You must log in or # to comment.
Never forget that Epstein was talking about fucking children in plaintext on Gmail and they did nothing whenever you see politicians say encryption should be illegal so they can capture criminals.
If they wanted to do anything about pedophiles, they could.
Motherless is in the Netherlands, an EU country, right? A website that has hosted child pornography for more than a decade (Amanda Todd killed herself in 2012)? They took it down for a little while after that whole “global network of guys raping their sleeping partners and uploading it” thing earlier this year, but it’s up again. I doubt it would take more than 10 minutes to find illegal content on there right now.
It’s all a farce. It’s entirely possible to target individuals making and distributing CSAM, but it’s much easier to do nothing and use it as an excuse to spy on citizens.
It makes much more sense when you realize that most of the old, white men with money or political power are the ones looking at those sites.
Good! We can make a list, for after the revolution
I’m only holding out on going KoS on ANY politician because I still need to be alive to do some things.
I have no ethical or physical issue with grabbing one of them, and dragging them into a bush.
To be fair they do seem to think it would really catch pedophiles; why else would they exclude themselves?
But what would be the point? Nobody’s doing anything about the high-profile pedophiles we already know. And kids have a bunch of other more common needs that are being conveniently ignored. The maths ain’t mathing
I’m just calling them pedophiles. Please be either unintelligent or anti-fun, not both. Anti-intellectual spaces without stupid jokes are the worst.
*fucking. You can type fucking on the internet. Don’t worry, we won’t tell your mommy.
You also don’t have to either? Weird thing to be triggered about.
How are you defining “triggered”? I keep seeing it used this way, and it makes no sense.
It’s already done Sir. Our private data is again being scanned by US corporations to protect our children.
* to better optimize ads, and to sell AI surveillance to crackpot dictators.
Hey sudden increase of insurance price is just algorithm not that we sold your hashed house photos to the insurance company. There is no shazam for photos right ?
It’s being scanned by everyone and everything that has access to scan it. Probably your own government too, even if you have laws supposedly prohibiting that.
How can they stop me from just doing this: U2FsdGVkX19+NGkQMc6FHt46SCVJ0SWyaPd8zo6lqiZ3V0H+IbR/EKhIt9B+o8Bu
Inform me pls
Some keyboards (e.g. KryptEY) allow you to exchange keys for E2E encryption with your companion and exchange messages encrypted.
How can they stop people from just sending encrypted messages?
“Punish one, educate hundreds” (Mao i guess?)
Throw the book against a couple of cases where encrypted messaging is involved and tell the public “We don’t know what they wrote… COULD BE $DISGUSTING_CONTENT…”
here we go once again to being fucking embarrassed to be European.
the first try of this made me stop voting altogether because all the fucking parties on my country were a YES. Fuck politicians, hope they all get killed.
Where will we run when the whole world burns?
under the ocean maybe? return to the sea. the whales did it
We won’t we will block the air intake and exhaust and entrances and exits in these billionaire bunkers and rebuild the world as stewards of the earth. To do this we will have to identify and diagnose narcissism and psychopathy to treat it as a disease rather than reward it.
if they really wanted to catch pedophiles they’d be in D.C. right now
genuine question, im not in the EU, how would this affect self hosted/federated E2EE chat services like Matrix and XMPP?
As always in these cases… it depends if backdoors will be mandated. Maybe not in the first version… maybe in the cond or third… you need to make people to accept things a bit at the time
666
In the US, gun owners like to joke about how great those blue helmets are as targets.
No, the way we catch pedophiles is, oh wait, then the battle would be lost
There are many alternatives to the world wide web. Familiarize yourself.
Like what?
Gopher and Gemini come to mind.
You could touch grass
How is your comment relevant to Chat Control?
Funny how they’re trying so hard to catch pedos not won’t arrest a single motherfucker in the Epstein files
That’s not true; they arrested one!
Only because they really wanted to already. Boo
Also they kinda killed him so he couldn’t talk.
This is about the EU guys, France just took on the case
Oh I mean globally, because the pedo class all have private jets.
Jesus. I’m not in the EU, but how is this the first I’m hearing about this?
