Chat control is back on the agenda again and the works is kept in secret.
Now it’s really starting to look suspicious and power abusive.
“Starting looking suspicious”, huh?
Here I meant that their previous attempts were less shady, even though the intentions were suspicious. Now the methods of getting this law passed are getting suspicious too.
starting?
This is from July 11th. Nothing new as of now that I’ve seen.
But closer to October we should be on the lookout.
Wasn’t this just shut down…?
No, it was withdrawn, removed from the agenda so there was no vote, now it’s back on.
To add on this: removed because it was clear the vote would not have been in favor.
Was pretty clear that it would return sooner rather than later.
They will try until it passes. And if it’s stopped in the courts they will try again.
Yeah, same with forcing ISPs to save connection data on all users long term. European court slapped on the hands a couple of times, still not done. Like some kind of undead policy
You guys should bring over some judges from the US courts. They will totally protect your freedoms.
You need to mark sarcasm with /s.
If this is not a joke: the US has the worst privacy protection laws on this planet. Laws in China are almost better. And ironically the worst laws for freedom aswell. There is a reason why we have the GDPR laws in the EU that prohibits any user data transfer to US servers.
You need to mark sarcasm with /s.
I’ll be sure to do that in the future /s
Removed by mod
Yeah, same as the last 15 times they tried.
so we can’t have secrets but they can?
“Why do you care if you have nothing to hide?”
Government: hides their plans
That’s what I was thinking. You have to submit a request to read the document that wants to violate your privacy, it’s almost like some things are worth keeping private, but certainly not legislation violating that privacy.
Even more simply:
Government: closes their curtains in the evening.
The content of this document is not accessible. Nevertheless, a request for access can be sent to the department.
I will make a request and then post it.
Pleasepleaseplease don’t forget, we must see it!
I have made a request but i dont have time to read if it okey to share :/ it also takes 15 days to get the documents :/
Just check if it’s legal first.
Lmao at people downvoting good advice. I sure hope those mongoloids downvoting you don’t get an aneurysm from their stupidity or something (whoops, almost forgot they wouldn’t understand sarcasm without an /s!)
At least one of your down votes is for being racist and ableist. Could you remove it?
I can’t remove the downvote, you’ll need to do that yourself.
I gonna lose my shit… How can they force it this much
They only need it to pass once, we need it to be rejected every single time.
This right here. We need to do the right thing over and over again, because once it passes it’s done.
Literally how hackers operate.
The hackers need to succeed once to get in. You need to succeed every time to not fail.
thats because they want to watch you much much closer, but still pretend that decision was democratic. so they try again until we are too fed up to care.
For fuck’s sake, guys, c’mon! Do we have to do this again, really?
Again and again, as many times as it takes to get through, apparently
deleted by creator
The content of this document is not accessible. Nevertheless, a request for access can be sent to the Access to documents department.
Shady as fuck too.
I just requested it. Shame on them for trying to keep this in the shadows, bunch of crooks.
Thanks. Keep up the good work.
please respond here if you get any response
This arrived today
The children they deem to protect are trembling in fear right now.
Here we go again
I’m so done
That’s the idea. State actors can keep this up for decades while we the people end up exhausted. Stay vigilant, brother.
You are absolutely right. Not doing anything is playing their game.
I got nothing to hide 🤡
Or remember that you don’t have to be a wizard to
Yea but is anything making this stuff fun
So what actual people are responsible for this? If somebody were to dox them, they wouldn’t care, right? Because nothing to hide, nothing to fear right?
the Council is made up of national Governments.
But surely somebody is proposing this. And it’s not an entity. It’s a person.
First they obliterate telegram (most likely the only ones that would not comply and still offer service in Europe, Facebook and Apple would just comply, Signal would drop Europe) and a few days later they restart talks on this.
