Fighting pedophilia at the expense of our privacy: The EU rule that could break the internet
Fighting pedophilia at the expense of our privacy: The EU rule that could break the internet
The European Parliament and the Council are discussing a regulation that would ensure all messages get scanned for child pornography and which is perceived by many as a threat to basic freedoms
Taking away privacy makes it easier for children to be abused.
Remember, the most likely abusers of children are not strangers off the Internet; they're people who have authority over those children: parents, church leaders, teachers, coaches, police, etc.
Private online communication makes it easier for abused children to get help.
In other words, these laws are not "fighting pedophilia". They are enabling child abuse.
162In other words, these laws are not “fighting pedophilia”. They are enabling child abuse.
So no different than all these laws that (supposedly) "stop sex trafficking" which only exist to clamp down on sex work while... drumroll... making absolutely no dent in actual sex trafficking?
Yeah... that tracks.
25On top of all that, I wonder how much the types of backports they're rooting for would be used to acquire the kind of material pedophiles are after. I mean kids will be kids either way and be stupid and the people that are after kiddie porn seem more likely the type of people to know their way around and stay hidden, because they're literally predators. These backports will be abused by both "the legitimate" side and criminals, so wouldn't having a "special key" to unlock your backdoor put your children in more danger, especially when you're sleeping sound thinking you're safe and therefore not worried about someone, "breaking in". (Is it still breaking in if they have a fucking key?)
20I don't really see your point. There would still be private communication, it would just not be private in the eyes of the law anymore. Wouldn't make it easier for abusers to abuse.
Or did I just miss something?
-12- Backdoors in consumer software cannot in fact be restricted to "legitimate" use. All it takes is one "bad apple" to leak the keys -- say, a radicalized police officer leaking them to a fascist group for use in harassing political opponents -- and those keys show up on the darknet and are directly available to abusers. This is a much larger threat than (e.g.) traditional landline telephone wiretapping.
- If secure communication systems are made illegal, the organizations that build those systems (e.g. Signal) will shut down so as not to be prosecuted for "enabling child abuse". This deprives their current users, including children, of the secure communication systems they are already using today.
- Sadly, law enforcement officers abuse their power quite often. They also have a higher rate of domestic abuse than the general population. Giving them power to spy on children's communication is directly enabling abusers.
34Well. If you put a large glass window on the reinforced steel safe to make sure you can observe inside the safe. You can't exactly expect criminals to not just smash window instantly to take everything instead of struggling to open the safe harder way.
Making master key is also not the approach that works because unlike physical keys, digital keys can be copied millions of times exactly without any flaw over miliseconds without requiring any specialized tool on site.
1
Not gonna lie the fighting pedophilia seems more of an excuse in order to read our messages!
151The "fighting terrorism" argument didn't work, so this is their new angle.
120Or the "fighting drugs" argument either
5It worked, they just want even more access with less push back.
3
This is nothing new fighting pedophilia and human trafficking are the smokescreen used to enact most laws controlling the internet.
Edit to fill in what I’m implying: these laws (eg FOSTA-SESTA) are either ineffective or counterproductive in their stated goal, while simultaneously having broad add-on effects, generally harming free speech.
FOSTA-SESTA makes sex work less safe for those who are not trafficked. Meanwhile it pushes actual traffickers “underground” and off the internet, making it much harder for law enforcement to find and successfully prosecute them. Bonus: the law has been used to push sex education and general discussion of sex and sexuality off of major websites.
38These laws enable child abuse, not prevent it, by giving abusive authority figures greater ability to control and monitor their victims' communications.
15
"For the children!" legislation has never been for the children, and always has been pushing authoritarian laws that take away peoples power.
and they feel safe doing it, because they have the in built system of shutting down criticism and complaint with "Oh, so you DON'T want to protect the childrens? You DON'T want to stop them being sexually exploited?!"
31That's exactly what a criminal would say! /s
2Wrong cause I have no problem if anyone see my mesajes it just bothers me that they can spy on you. Frankly if someone sees my messages they will either laugh their ass off of be traumatize by my memes. They will probably consider me a misogin, racist and whatever due to my sens of humor and I will probably get called by suicide prevention services due to my depression!
1
Pedophiles would be terminally stupid if they used common, commercial chat systems and social media. Those who survive have probably their own forums completely disconnected from commercial prying eyes.