Time to go back to email and GnuPG.
yeah i keep thinking, we’re not getting around the law. we have to get around an effective implementation though by using 3rd party platforms, i.e. ones that don’t conform to legal pressure. i keep thinking we need to inform people¹ about ways of secure communication in the absence of big-platform support. i.e. how do we send encrypted messages outside of facebook. we need matrix chat with end-to-end encryption that actually works, does not rely on a central “identity confirmation” service but works end-to-end. So instead of saying “i want to connect to bob@server2.net” and looking up the bob@server2.net public key somewhere, you should ideally get the bob@server2.net public key directly from the other user, if you have the chance to meet them irl. it’s the only way to actually secure end-to-end communication.
[1]: Note. This is very important. do NOT under no circumstances come up with the stupid ridiculous and outright dangerous notion that you’re gonna convince large masses of the population to care about their privacy. there needs to be a bit of elitism in this.
But the central service for those keys is only sharing the public key. Only the recipient can decrypt the message.
The only information it would give out is “this IP downloaded this public key”. Which can easily be covered up with multiple downloads from different IPs. You really only need to do this once per recipient too, once you have the public key you can just always keep a copy.
Shit, if your already using GnuPG, encrypt a file that’s got all your friends public keys. When you need to send a message, decrypt your file and grab the key you need.
It’s true that the public keys aren’t sensitive and nothing is compromised (in fact, it’s recommended) if the public key is available from, say, a key server.
But MITM is always a concern. Public-key encryption is supposed to mitigate that by ensuring that any third-party listening in in the middle can only get the ciphertext and cannot derive the plaintext of the communication.
But, if a jurisdiction legally forces a rule like the “we get to snoop on everything” one in this law, it changes things. They could, for instance, force key servers to to only give out keys that are generated/controlled by the EU agency so that they can MITM to their heart’s content. My guess at Aniki’s thought process is that if there’s a central distributor of keys, that can be legally strong-armed into bad things, but the people you’ve talked directly to are a different matter. “Web of trust” as it were.
I do think there are probably better ways to deal with that than what Aniki’s getting at, though. If you have Alice’s public key, you can verify signatures she generated, and you can be sure (hand-waves, rubber-hoses, caveat emptor, blah blah blah) that if you have a valid signature signing Bob’s public key with Alice’s private key, Alice vouches for that specific public key being authentically Bob’s public key.
Now, if you only ever get public keys from a small set of (compromiseable) central key servers, then the very first public key you get could be compromised and any other signature generated from the associated private key could be forged by an adversarial party (like the EU.) And theoretically the EU could generate a whole counterfeit web of signatures. So there’s benefit to having at least some of the public keys you trust come directly from the one who generated the key through a known-secure channel.
Before this law goes into effect, (maybe) we can trust at least some of the signatures in public key servers and use those as a basis for secure communication from which we can create a pool of known-uncompromised (qualifier, caveat, tin hats, etc) public keys, and based on those (maybe) detect forgeries and such.
(Mind you, I don’t know the details of this law or whatever. It might be that the law as written will require, say, GnuPG to introduce backdoors. Not that I think they should, no matter what the law says, but it might be that the EU isn’t really likely to engage in quite the lever of subterfuge that I’ve outlined above. It might be more of a blatant “fuck you, we’re the government and you’re going to comply” approach than a sneaky-sneaky trick-everybody-into-thinking-they’ve-got-security-they-don’t approach.)
Yeah they could MITM to give false keys so they can decrypt before sending on again using the real key, but if that’s what they want to do then it would be much more effective at monitoring people who are actively engaging in protecting their communication do just do that quietly rather than this circus.
This is probably more a combination of boomer levels of technical understanding and incrementally shifting the norm away from any expectation of privacy.
Because they’re trying to suppress the public reaction.
You won’t hear about this on prime-time TV news, and it’s even censored on some more popular parts of the internet, like Reddit.
nah i just think that lots of people are tired of hearing about it. since it’s an issue year-over-year, they’re just waiting until we’re getting tired about it. then they’ll sneak it in.
It has been approved, it seems that democracy is dead in the EU.
They’ve waited for MPs to be on vacation too.
