Fighting pedophilia at the expense of our privacy: The EU rule that could break the internet : europe

[–] h3ndrik@feddit.de 75 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

I think that article is kind of misleading. They're not fighting pedophilia. They're using it as an excuse / instrumentalizing it to push surveillance tech.

[–] trollercoaster@feddit.de 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes, it's a fake argument. They tried to ban end to end encryption many times, with many excuses, and the attempts have failed so far. If I recall right, last time, the alleged reason was "terrorism". The currently purported reason of fighting paedophilia was picked on purpose in order to discredit any criticism by making critics appear as disgusting and despicable as possible to the public.

[–] Aicse@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To be honest, I think they are for real convinced that they're pushing this to help fighting pedophilia. Most of the people in the government are so stupid when it comes to technology, you can't even believe it (just watch the TikTok trial, it was the only time I had some empathy towards TikTok). And the worst part is that they tend to get consultants which are even more stupid on the topic, the only thing they have is years of work in one of the Big Four.

[–] h3ndrik@feddit.de 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Lately, with right-wing populism getting closer and closer to me, I've developed some more strong opinions on dupery and selling simple answers to complex problems.

It's probably a mixed bag, to some degree. But I think the people behind it, the ones really pushing it and selling it know what they're doing. They must have read the statistics and counter-arguments to be able to take part in the political debate.

I found this article talking about the statistics of investigations in 2019 in Germany. We had 13670 cases of child abuse and the police did 21 wiretapping orders. This leads me to believe either the police/judicative is utterly useless (they're not) or, electronic surveillance isn't a tool that is useful at all in those investigations. Yet somehow ... it get's promoted in this context.

And the EU member states pledged to be transparent with the statistics regarding Chat Control. They're currently breaking that law and not giving us the statistics to judge for ourselves. (They could well be hiding it deliberately.) To me it smells like somebody wants to push something fishy.

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter how we got there. It is an emotional topic, that's why it resonates with people and it's pretending to do something and selling a simple truth, one that sounds good. While you'd need a different solution if you wanted to tackle the issue you're talking about. If they're really exploiting the abused children to push their own agenda: Shame on them.

And maliciousness going along with incompetency is the worst mix I can imagine.

(Sorry for only giving german language references. I can't spend all of my day looking up articles for my Lemmy comments. Feel free to comment better ones and I'll bookmark them.)

[+] DieguiTux8623@feddit.it -50 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Maybe we should just accept and embrace the change. Misuse of such control means by governments is unlikely in democratic countries such as European ones. And if things go really wrong laws can be abrogated or amended. The majority of people won't be affected and don't have anything to hide, so they don't care. We should go along and follow the tide.

[–] hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 1 year ago

If you think that bad things can never happen in a democracy, read a little bit of any history book in existence. Or, you know what, even a Wikipedia article is enough.

"I hAvE nOtHiNg To HiDe" I assume that you close the toilet door. Everyone knows that you go to that room to shit, so why wouldn't you be okay with the door being open? Are you actually doing drugs at the toilet instead of shitting?

[–] h3ndrik@feddit.de 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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

Sorry, I can't tell if you're trolling or sincere. We can talk about that if you like. Privacy is a super important topic nowadays that we spend a good part of our time online and all kinds of data about our lives is stored on electronic devices.

[+] DieguiTux8623@feddit.it -6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am a European using a Chinese phone with a my manufacturer's customized version of Android and Google play services. I am already spied upon by both the proprietary firmware of the OEM and by the proprietary services of Mountain View. Plus, of course, any big company I have an account on and that I use (Meta, etc.). We have already failed to protect our privacy and I don't understand why everyone is so upset now, this is ChatControl 2 because there is a ChatControl 1 already adopted (the one about voluntarily sending data by the service providers to legal authority) and we've accepted it. The battle is already lost.

[–] h3ndrik@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Well, privacy isn't just black or white. You can also have something in between. But I know people don't often advocate for that.

What you say sounds like resignation. I've talked about that lately in the context of right-wing populism growing everywhere around the world. Some people feel defeated and helpless now that 20% of people elect idiots into regional parliaments. But the numbers are probably different where you live and the recent history may be a bit different too. I don't think everyone has to become an active warrior in the fight against injustice. But we need them, nowadays even more than before. Some things develop into the wrong direction. That's just the way it is. But I think we shouldn't make a retreat and let them do it without resistance.

