Technology

60021 readers

4136 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

333

Hungary's push for chat control failed as Dutch secret service opposes client-side scanning | For the umpteenth time, the EU Council can't agree on Chat Control - a great victory for privacy (tuta.com)

submitted 2 months ago by ForgottenFlux@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Another month, another attempt: Even though Hungary had to cancel the latest EU Council's vote on the Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) Regulation in June 2024 because there was no majority among member states, it tried again this Wednesday - without success. The tipping point was that the Dutch secret service clearly issued their opinion on the enormous threat to everybody's security should end-to-end encryption be weakened. Encryption is paramount for the digital resilience in Europe.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] fluxion@lemmy.world 40 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Client-side scanning - if required by law - would ask tech companies to scan communications for illegal content on the client before the encryption takes place and send suspicious content to the authorities. The Hungarian Presidency claims that this can coexist with end-to-end encryption, but this is fundamentally untrue.

JFC.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I mean, it's true. It can. Just defeats the purpose.

[–] Draghetta@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Downvoted for speaking the (technical) truth

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The last sentence should have been enough for the person who pressed that button

[–] model_tar_gz@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You can scan before the encryption step. It defeats the purpose of the encryption such that only the privileged actor gets plaintext while everyone downstream gets encrypted bytes, but technically it’s possible.

It’s only a matter of time until a vulnerability in the privilege is found and silently exploited by a nefarious monkey, and that’s precisely why adding backdoors should never be done.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

Yes. Just like saying that Microsoft and Google don't have a monopoly, or, for Americans, that modern automatic weapons are "not what the founding fathers intended", or, of what I care about, that Artsakh is "legally part of Azerbaijan".

Politicians use the salami strategy, always. They'll always milk to the bone every such detail as, for example, the fact that E2EE itself is not compromised here. It's only spyware on the endpoints which everyone is going to be obligated to install.

So fighting politicians we should never give up cards. Even if an argument is false, the very fact they have to fight it is good. Because otherwise they'll be able to dedicate all their resources to fight the good arguments.