Telegram isn’t in trouble because they are a ““private”” messenger because 1) they aren’t and 2) they basically asked for it. They are hosting pirates, drug dealers and scammers and they refuse government requests for the data they have about the user. That is the issue: not complying with data requests. For example, signal, a truly secure messenger, will comply with data requests and will send the authorities everything they have about a user, which is really not that much to begin with. This whole Telegram story is absolutely unrelated to chat control
I beg to differ - meta both facebook and Instagram have loads of issue with crimes like human trafficking, pornography including the revenge one, scams and even live streams of rapes.
Every time you try to report scams or even impersonating anybody they reply “it doesn’t violate community standards”
Is Zuckerberger being accused of human, sex , pedophilia and drugs trafficking
Of course it is about chat control. American companies do allow sniffing the traffic, “the russian” telegram doesn’t allow sniffing.
That’s the only reason
Yes there m illegal things on social media, but they are not public group chats with hundreds of people in them sharing info on how to do x crime better. What you will mostly see on Instagram etc when it’s about illegal stuff are links to those telegram channels. And yes meta/everyone else should definitely do better at moderatibg their platforms.
Specifically, they have the technological ability to prevent some crimes on their platform and have repeatedly refused to do so, or even engage with attempts to do so. Because they’re not E2EE they can see what everyone is doing and are therefore legally required to step in when someone is (for example) selling drugs on their platform.
Signal (etc) have no insight into the actions of their users and when they are legally required to take action they do, they take the minimal legally required action (unlike other services from, ex, Apple). Signal follows the law, Telegram does not.
States are really pissy about E2EE for this (and other) reasons. They want to get rid of it because they want to monitor all private conversations. That’s why E2EE is important.
This has nothing to do with the ability for the company to see what users do, but with the fact that govts can order Signal and others to hand user data, ban chats and whatnot while Telegram simply ignores requests like those.
Govts aren’t pissed about the fact that Telegram might be an accessory to a crime, they’re pissed because they can’t compromise it. Do you remember the FBI vs Apple situation, they wanted backdoors / access to E2EE stuff and Apple was refusing to provide and they went against one of the largest tech companies out there. Do you really believe that the US govt just went after Apple but wouldn’t go after a small company like Signal? This looks shady - almost like there’s a security vulnerability / backdoor in Signal they can use whenever they want.
They can order Signal to turn over data (and the have) and signal has complied when it was legally required of them to do so, handing over all of their no data.
That’s the difference.
If that weren’t true they wouldn’t be so constantly upset about E2EE.
nd when a judge or a 3 letters agency will request to Signal that they want access to the messages that somebody will send from a date?
It’s their app, and they can do it. Do you think that they will refuse?
No, they cannot do it. That’s what E2EE means. It means they do not have the technological ability to do it. It is not possible.
Yes, even if a judge orders. You can see instances of that on their website: https://signal.org/bigbrother/
Yes there are weak points (the huge one with Signal being: requiring your cell phone number as a part of authentication) but that’s far beyond the level of technical expertise required to, say, just intercept clear text communications, ex from Telegram. If a government is wiretapping you then you’ve got problems that neither Signal nor Telegram can solve.
Now maybe you will suspect that a three letter agency will force them to do something bad, like send a suspect a hacked/backdoored version of the app or something but by and large i don’t think they would do that. They’d just go to Google or Apple and put a keylogger on your phone, or some other solution. Realistically, though, this is a level of effort far beyond what >99% of all humans need to worry about. Choosing Telegram over Signal because you’re afraid the government is manipulating your Signal app is a sign of incoherent paranoia.
A more serious concern would be, for example, the government capturing all data sent across the Internet and then holding onto it until some hypothetical future computer is developed that can just break the encryption. That’s still pretty silly but it’s something the US (at least) is doing. Still way beyond what they would need to get your Telegram messages because, again, they don’t need to decrypt those. They can just look.
The difference being: Signal cooperates as they’re legally required to buy do not have the technological capability to betray you. Telegram has the technological capability to betray you (and governments can spy on Telegram, with or without Telegram’s assistance) but refuses to cooperate.
Signal is much better and more reliable in this.
