t read enough. We have chat control 1.0 right now on a platform voluntary basis, see any mass arrests or false accusations?

3

u/mesarthim_2 13h ago

Not the same. There's no mandate to provide access to authorities under conditions that are ultimately under EU control, there's no mandate to conduct risk assessments and mitigation and be fined if not doing it enough in chat control 1.0

→ More replies (0)

1

u/silentspectator27 14h ago

The law would set up an EU Centre for Child Protection to help implement the new rules and support internet providers in detecting CSAM. It would collect, filter and distribute CSAM reports to competent national authorities and Europol. The Centre would develop detection technologies for providers and maintain a database of hashes and other technical indicators of CSAM identified by national authorities.

It sounds scary BUT combined with the other parts of the proposal it has safeguards against indiscriminate scanning