←back to thread

Chat Control: Incompatible with Fundamental Rights (2022)

(freiheitsrechte.org)
833 points Bluestein | 3 comments | 18 Jun 24 09:34 UTC | HN request time: 0.871s | source
Show context
mro_name ◴[18 Jun 24 10:16 UTC] No.40715944[source]▶
I wonder how it can be legal to repeatedly undermine constitution and push or vote for later high-court-nullified laws and be allowed to repeat as if nothing was wrong with that. Like drunk driving forever. We ban counter-constitutional activities outside parliament and authorities. Why not inside?

I am much for 3-strikes here.

replies(6): >>40716013 #>>40716069 #>>40716073 #>>40716129 #>>40716284 #>>40717138 #
sneak ◴[18 Jun 24 10:34 UTC] No.40716069[source]▶
It’s because we aren’t actually nations of laws. There are certain groups in every nation (yes, even the ones you like or perhaps respect) who operate outside of the law as if it doesn’t exist.

The most popular “e2ee” messengers in use (WhatsApp, iMessage) are already clientside backdoored in this manner. Most people in most societies are already under this type of surveillance. This is just to tidy up the small loopholes like Signal etc.

replies(2): >>40716167 #>>40716368 #
matthewdgreen ◴[18 Jun 24 11:15 UTC] No.40716368[source]▶
> The most popular “e2ee” messengers in use (WhatsApp, iMessage) are already clientside backdoored in this manner.

No they are not. This is nonsense. The charitable interpretation is that you’re confusing the systems on iMessage that can voluntarily detect nudity and report it to you (but not the police or Apple) with the systems being proposed in TFA which have mandatory reporting to provider+police. The uncharitable interpretation is that you’re just making stuff up because it sounds good. Please don’t do either, it makes everyone worse off.

replies(2): >>40718417 #>>40722281 #
1. talldayo ◴[18 Jun 24 14:44 UTC] No.40718417[source]▶
Apple's lack of reliable security is practically all they're known for at this point. They can't even protect your notifications from warrantless surveillance[0], nor can they refuse to supply your encryption keys if they're demanded[1].

You wanna talk about making stuff up? How are you possibly able to say that the iPhone doesn't have clientside backdoors when you don't have any source code to back that claim up? You are the one making stuff up because it sounds good; Apple's concerted efforts to undermine their own security features is well-documented and even exists by Apple's own admission.

[0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/apple-admits-to-...

[1] https://itsecurity.blog.fordham.edu/2021/12/08/data-can-be-o...

replies(1): >>40719114 #
2. matthewdgreen ◴[18 Jun 24 15:41 UTC] No.40719114[source]▶
Saying “everyone knows these products are backdoored” and then supporting your claim with “well, they’re closed source” is a ridiculous thing to do. Please stop.
replies(1): >>40719524 #
3. talldayo ◴[18 Jun 24 16:19 UTC] No.40719524[source]▶
Please stop? I just cited two credible sources on either side of the backdoor. It's one thing if you don't want to acknowledge what's happening, it's another thing to publicly deny it. If you've got any concrete evidence that Apple does not furnish backdoors in their products, now is a good time to show it. Otherwise I see no rational reason for anyone to assume Apple products are totally secure.