Signal can add backdoors to their own app and, if the app get compromised (or the device) the security of the encryption model is not relevant. It’s the reason because I see comparable Signal and Telegram.
Signal is open source, but (info based in this 3 years old thread on f-droid):
- Have binary blobs and propietary dependencies.
- Don’t let reproducible builds.
- It’s hostile to forks (they blocked libreSignal from their servers)
- Don’t want independent builds from f-droid (nor any fork in f-droid)
Which no seems FOSS friendly.
I agree with you, but just think about this:
signal, a truly secure messenger, will comply with data requests and will send the authorities everything they have about a user, which is really not that much to begin with.
A govt asks Signal for info on a user, then Signal hands over a bunch of IP logs, metadata and a few encrypted messages that are still pending delivery or something on their servers.
Do you remember the FBI vs Apple situation, they wanted backdoors / access to E2EE stuff and Apple was refusing to provide and they went against one of the largest tech companies out there. Do you really believe that the US govt just went after Apple but wouldn’t go after a small company like Signal? This looks shady - almost like there’s a security vulnerability / backdoor in Signal they can use whenever they want.
Why would they go after the “not E2EE” chat but not after the “unbreakable and private” one? Telegram delivers trust, users trust that they won’t share any info to govts. Signal only delivers a promise that their E2EE will be enough to make the information govts get useless.
This whole Telegram story is absolutely unrelated to chat control
Chat control is exactly about baking backdoors and providing govts full access to chat logs etc. something that Telegram would never be okay with. They don’t even reply to govts requests most of the time, let alone be compromised at that level.
Signal only delivers a promise that their E2EE will be enough to make the information govts get useless.
Signal do more than just a promise. Their encryption techniques are available to see. You can confirm if it’s enough protection for you or not. Telegram are the ones making a promise. I’m not saying they’ve broken their promise (as evidenced by the arrest).
But it is just a promise when Telegram still has the ability to see messages. Signal can’t see messages and therefore don’t have to rely on a promise that can be broken (willingly or not). They instead rely on encryption, which appears to be far stronger than any promise could be.
For all we know, this is performative and the French government already has access to Telegram’s servers and can see everything. If they have access to Signal’s, oh well, they can’t see shit.
Telegram are the ones making a promise. I’m not saying they’ve broken their promise (as evidenced by the arrest).
The fact that govts go after them kinda validates the promise. Unlike Signal.
It validates that governments can see what’s happening on Telegram, and that makes Telegram a target.
They can’t go after the likes of Signal because they have very little to go on in the first place. They can’t say definitively what’s happening there as they can’t see any messages. Unlike Telegram.
It’s not a conspiracy that Signal are compromised, so they’re being ignored. They’re being ignored because there’s nothing to see, so governments might as well spend resources going after the apps where information is visible instead. At least they might get a result. E2EE apps are too difficult.
(Properly implemented E2EE is too difficult at the moment but those are some big caveats. Still: didn’t use Telegram.)
If you aren’t going to turn out evil, raise your right hand.
I’m still confused about people who consider telegram a private chat.
It’s easy to verify for yourself that it isn’t, so how is this still going around?
Telegram isn’t E2E encrypted and the telegram company can access all your messages, however, just think about the bigger picture there. How come that the E2E encrypted WhatsApp, Signal and whatnot never had their CEOs arrested for not moderating content / enabling criminal activity? Think about that.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. You start by agreeing that telegram is simply not private. Then you move on to implying that it must be, because the CEO got arrested?
How does that change the fact that it is, by your own assessment, not private?
To answer your question, the answer from my perspective is quite simple. Noncompliance. If telegram had complied to local laws, like the others have and continue to do, he would not have gotten in trouble.
the answer from my perspective is quite simple. Noncompliance. If telegram had complied to local laws, like the others have and continue to do, he would not have gotten in trouble.
Exactly you’re getting there. Now let me ask something, if Facebook/Apple/Signal/Matrix comply with such laws how private are they? Those companies will happily censor chats and hand records to the govt, Telegram won’t.
