[codeptualize]

One interesting line in the proposal:

> Detection will not apply to accounts used by the State for national security purposes, maintaining law and order or military purposes;

If it's all very safe and accurate, why is this exception necessary? Doesn't this say either that it's not secure, or that there is a likely hood that there will be false positives that will be reviewed?

If they have it all figured out, this exception should not be necessary. The reality is that it isn't secure as they are creating backdoors in the encryption, and they will flag many communications incorrectly. That means a lot of legal private communications will leak, and/or will be reviewed by the EU that they have absolutely no business looking into.

It's ridiculous that they keep trying this absolutely ridiculous plan over and over again.

I also wonder about the business implications. I don't think we can pass compliance if we communicate over channels that are not encrypted. We might not be able to do business internationally anymore as our communications will be scanned and reviewed by the EU.

[Bairfhionn]

The exclusion includes politicians because there would suddenly be a paper trail. Especially in the EU there were lots of suddenly lost messages.

Security is just the scapegoat excuse.

[munksbeer]

> It's ridiculous that they keep trying this absolutely ridiculous plan over and over again.

There is a certain group of politicians who are pushing for this very hard. In this case, the main thrust seems to be coming from Denmark, but from what I understand there are groups (eg. europol) pushing this from behind the scenes. They need the politicians to get it done.

[graemep]

I think that one problem is that politicians defer too much to "experts" in decisions like this.

I cannot remember who it was, but one British prime minister, when told by intelligence services that they needed greater surveillance powers, told them essentially, that of course they would claim that, and firmly refused.

Politicians now mostly lack the backbone. That does not stop them ignoring expert advice when it is politically inconvenient, of course.

[codeptualize]

Maybe we should scan their communications for corruption and undue influence. I'm sure it's all above board, so it should be fine if we get an independent group to review them right? (Just following to their reasoning..)

[ulrikrasmussen]

Our current minister of justice in Denmark, Peter Hummelgaard, says "yes" to everything proposed by the police and intelligence agencies. Meanwhile, he has demonstrated no ability whatsoever of understanding the technical challenges of implementing something like this, and he firmly insists on the false claim that it is possible to let the police read encrypted communication without compromising the security model. He also directly spreads misinformation and downplays the significance of this by falsely claiming that Meta and others already scan E2EE chats to show us advertisements. He has said that he wants a crime-free society, and I don't doubt that that is his goal. I just also think he is too stupid to understand that a crime-free society has never existed, and if it is attainable, then it is probably not a very free society.

All in all, he seems to be a scared, stupid sock-puppet of Europol.

[ThrowawayTestr]

Trolltrace is becoming real

[erlend_sh]

That one line on its own should be enough put the illegitimacy of this proposal on clear display. Privacy for me (the surveillance state) but not for thee (the populace).

[topranks]

If you read it closely they are not mandating backdoors in encryption.

WhatsApp could still have messages end-to-end encrypted. What they would be mandated to do is for the app to send copies of the messages to WhatsApp for their staff to review the contents.

This obviously breaks the point of end-to-end encryption. Without actually making it illegal for them to use encryption, or add any “backdoor” so it can be reversed.

It’s a weasely way of trying to have their cake and eat it.

[hsbauauvhabzb]

So… a backdoor?

[max_]

> If it's all very safe and accurate, why is this exception necessary? Doesn't this say either that it's not secure, or that there is a likely hood that there will be false positives that will be reviewed?

Its all a scam! No one cares about you.

They are just setting up the new infrastructure to manipulate & control the docile donkeys more effectively (working class)

Unfortunately, they will be successful.

[general1465]

It is pointless exception. If chat control will pass, everything is vulnerable by design. Or how do you distinguish if WhatsApp is installed on a phone of Joe Nobody or or a phone of a politician? You won't, unless you have some list, which can be leaked and from "do not touch credentials" will turn "target these credentials"

[eagleal]

The exception means legally, that category of people, can't be prosecuted even if incriminating stuff were collected through such channels.

The next logical step, after a prosecutor or political push, would be for the Highest Order Courts of Member countries to invalidate evidence collected through such channels for those categories of people.

[codeptualize]

Haha that’s a good point, I guess another sign that they really have no clue what they are doing

[philwelch]

“False positives” is the most likely explanation. A common tactic for government agents is to pose as criminals and extremists, either to more effectively infiltrate existing criminal or extremist networks or to run sting/entrapment operations.

[gusfoo]

> If it's all very safe and accurate, why is this exception necessary?

Because you'd be massively adding an attack surface on to National Security elements for no benefit to National Security.

[pyuser583]

I mean national security agencies usually have their own extensive internal monitoring.

EU rules typically contain carve outs for national security matters too.

This is a bad law, but these carve outs are normal and expected.

Carve outs for politicians are a different matter.

[throw-the-towel]

As a Russian whose parents actually remember the USSR, I'm genuinely horrified by the Brezhnev vibes the EU's giving off.

[maybelsyrup]

> and ethnic self-determination

Didn’t know where this was going but I’m glad you told us

[actionfromafar]

"intentionally mixed up to destroy it"

Can you expand on that.

[baobun]

You got me in the first half.

[p0w3n3d]

  Oh Harry, don't worry! Everyone can happen to have bloated his aunt by an accident! 

(quoting from memory), and also

  I like Ludo. He was the one who got us such good tickets for the Cup. I did him a bit of a favour: His brother, Otto, got into a spot of trouble — a lawnmower with unnatural powers — I smoothed the whole thing over."