I think our core values in the struggle for freedom date back to the Age of Enlightenment. Especially individual liberty and using our 'ratio' (reason) to tackle problems instead of simple truths and having a solution pushed upon us in a top-down approach. The opposing side has changed a bit during the times. Nowadays it's not monarchs and the church, but neo-capitalism and big tech companies containing us in "self-incurred tutelage", to quote Kant. There is that tendency to go the 'easy route' in almost everyone of us. But peope are successfully fighting that struggle since the 18th century.

I can give you a few examples of what I have to hide. And what I do. I was upset about Chat Control 1, Article 17 and even back in the day when the Data Retention Directive was a thing in the years after 2006. I'm in my late 30s now and I sometimes feel myself growing older and changing.

But I would like to know your side of the story. You said: "When I was younger I thought exactly like most people here. Then I grew older and life has defeated me." What happened? Did something happen? Was it a specific moment that lead you to that conclusion or more of a gradual process? Maybe you have other hobbies now (you're allowed to) and you just don't have the time or capacity to bother about things like that? Or 'they' found a way to get to you and break your resistance. What would you like the world to be like if you could choose?

[–] DieguiTux8623@feddit.it 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes "resignation" is the correct word. I have an answer to your question but it's my personal story and does not apply to society in general. In few words: I fought my battles for freedom and self-determination, but it wasn't worth it, and I got deeply deceived, to the point that I don't care any more. I can not blame myself for having passively accepted but I didn't end up in a better position either.

[–] h3ndrik@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Thanks for your perspective. I'm okay with everyone having their own story and ways to deal with things. We're all have our individual struggles to deal with. But I'm always glad to hear other people's stories.

I don't think I'm entitled to lecture you. Feel free to skip the following paragraphs...

Maybe we're a bit different and diversity is a good thing. I operate a few selfhosted services like PeerTube, Matrix chat, Nextcloud and a few more for me and my friends on a small YunoHost instance. It's not too difficult. I used to handle some sensitive information about children back in the days when I volunteered with youth work. I regularly help relatives with their computers and keep a few backups for them. I've occasionally moderated stuff online and deleted a few illegal pictures of violence. And I sometimes deal with stuff myself that I don't want to become public knowledge or part of one of the regular data breaches.

I kind of need privacy available to me. And I know lots of other people who do. I keep other people's data on an encrypted harddrive and use Linux to do my best to protect it. Not because it contains illegal stuff, but it is not of any concern to me what genre of porn they watch and I'm not going to tell their spouses, either. I'm afraid the opposing requirements to protect user-data, the GDPR which I'm required by law to enact if I want to offer independent services to other people, and on the other side something like the Data Retention Directive, the Copyright Directive and now the Chat Control will destroy independent services and strip us of the remaining diversity on the internet. The tools to detect CSAM and ContentID for copyright are only available to the big companies who already dominate everything. Lemmy would have to close, once something like that becomes mandatory. We'd need to go back to Reddit. I'd have to shut down my services for my friends, tell them I'm technically compromised and I forward every single info about them. The people who now do holiday camps would struggle to deal with the medical info and what else parents tell them. (If they wanted to do it correctly, which they should.) And they have additional requirements nowadays. Following the incidents wit the catholic church, we have additional measures in place to deal with child abuse. Or a kid just approaches someone and tells them they're not okay otherwise. This is super super sensitive and needs to be dealt with absolute care. I've had phone calls for similar things because email isn't encrypted.

It kind of only destroys everything for the honest people. Disproportionately. The criminals don't abide by the law. They probably have the technical tools available to them to evade getting caught. And it won't affect them too much.

Chat Control will be a disservice to the exploited children, lead to stories like this, and this, 15 year old kids getting convicted for sending nudes amongst partners consentually, have them face prosecution even if they receive it involuntarily, and do quite some damage to them in the process even if they're deemed not guilty in the end. (I read somewhere ~~about 80% of cases of child pornography is minors being the 'offender'.~~ Edit: at least 42% is minors being the 'offender'. 1, 2) People predict the police being overwhelmed by false positives and them having their time taken away from proper investigations.

