The planned chat control makes the world less secure and more authoritarian, as it is directed against private and encrypted communication. Proponents are using disinformation, lies, and sleight of hand to push through the project. But chat control can still be stopped. A commentary.

For years, legions of IT experts and security researchers, lawyers, data protection experts, digital organizations, tech companies, messengers, UN representatives, child protection experts, guardians of internet standards, scientists, and anyone else with expertise have been raising alarms around the world: chat control is dangerous. It is a new form of mass surveillance. It will weaken the IT security of us all. It would introduce a surveillance infrastructure on apps and end devices beyond the EU that authoritarian states will use to their advantage.

Ultimately, chat control is a frontal attack on end-to-end encryption. Put simply, this form of encryption ensures that the sender puts their message in an envelope that can only be opened by the recipient. With the planned chat control, the envelope is not forcibly opened on the way to the recipient; instead, the contents of the envelope are analysed before being inserted into the envelope. So when you write a letter, your private data is looked at directly over your shoulder. Nothing Is Private Anymore When Chat Control Arrives

Those in favour of chat control now claim that the envelope – in this case, end-to-end encryption – would not be opened and that communication would therefore be secure and encrypted. It’s a shabby and transparent sleight of hand: after all, what is the protective envelope worth if what we send to other people is screened by default before it is sent? And where is the good old privacy of correspondence for our digital letters on WhatsApp, Signal, or Threema? What right do you have to monitor what I do and what I send on my mobile phone, tablet, and computer? How dare you!

The fact is that it is not technically possible to monitor all content at the same time and still guarantee private and secure communication. It simply isn’t possible. But the EU Commissioner for Home Affairs, Ylva Johansson, and all the other proponents of chat control claim exactly the opposite. They openly lie to our faces, place misleading ads, and pretend that chat control is somehow harmless and compatible with fundamental rights and data protection. They spread the disinformation that private communication and the screening of all content can coexist. This is nothing less than an insult to common sense.

It’s Not About the Children

The surveillance proponents pretend that they want to better protect children and tell horror stories based on dubious figures. But it was clear from the outset that chat control is about attacking end-to-end encryption – and therefore the secure and private communication of billions of people. Because if the EU, with its 450 million inhabitants, introduces chat control, it will have a global impact.

From the very beginning, a lobby network intertwined with the security apparatus has been pushing chat control. It was never really about the children; otherwise, the root causes of abuse and violence would be addressed instead of monitoring innocent people without any initial suspicion. The point is that encrypted communication is a thorn in the side of the security apparatus. That is why it has been trying to combat our private and encrypted communication in various ways for years.

This is the surveillance state at its best and a reversal of the principles of the rule of law. Everyone is guilty until proven otherwise. This chat control is a spawn of authoritarian fantasies – and as such, the EU member states must reject it in the Council on Thursday if they still have a shred of democratic values.

  • zecg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    EU making its citizens lose faith in the project. I don’t care if I have to give my votes to the far right (ID is against, I guess) not one of those useful idiots voting for this gets a vote from me for as long as live.

    • 0x815@feddit.deOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      @zecg

      What a garbage! This comment doesn’t make sense for a lot of reasons, but the most obvious one at first sight is the ‘useful idiots’ argument. These ‘useful idiots’ are exactly the far right-wing officials who get repoortedly bribed by China and Russia, and are criticized by their own party members for their incompetence.

        • zecg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          What’s your definition of a trollbot? I don’t often express political opinions of any kind, but I feel really strong about private communication and even though I only mentioned a legitimate party that’s in the EU parliament I am denied personhood. I am usually on the same side as the people proclaiming me a bot. Try to see how your devaluing of others’ positions by denying they’re human or thinking for themselves comes across. It’s thought-terminating cliches and snarky soundbites all the way down.

          • laughterlaughter@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            “I hate this option, so instead of voting for a more sensible option, I’ll directly mention that I’ll vote for the worst option ever. In a subtle way so that I’m not too obvious. But hopefully people reading me will be influenced, even by a tiny bit, to vote for the worst option ever. Because I’m being paid for the people who supports the worst option ever.”

      • zecg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        These ‘useful idiots’ are exactly the far right-wing officials who get repoortedly bribed by China and Russia, and are criticized by their own party members for their incompetence.

        Why not all of them, in different domains? What would you call MPs who vote for this without understanding how it works and why it’s untenable? I’d sooner call them useful idiots and those getting bribes something else, they’re at least getting paid.

    • sadTruth@lemmy.hogru.ch
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago
      • Far left / Pirates: Always vote for privacy.
      • Greens: Almost always vote for privacy.
      • Center Left: Often vote for privacy.
      • Center Right/Right: Always vote against privacy.
      • Far Right: Vote against privacy or usually just abstain from voting on important decisions.

      Just as always with the right: Nothing but lies.

      Source

    • B0rax@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      The far right won’t help you here. Vote for the pirate party, they care about privacy.

      • zecg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Gladly, they are certainly most aligned with my beliefs, but we don’t have one of those.

        • B0rax@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Multiple parties are against it, yes. But the pirate party has a prominent focus on privacy topics and net neutrality, more than any other party.

        • Pelicanen@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          The person who proposed it to begin with, Ylva Johansson is (to my great shame) a Swedish social democrat. Social democrats in Sweden unfortunately have their heads up their own asses a lot of the time.

      • zecg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Thank you for molding my point into something that’s easier for everyone to understand.

        • federalreverse-old@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Although I suspect you trying to be sarcastic: You’re welcome.

          With politics, there’s always more than a single topic. And while the chat-control topic and its persistence sucks, keeping democratic structures in place, this can be rolled back at some point. If democratic structures are no longer in place, this is just going to prove a useful tool to whatever authoritarian is in charge.

          There are many motivations why people organize in right-wing movements, but protecting civil liberties, democracy, or human rights are not any of them. At least not in any honest way. They may use these topics as part of scare tactics and to paint scapegoats.

        • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Lol, so

          a) the far right are opposing this, and you’re dumb enough to believe their lies.

          or

          b) the far right are silent or supporting this, and you don’t care.

          Sounds like we got ourselves a big brained fascist!