And people complained about Apples system… I have to say that I am against any weakening of encryptions or privacy protections but in terms of which method is the lesser of two evils Apple’s solution is the less intrusive. The language in this Bill truly is terrifying. I have to say that considering that the police constantly complain that they don’t have the resources to deal with crimes as it is I find it farcical that more and more legislation continues to be added. Not to downplay the significance of sexual abuse in any way but one has to be pragmatic and decide whether the the attack on privacy is justified. It seems to me police forces do less and less detection and real crime fighting and are becoming merely administrative in their roles.
Apple’s method is not less intrusive because Apple would be scanning all communications. The EU proposal requires a court order, and affords affected individuals the right to challenge the order.
The language is only “terrifying” if you rely on headlines, and don’t both to read the actual bill.
But Apple was only scanning unencrypted photos that was in (or going to be in), their customers iCloud photo library. There is no expectation of privacy when storing unencrypted photos in a third party server. The big stink made was that Apple was planning to do the scanning on their customers devices, with software installed on those devices, instead doing it when the photos are in their iCloud servers. Like how Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Facebook is doing it and how Apple is most likely doing it now.
Apple did have a plan to provide parents of minors a tool to help them monitor their kids iMessage activity, by scanning the message for any images or wording for adult contents, before it's sent or after it's received and then blurring them out and notifying the parents for approval. But nothing got reported to the government or some "save the children" advocacy organization. Only the parents were notified.
Apple was not forced to do any of this scanning by the government. It was voluntary, as it should be.
So do you think the group behind the "Pegasus" spyware, is going to get a court order, when they find a way (and they will) break the backdoor encryption key, that all encrypted messages must have, under this proposal?
Plus the "court order" is only for the government to obtain the encrypted messages, in order to bring charges against the sender or receiver. The message service providers can not charge the customers for breaking the law. And the government can not, without proof that a crime has been committed. By law (under this proposal) all message services must scan all their messages for CSAM, regardless if it's suppose to be "encrypted end to end", where there is some expectation of privacy. And then report any violators to the government. This is when the government must get a court order to obtain those messages, unencrypted. You seem to be implying that the government needs to get a court order, in order for individuals messages to be scanned. If this proposal passes, it would make "end to end encryption" an oxymoron or false advertising, in the EU.
Welcome to the EU, "The Legion of Doom", this regime that out of know where makes rulings over the WHOLE WORLD, not just the EU! What's their backdoor? "The Internet" it's their "this is the way" for the EU to just dictate legislation to every part of the GLOBE. I mean this is ridiculous. EU? How about the WU? The World Union...
For f's sake! I mean for the last 10 years+ it's just like INSTANT POWER for this small group of practically unelected people...
Welcome to the EU, "The Legion of Doom", this regime that out of know where makes rulings over the WHOLE WORLD, not just the EU! What's their backdoor? "The Internet" it's their "this is the way" for the EU to just dictate legislation to every part of the GLOBE. I mean this is ridiculous. EU? How about the WU? The World Union...
For f's sake! I mean for the last 10 years+ it's just like INSTANT POWER for this small group of practically unelected people...
Laters...
There's nothing in the plans that would require it to apply to the whole world.
And people complained about Apples system… I have to say that I am against any weakening of encryptions or privacy protections but in terms of which method is the lesser of two evils Apple’s solution is the less intrusive. The language in this Bill truly is terrifying. I have to say that considering that the police constantly complain that they don’t have the resources to deal with crimes as it is I find it farcical that more and more legislation continues to be added. Not to downplay the significance of sexual abuse in any way but one has to be pragmatic and decide whether the the attack on privacy is justified. It seems to me police forces do less and less detection and real crime fighting and are becoming merely administrative in their roles.
Apple’s method is not less intrusive because Apple would be scanning all communications. The EU proposal requires a court order, and affords affected individuals the right to challenge the order.
The language is only “terrifying” if you rely on headlines, and don’t both to read the actual bill.
But Apple was only scanning unencrypted photos that was in (or going to be in), their customers iCloud photo library. There is no expectation of privacy when storing unencrypted photos in a third party server. The big stink made was that Apple was planning to do the scanning on their customers devices, with software installed on those devices, instead doing it when the photos are in their iCloud servers. Like how Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Facebook is doing it and how Apple is most likely doing it now.
Apple did have a plan to provide parents of minors a tool to help them monitor their kids iMessage activity, by scanning the message for any images or wording for adult contents, before it's sent or after it's received and then blurring them out and notifying the parents for approval. But nothing got reported to the government or some "save the children" advocacy organization. Only the parents were notified.
Apple was not forced to do any of this scanning by the government. It was voluntary, as it should be.
So do you think the group behind the "Pegasus" spyware, is going to get a court order, when they find a way (and they will) break the backdoor encryption key, that all encrypted messages must have, under this proposal?