It's just bad in any way imaginable. I don't want everyone to become a warrior in my fights. It's okay some people address climate change, some speak up against oppression or tackle populism. Maybe someone just isn't a 'fighter' and is kind to the people around them, cares for the elderly or makes the world around them a better place and doesn't care too much about politics. All of that is alright and noble. You do you. I'm always unsure how to react to resignation. I know how it feels. Hope you're alright. And I sincerely wish you the best with the things you deal with.

We're able to do something. People have fought oppression over and over again. Often times successfully. The data retention directive has deemed to be illegal and Chat Control 1 failed, too. It wouldn't have turned out that way if not for the people who resisted and spoke up.

[–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hurting youth is the whole point

(I read somewhere about 80% of cases of child pornography is minors being the ‘offender’.)

I need a source for this. Please tell me this isn't the % of prosecutions because I'ma fucking scream

[–] h3ndrik@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Hurting youth is the whole point

Yeah, I wouldn't go as far as saying that is the point. But they're clearly throwing them under the bus, instrumentalizing the topic and accepting the damage. Still, I think the point is general surveillance and control. Probably mixed with lobbyism by stakeholders that benefit from that kind of legislation.

I need a source for this.

I can't find the exact article. And seems I got the numbers a bit wrong, I'm going to edit my previous article:

The german police talks about 42% of the suspects of their solved investigations being under the age of 18 (google translate) I don't exactly know what "aufgeklärte Fälle" means in this context. It translates to "solved cases" so probably not necessarily convicted but not just an suspicion either.

This interview talks about 54% of the suspects being minors. (google translate)

If you want to read more, Patrick Breyer is a member of the EU parliament and covers privacy topics.

And here is a good german article about sexting and stuff amongst minors and how we don't have good numbers. Here they discuss some implications. This article contains an (english) open letter by scientists and researchers.

Sorry for posting so many german language articles. My perspective is kind of german. Maybe you can use the new translation feature of Firefox 117+. Or the translation feature of the browser you use. I've included google translate links for some of the articles.

I'd like if we craked down on things like this: ("In Spain, dozens of girls are reporting AI-generated nude photos of them being circulated at school") if we want to target offenders who are minors. And as far as I know that service that enables them is still online.

[–] Blaubarschmann@feddit.de 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, we should definitely not simply accept this kind of unjust and overly excessive legislation. Reality has shown that even democratic governments will use these technological means for questionable purposes. Also, what if there is a security breach and god knows who gets access to everyone's private messages? The old story of "i have nothing to hide" is no excuse, everyone has a right to private communication without fear of "saying something wrong". Things that are okay to say now may not be in the future. We see a trend towards right and extremist parties in many European countries, what if they get access to everyone's communication and have the means to go after whoever they like? Once the door is open, there is no going back. And even if there is no bad intention and they really just look for child pornography: There are always false positives and algorithms are faulty. With this legislation, everyone is suddenly at risk of being visited by the police because some system decided that you are a threat

[–] DieguiTux8623@feddit.it -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To tell the truth, the most worrying part of the law is not the mandatory control over everything but the fact that people/accounts/sources can be blocked in order not to produce more "offending" contents (whatever the criterion to determine what offending contents are). This is against the net neutrality and violates the principles of the www, as the title hints. But, you know... the fact here is that I sincerely believe that we can't do anything to stop this from happening, I'm not a troll. Maybe it's just pessimism.

[–] h3ndrik@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And it kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it? Saying we don't prosecute the pedophiles, just block them on this platform and have them go somewhere else? I think they should convict them, not sweep this problem under the carpet and make it invisible. Those pedophiles are probably happy about the possibility of being just blocked instead of facing prosecution.

[–] DieguiTux8623@feddit.it 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Who said that there won't be any prosecution?

[–] h3ndrik@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It is implied. Sorry, I didn't find the reference so it's more speculation what I'm doing. But CSAM is already illegal. You can have it taken down immediately and if someone doesn't comply, they become complicit by today's standards. The user doing it needs to face prosecution and that's already how legislation is. So what do you need that additional exception for?

It is good for the one case in which you're not doing the first two things. It is an excuse to not do the job properly and just hide it so nobody notices. The 'easy route' that does away with the difficult investigations and court cases and such. And I'm good at that myself. I procrastinate a lot. If you give me an excuse not to do a difficult thing, I'll happily use that excuse. In my opinion, it's a very bad approach to police work and they shouldn't have an easy excuse available to them, not to dig down and do their job properly. And I can't see anyone benefit from that except from prosecution now not having to pursue their investigations to the point where they catch the pedophile, and the criminals themselves.