Now you can argue that they do hand info the the govts but it is all encrypted and whatnot… do you really trust there aren’t backdoors there? Or cleaver ways to get around it like what we saw with push notifications or macOS analytics?
Govts are only after Telegram because they can’t infiltrate the company, ask for data etc. If Signal was really as secure and private like everyone says it is then their executives would already be in jail and whatnot for “enabling criminal activities”.
Not much of this makes sense. Maybe we don’t have an equal understanding of private. If thats the case, this discussion is going nowhere.
I will point out, though, that this is particularly nonsensical
Govts are only after Telegram because they can’t infiltrate the company, ask for data etc.
Telegram doesn’t use encryption. Everything is in clear text. Nobody needs a back door to get access. Not even governments. It’s all just out in the open
Telegram doesn’t use encryption. Everything is in clear text. Nobody needs a back door to get access. Not even governments. It’s all just out in the open
This isn’t even true, Telegram isn’t IRC. Like any modern application, uses SSL (encapsulated in MTProto) to protect connections. Govts will only have access if they manage to compromise those certificates, like your bank’s website.
Or if they copy the data from the servers, as it isn’t e2e, the data is unencrypted on the server (or usually encrypted on the server with keys accesible by people working there) as far as I know.
If Signal was really as secure and private like everyone says it is then their executives would already be in jail and whatnot for “enabling criminal activities”.
It doesn’t have anything to do with what “everyone says”. We don’t do that with security. Well, Telegram users do, but Charles Darwin wrote about that process. Others look at what academics say or are competent enough themselves (no, you are not).
Every encryption is secure until someone breaks it. Like we saw on Wifi (WPA2 and WPS) or the push notification issue it may not even be a direct attack to the cryptography of something, may be a way around it.
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – for ever” (1984 - George Orwell).
It was a good line but his general prediction was, thankfully, wrong. With caveats, we’re not at all where 1984 forecast we would end up. Humans turn out to be more allergic to oppression than he imagined.
Not yet
It is meant to be a warning
Sure, but I do think he would be pleasantly surprised by how things turned out. Aldous Huxley saw the future better. This is not a particularly original analysis.
IMO Orwell’s real insight was about the importance of clarity and truth in language, as a protection against political manipulation. That really was revolutionary.
I dunno, I see a LOT of what he said existing today, especially the level of surveillance and control.
I highly recommend “Taking Control of Your Personal Data” by prof. Jennifer Golbeck, published by The Teaching Company, ISBN:978-1629978390, likely available at your local library as a DVD or streaming.
I think it’s the third episode where she clarifies how extensive online surveillance is - I was surprised, it was even greater than even my paranoic mind thought.
I can’t see it as streaming or DVD. But I can see it as an audiobook and on great courses plus website.
If anyone finds the video version I’d be appreciative.
What is chat control?
From what I can glean, it’s another sort of mass surveillance, wherein the provider of a chat service would be required to monitor communications for “suspicious activity”
Basically, the government is once again asking for unrestricted access to your personal life “for your own good”
I always thought the “see something, say something” tag-line was creepy as fuck and don’t understand why everyone doesn’t get the same vibe. It’s common sense that if you see someone being harmed or in a harmful situation you speak up. But this is just a blanket “see something” which feels like a dog whistle for all the nosy and paranoid people to spy on everyone and it’s for the best. I guess we’ll have the same personalities in search algorithms going forward -_-
Right there with you.
Sadly, too many people don’t put in the mental effort to verify what they’re told.
I suspect we’re all susceptible to this to greater/lesser degrees, and subject-dependent. I just can’t figure out my own blind spot around this.
I mean, it’s almost fun thinking of how they’d react to my porn selection.
This flowchart explains it well:
SourceRemoved by mod
Oh sorry! Yeah it seems the flowchart wasn’t updated, there’s a section on the website beneath clarifying the recent changes proposed which includes this:
Scanning would be limited to visual content and URLs
Removed by mod
Chat, is this real?
Spam 1 if we should be worried