Plus the "court order" is only for the government to obtain the encrypted messages, in order to bring charges against the sender or receiver. The message service providers can not charge the customers for breaking the law. And the government can not, without proof that a crime has been committed. By law (under this proposal) all message services must scan all their messages for CSAM, regardless if it's suppose to be "encrypted end to end", where there is some expectation of privacy. And then report any violators to the government. This is when the government must get a court order to obtain those messages, unencrypted. You seem to be implying that the government needs to get a court order, in order for individuals messages to be scanned. If this proposal passes, it would make "end to end encryption" an oxymoron or false advertising, in the EU.
1. Not “most likely” THEY ARE scanning iCloud servers like any of the other providers. That’s ok because it is their server/rules and pretty much you relinquish any privacy when you voluntary decide to upload a document to any cloud.
2. Except that is not up to Apple to voluntary decide to install software to scan files on billion of devices just because they PR it as a “Save the Children Movement”. Because today is CSAM (great cause to get people on board) but then tomorrow or next week it will be software to scan anything: anti- or pro- (political, gender, race, police, religion, etc). It’s a slippery slope.
This would illegal under EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Th personal data is and should be sacred as long as a judge doesn't have any legal (according to the rule of law) reason to issue a warrant. Apple has honoured every legal request so I see no reason to allow a 3rd party - the executive of a state or EU - to have access to my data whenever it wants (not that I don't trust EU or the states but I don't want to have to trust them).
Welcome to the EU, "The Legion of Doom", this regime that out of know where makes rulings over the WHOLE WORLD, not just the EU! What's their backdoor? "The Internet" it's their "this is the way" for the EU to just dictate legislation to every part of the GLOBE. I mean this is ridiculous. EU? How about the WU? The World Union...
For f's sake! I mean for the last 10 years+ it's just like INSTANT POWER for this small group of practically unelected people...
Laters...
There's nothing in the plans that would require it to apply to the whole world.
So what happens (if this plan were to pass into EU law) when anyone in the rest of "Whole World", uses the internet to send an encrypted message to someone in the EU? Do the messaging services used by citizens in the non EU countries, have to install the backdoor and scan the encrypted message for CSAM, under the EU law? Are you assuming that citizens in the EU, do not receive encrypted internet messages from the rest of the World? Or that citizens outside the EU, can send encrypted messages to citizens in the EU, without the messaging service having to scan it, in order for the EU citizen to receive it?
If this plan only applies to encrypted messages sent or received by EU citizens, in the EU, EU citizens would be made second class, in terms of privacy. Which would be ironic as the EU has some of the most strict consumer privacy protection laws in the "Whole World". Too bad the EU Commission don't apply the privacy laws they impose on private enterprises, to the government.
Welcome to the EU, "The Legion of Doom", this regime that out of know where makes rulings over the WHOLE WORLD, not just the EU! What's their backdoor? "The Internet" it's their "this is the way" for the EU to just dictate legislation to every part of the GLOBE. I mean this is ridiculous. EU? How about the WU? The World Union...
For f's sake! I mean for the last 10 years+ it's just like INSTANT POWER for this small group of practically unelected people...
Laters...
There's nothing in the plans that would require it to apply to the whole world.
So what happens (if this plan were to pass into EU law) when anyone in the rest of "Whole World", uses the internet to send an encrypted message to someone in the EU? Do the messaging services used by citizens in the non EU countries, have to install the backdoor and scan the encrypted message for CSAM, under the EU law? Are you assuming that citizens in the EU, do not receive encrypted internet messages from the rest of the World? Or that citizens outside the EU, can send encrypted messages to citizens in the EU, without the messaging service having to scan it, in order for the EU citizen to receive it?
I guess the messaging companies are going to have to figure that out. I don't know why you're peppering me with questions about the technical implications of a proposed law. Have a go at answering them yourself.
Comments
What's their backdoor? "The Internet" it's their "this is the way" for the EU to just dictate legislation to every part of the GLOBE.
I mean this is ridiculous. EU? How about the WU? The World Union...
For f's sake! I mean for the last 10 years+ it's just like INSTANT POWER for this small group of practically unelected people...
Laters...
Not “most likely” THEY ARE scanning iCloud servers like any of the other providers. That’s ok because it is their server/rules and pretty much you relinquish any privacy when you voluntary decide to upload a document to any cloud.
2.
Except that is not up to Apple to voluntary decide to install software to scan files on billion of devices just because they PR it as a “Save the Children Movement”. Because today is CSAM (great cause to get people on board) but then tomorrow or next week it will be software to scan anything: anti- or pro- (political, gender, race, police, religion, etc). It’s a slippery slope.
Th personal data is and should be sacred as long as a judge doesn't have any legal (according to the rule of law) reason to issue a warrant.
Apple has honoured every legal request so I see no reason to allow a 3rd party - the executive of a state or EU - to have access to my data whenever it wants (not that I don't trust EU or the states but I don't want to have to trust them).
If this plan only applies to encrypted messages sent or received by EU citizens, in the EU, EU citizens would be made second class, in terms of privacy. Which would be ironic as the EU has some of the most strict consumer privacy protection laws in the "Whole World". Too bad the EU Commission don't apply the privacy laws they impose on private enterprises, to the government.