The motivation in Denmark was some big cases where organized crime was only caught due to a huge hacking operation where the police was able to monitor communication on the apps commonly used by the criminals. That allowed them to take very dangerous people off the streets and now they want to do more of that, more easily. I think the discussion can never be in terms of absolutes. If your family was murdered by some criminal that was never caught earlier , but could have been if the police had access to their chats, would you still be against it? We need to remember that we’re making that decision for some future victim if we do agree that this will assist the police effectively. The other side says the police will undoubtedly abuse their powers. In which case how does the results compare?? If you think the answer is easy, one way or another, you are definitely wrong.
But the CSAM regulation under discussion doesn't do any of the things you're claiming. It mandates content scanning for CSAM and other related messages. It does not call for key escrow and decryption of messages involving organized crime. So it's not clear how you would do much against serious organized criminals with this law.
Nobody here argues against wiretaps after court rulings. The discussion here is about mandating sending a transcript of every communication you do to the state (unless you work for the specific parts of the state).
You only believe that because you have chosen to believe it.
Take Facebook end-to-end encrypted messages for example. There are certain links it won't let you send, enough though it is supposedly E2EE. (I've seen it in situations like mentioning the piratebay domain name, which it tries to auto-preview and then fails. Hacking related websites as well I've seen the issue with.)
It likes to pretend it is a mysterious error, but if you immediately send a different link, it sends just fine. I don't use chat apps much these days, so I'm not sure if others see similar behavior, but I'd wager some do. Facebook is about the least trustworthy provider I'm likely to use, FWIW, so I expect a certain amount of smoke and mirrors from them.
Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon cannot send armed men to my front door.
Yes, they (well, google and amazon, I don't have accounts with other vendors) can terminate my accounts, but, to be honest, it is not big deal for me, especially comparing to be dragged out of my house by police, especially now, when I live in EU with residence permit and not full citizenship.
The motivation in Denmark was some big cases where organized crime was only caught due to a huge hacking operation where the police was able to monitor communication on the apps commonly used by the criminals. That allowed them to take very dangerous people off the streets and now they want to do more of that, more easily. I think the discussion can never be in terms of absolutes. If your family was murdered by some criminal that was never caught earlier , but could have been if the police had access to their chats, would you still be against it? We need to remember that we’re making that decision for some future victim if we do agree that this will assist the police effectively. The other side says the police will undoubtedly abuse their powers. In which case how does the results compare?? If you think the answer is easy, one way or another, you are definitely wrong.
But the CSAM regulation under discussion doesn't do any of the things you're claiming. It mandates content scanning for CSAM and other related messages. It does not call for key escrow and decryption of messages involving organized crime. So it's not clear how you would do much against serious organized criminals with this law.
Nobody here argues against wiretaps after court rulings. The discussion here is about mandating sending a transcript of every communication you do to the state (unless you work for the specific parts of the state).
You mean like the mass surveillance already implemented by Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon?
That's already here. I think you should consider that this law might be aiming at some other goal.
> You mean like the mass surveillance already implemented by Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon?
No, GP is referring to mass collection and analysis of all of your communications. Google, Apple, et. all don’t have that capability today.
Hell, apple can’t even read my text messages, nor do they know I’m writing this - and I’m doing it on an iPhone.
You only believe that because you have chosen to believe it.
Take Facebook end-to-end encrypted messages for example. There are certain links it won't let you send, enough though it is supposedly E2EE. (I've seen it in situations like mentioning the piratebay domain name, which it tries to auto-preview and then fails. Hacking related websites as well I've seen the issue with.)
It likes to pretend it is a mysterious error, but if you immediately send a different link, it sends just fine. I don't use chat apps much these days, so I'm not sure if others see similar behavior, but I'd wager some do. Facebook is about the least trustworthy provider I'm likely to use, FWIW, so I expect a certain amount of smoke and mirrors from them.
Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon cannot send armed men to my front door.
Yes, they (well, google and amazon, I don't have accounts with other vendors) can terminate my accounts, but, to be honest, it is not big deal for me, especially comparing to be dragged out of my house by police, especially now, when I live in EU with residence permit and not full citizenship.