I think I'd rather have 3 horrendous pictures online than have it hidden from my view and know they took the easy way to (not) deal with the offender.

[–] DudeDudenson@lemmings.world 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How do you even get to create an user in Lemmy while believing that? I'm astonished

[–] DieguiTux8623@feddit.it 0 points 1 year ago

Because when I was younger I thought exactly like most people here. Then I grew older and life has defeated me.

[–] RedPandaRaider@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago

It would be true if we lived in actual democracies, but we don't.

[–] trollercoaster@feddit.de 45 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I find it disgusting how the media keeps parroting that pseudo argument of protecting the children to justify blanket surveillance of everyone and everything.

[–] Rubanski@lemm.ee 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"protecting children" is a trope used since the invention of children. Simpsons also picked it up, it's everywhere, mostly in right wing chatrooms to enable and encourage censorship (LGBT and whatnot)

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 6 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

Simpsons

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[–] bedrooms@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What's weird, these media are possibly the only effective target of this e2ee ban. They are putting their journalists in danger. Pedos will only resort to a different app.

[–] trollercoaster@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

Given the widespread uncritical parrotting in the media, my respect for the journalistic trade is at an all time low and I might be as callous as saying that they bloody well deserve it.

[–] PlatypusXray@feddit.de 32 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Nothing outweighs the life and wellbeing of children! Therefore, cameras have to be installed in every room of every house. This is logical because more than 90% of all pedophiles operate in rooms within houses. No citizen has to worry about privacy, though. The video feeds will only be used to fight severe crimes such as pedophilia and copyright infringement.

[–] h3ndrik@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Make it a suggestion for the next iteration of Alexa.

[–] hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago

Don't give them more ideas!

[–] frostbiker@lemmy.ca 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

First they scan for CP, but the next time a corrupt authoritarian leader is elected, what will stop them from using that conveniently pervasive infrastructure to silence journalists, dissidents or political opponents?

[–] taladar@feddit.de 30 points 1 year ago

Europol has already stated that they want to use the means for other crimes.

The whole "protecting the children" angle is just propaganda.

[–] CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Its not even about fighting pedophilia there are way more efficient methods for that and they don't use massager apps for pedo business, at least not ones that would comply with any laws...

[–] Aggravationstation@feddit.uk 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yea this is the dumbest crap. Pedos will just move to the dark web. Would surprise me if most haven't already.

Also "Some, like Apple, have their reservations about this initiative as they consider defending user privacy a priority." Bullshit.

[–] CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

Yeah the people defending that shit consume too much paint.

[–] Unsaved5831@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago

If you are searched on a private property, at least (and in theory) the law enforcement unit needs to get some sort of warrant before they could search you.

I don't see why we are opening access to our private digital sphere to them to do whatever and whenever they like, and most likely without us knowing what is going on.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 year ago

Dear politicians and government officials, please come back when you stop covering up and protecting people like Epstein.

[–] FarraigePlaisteach@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

One of the countries supporting the proposal is Finland. One of the countries opposing the proposal is Finland. According to the article. A typo I presume.

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 3 points 1 year ago

Sign the following petitions if you care about this, I'll only take s minute of your time:

https://civicrm.edri.org/stop-scanning-me

https://www.change.org/p/european-parliament-defend-our-privacy-vote-no-to-chat-control

[–] CrowAirbrush@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Shit like this is why i've been trying to convince my wife to leave.

We have these traffic violation "google maps cars" driving around giving fines to everyone in the vicinity of the person breaking a rule. To fight an unlawful fine can take weeks or even months for us citizens, yet they get the right to just blanket send them to everyone who's license plate is visible in the image.

Fuck that, take your responsibility back and do it right.

The same goes for public transport, they will add fees for a detour and expect you to not check on them even though you don't have to pay for it as a detour is on them. If you want to set it right you need to put in an appeal which again can take weeks or even months.

And now they expect me to trust them, hell if they roll this out i'll falsely end up in jail before the week is over.

[–] shartedchocolate@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Go where tho?

Europe

Rules