So in the end they would only catch a handful of very stupid amateurs while trampling on the rights to privacy and confidentiality of all citizens.
89Yeah, the stupid ones get caught pretty easily. A professor at our local university was caught storing CP on a university network share.
36
classic "protecting the children" to do something terrible excuse
61Does anybody but me remember top sites? Back in the day bootleggers would distribute and share ripped movies and albums on top sites for bootleggers to download and copy to disc or tape. Like. They didn't use regular chats except to vet new people. They literally had their own chat networks. The same applies here. Like. Why do they think this will do anything much to make a dent in CP? We all know it won't and it's a poorly concealed attempt at destroying privacy laws.
48Permanently Deleted
4
You want to fight pedophilia, cut of the trafficking network at the head.
Release the Epstein client list.
They won't, this is how you know it's not about pedophilia, it's about further invasion of privacy and more monitoring of the peasants.
39I think they're just trying to pick the battles they can potentially win
2I think they're just trying to get reelected by eliciting primal emotions.
They could go after the Epstein people, but that would upset the (terrible)status quo.
8
To put pressure on the countries and persuade them to vote 'yes', the European Commission placed these ads only in countries that did not want to vote for the law: Sweden, Belgium, Finland, Slovenia, Portugal, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands
36lol the same politicians let grooming gangs get away with exploiting young girls, they could care less about Pedos and care more about the power they yield, in other words they're full of shit
35Someone break out that Edward Snowden quote about having "nothing to hide".
Because those people are the reason these dumb things are proposed.
32"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."
- Edward Snowden25I like Snowden as much as any terminally online person does, but I don't think his quote is really the best as it supposes there are people with nothing to hide. Everyone has something to hide, if for no other reason than out of embarrassment.
There's a reason why we close the bathroom door despite the fact that everyone knows we are taking a shit.
8Use \- instead of -
2
It's always "think of the children!" as the go to fascist propaganda
18The unfortunate brilliance of it is that there are master strategists and tacticians that understand how to pass thinly-veiled invasive legislation under some undeniably noble premise.
NYC started with speed cameras and red light cameras only near schools to “protect children.” Who wouldn’t support that? Every single government employee knew this was a long term play: capture metrics showing how much these roadways have improved - then use that to support expansion of the system elsewhere. The same with NYPD cameras and surveillance stations.
Start with something small and digestible to the public, then use it to substantiate the unpalatable.
16capture metrics showing how much these roadways have improved - then use that to support expansion of the system elsewhere
As traffic is usually the most dangerous thing any of us interact with on a regular basis, I propose that this result is actually a good thing.
3
The vast majority of politicians apparently refuse to understand - despite it being explained ad nauseum in a multitude of ways - that truly robust encryption with no “master key” or “back door” that the “good guys” can use is completely integral to and absolutely required for the modern internet to work at all.
12And it will probably happen. No one in power gives a fuck about logic and reason. It's all about sending a signal. People don't care about privacy but they don't like pedos!
11 years ago, I attended a talk by Gottfrid Svartholm in Berlin. He told us that we have lost the internet. Pretty good foresight eh?
10What are they gonna do about my Matrix server 🤔
10In case someone wants to mail the EU: https://stopchatcontrol.eu/
9Fuck you Ashton.
6But I thought Kim Kardashian already broke the internet
3Permanently Deleted
1
So, a better title might be “Fighting privacy under the guise of fighting pedophelia: The EU rule that could break the internet”
2Lol, Apple has concerns about privacy. They're already scanning your photographs for CP.
1Damn, looks like you’re wrong. Maybe don’t spread misinformation.
2Please use up to date sources. (Disclaimer: Apple has continued and cancelled this "feature" enough times I'm not 100% sure if it's currently in iOS, but I'm certain enough to not trust any Apple devices with any photos.)
The hashing algorithm they used had manually craftable hash collisions. Apple did state they would be using a different hashing algorithm, but it likely contains similar flaws. This would allow anyone to get your iPhone at least partially flagged, and have your photos sent to Apple for "human verification". Knowing how this algorithm works also allows people to circumvent any detection methods Apple uses.
Not every iPhone is going to include a list of hashes of all illegal material, which means the hash of every image you view is sent to Apple. Even if you trust them to not run any other tracking/telemetry on your iPhone, this alone gives them the ability to track who viewed any image, by only having a copy of the image themselves. This is a very powerful surveillance tool, and can be used for censorship of nearly anything.
-2