Offline, you can have your privacy and, if necessary, the police can get in and investigate your stuff to prove the wrong thing you are doing.
Being online either you have everything well encrypted or everything opened what gives space for governments to do that kind of thing.
No not quite. In the offline world in many countries you have a constitutional right to secrecy of correspondence, that says that noone exept to whom you send a letter is allowed to read it. So in fact I think it should be mandatory that all messenger services must encrypt. Same rights online as offline, of course in some instances the police can take your letters if they search your house, the same may be applied to digital messenges if you want that
Here, the police might hear your phone calls if they need to and search inside your house for letters. So you would need to destroy them or giving them away, while in criptography, you would say "I don't have the password anymore".
Maybe new laws to enforce someone to unlock an encrypted file if the police has rights to research in your house could work.
@fasse I agree with you. We need our privacy. I have my own servers for mostly everything I use, everything encrypted.
I just also think about the Police, as they also need to do their work and how to avoid the governments excuses to keep accessing our data as much as possible.
If there's any definition of Orwellian, this is it, snd by far much more dangerous than any other thing we've ever seen.
Arrest your political enemies with the click of a button!
@echo_pbreyer This kind of crap is probably why brexit happened and I wouldn't be surprised if more countries left because of this.
Nothing to do with Brexit, the UK likely already has more extreme monitoring in place than most remaining EU countries as far as I know. What led to Brexit was xenophobia, lies about funding the NHS, and lies about the EU and sovereignty.
The EU is a mix of good and bad, this is one of the bad ones. But leaving the EU opens the door for even worse things not better ones, as can be seen with the UK wanting to get rid of worker protections and human rights inconveniences.
@echo_pbreyer @OSE I read the legislation proposal. There are proposing surveillance but there is zero mention of automation and realtime processing, hence the very first part of your article is void:
“The result: Mass surveillance through fully automated real-time messaging and chat control and the end of secrecy of digital correspondence.”
They stupidly just mentioned that they will use “state-of-the-art technology” and “human review” which is dumb as we all know any NLP has False Positive.
Pay special attention to the last section of page 8 and the vague language and terminology they have used to specify the “technology”.
Child abuse is definitely awful, terrible and wrong, but combating it this way will just open tons of backdoors to peoples’ lives that can be abused by anyone slightly smarter than these legislators.
All I'm saying is that:
1. we should not freely and wrongly paraphrase the legislative text
2. NLP is not even industry standard but so far the best we have and I don't bet my life and privacy on it
3. unless tech-savvy and privacy-oriented people does not come up with a valid solutions, politicians will screw all we have (e.g Tutanota's court and implemented "backdoor")
Technically accurate but ... how kuch human review would anyone be willing to afford while trying to surveil all messages between hundreds of millions of people?
Automation of this thing is inevitable, and recent history tells us about the quantity and quality of any human review in that loop. Any human reviewer would be penalized for stepping in too much nonody will know if they just say yes to everything. So guess what happens...
What I meant was that we should not paraphrase and add unstated claims to the mix when we want to raise awareness. We should stick to facts and only elaborate to what is stated, unless and until we clarify that “it would be inevitable to have automation” or “in my opinion...”
Waaait, you're saying Facebook has that in place already? I thought Whatsapp contents were securely end-to-end encrypted?
I mean, I'm sure they'll be happy to collect and use all the metadata (that is: they already do), but I thought contents were inaccessible to them?
Fine. How should I pass this on to people voting for CDU? Most off them don't understand english.
I have the feeling that we, like happend in BREXIT, get fucked by our parents.
Also wenn Du das in Deutschland verhindern willst, musst Du es in verständlicher Sprache verteilen. Englisch wird jedenfalls vom deutschen Durchschnittswähler nicht verstanden.
@echo_pbreyer Was ist denn unter Weiterleitung an "Nichtregierungsorganisationen" zu verstehen? Soll jetzt von der EU Polizeiarbeit privatisiert werden?
Und wer stellt die "Künstliche Intelligenz" bereit?
Ist am Ende wieder das gleiche Spiel. Encryption ist ja nicht verboten, sprich es geht in die Richtung die Leute herauszustellen, die sich dann noch dem System der Spionage und Überwachung entziehen. Ein zwei konstruierte Gefahren für die Allgemeinheit und dann gilt es, dass nur noch staatliche Stellen oder Firmen mit Antrag verschlüsseln dürfen.
Diese Vision von mir ist auch konstruiert, aber .. würde mich die Vergangenheit nicht etwas anderes lehren.
chaos.social – a Fediverse instance for & by the Chaos community