TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

EU legislation allows emails, messages and other communications to be scanned

145 点作者 juniperplant将近 4 年前

18 条评论

merricksb将近 4 年前
Earlier discussions:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=27753727" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=27753727</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=27759814" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=27759814</a>
nine_k将近 4 年前
It&#x27;s official now, but it was obvious for years. Snowden published his leaks in 2013, eight years ago, and the practice of snooping had been running for years at that time.<p>Do not expect privacy, unless you took measures for it, like entering your house and closing doors and windows. There&#x27;s no expectation of privacy in a public place, or in an office.<p>Same applies online: expect no privacy unless you took measures. Expect no keeping secrets from governmental agencies unless you took really serious, possibly exceptional measures, and your opsec is top notch. Everything else will be visible, at least to some degree, if the government needs that badly enough.<p>Of course, most of the time your government doesn&#x27;t care about private details of your life. This gives you some modicum of security by obscurity. But you never know why you might end up in the limelight. Extraordinary things, like epidemics or acts or terror, happen, and then you might draw interest along with hundreds and thousands who just happened to be in a wrong place at a wrong time.<p>If you think I&#x27;m suggesting to wear a tinfoil hat, I&#x27;m not; tinfoil hats are useless. A certain amount of civil action, from petitions to street protests, may help a bit. Use of encryption, etc, can help a bit. But there&#x27;s no way back into the society where you could mostly expect privacy by default. It&#x27;s time to get used to a more transparent, more observable, fundamentally less private society. So it goes.
评论 #27830205 未加载
评论 #27830305 未加载
jillesvangurp将近 4 年前
This applies to unencrypted communications and in no way limits use of properly secured communication channels. So, if you care about keeping your communications private, just use the right tools and assume other communications are actively monitored. As you should have for the last decades. This just formalizes that status quo and doesn&#x27;t really change a thing.<p>It seems the usual child pornography argument was used to push this through. Kind of baffling as most such people have long known to avoid any unencrypted channels. As do terrorists, criminals, and basically everyone with an incentive to keep their communications private. So this won&#x27;t accomplish anything.<p>The scary discussion is the one where governments will challenge your right to secure private communications. I don&#x27;t think there&#x27;s popular support for that though. Until then use Signal or similarly end to end encrypted channels and avoid the default unencrypted channels like email or popular chat platforms without default end to end encryption.
评论 #27830585 未加载
RalfWausE将近 4 年前
This is why i use vintage tech for my &quot;real, important&quot; data (ever tried to fit a state trojan in 4 MB RAM?), why i only discuss &quot;unimportant&quot; and &quot;non-compromising&quot; things via phone &#x2F; smartphone... and why more and more of my friends are starting to do the same. We exchange data via sneakernet and tend to &quot;fly under the radar&quot;.<p>Yeah, we might be practical paranoid weirdos, but at least it gives us the illusion that it is possible to avoid the leviathan.
评论 #27830544 未加载
NotSwift将近 4 年前
If you ask a group of people if they are OK with having cameras in their toilets and bedrooms that could be watched by strangers many people would not agree. Many of the current surveillance proposals are trying to something very similar.<p>In some cases it might be a good idea to put people under such surveillance, but I think that authorities should be able to explain why this was a good decision.
评论 #27830150 未加载
评论 #27829918 未加载
piokoch将近 4 年前
This stupid regulation will make life harder for whistleblowers, journalists, will help blackmailing people who are uncomfortable for the Police, government, secret services.<p>But for sure will not make life harder for criminals, who has resources to send encrypted messages in thousands different ways (like adding some encrypted message to a funny cat JPEG sent from some hijacked&#x2F;abandoned account of some other person put somewhere on FB, Instagram, chat, etc.).<p>Good job EU.
gr2zr4将近 4 年前
Could you clarify to me one thing please?<p>Because Telegram has headquarters in London, United Kingdom (legal domicile) [1] and becuase conversations on Telegram are not E2EE, does that mean that they could voluntarily scanning them?<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Telegram_(software)" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Telegram_(software)</a>
评论 #27830792 未加载
drawfloat将近 4 年前
&quot;The technologies used to achieve the goals of the Regulation need to be the least privacy-invasive, state-of-the-art and can only be used for the strict purpose of detecting and reporting CSAM, not for any other purposes&quot;<p>I&#x27;m from the UK and, given what we know has been happening for a decade or so (mass snooping, collection, analysis), this actually does give me some pause for thought. In theory, this closes a loophole the Tories&#x2F;UK state have been pushing at as a justification for ever deeper intrusion for years now. Obviously it won&#x27;t apply here anymore since we left the EU, but this bill by itself doesn&#x27;t fill me with utter dread.
hirundo将近 4 年前
The European Parliament has correctly identified their great enemy: The ability of the grass roots to whisper in each others&#x27; ears privately, cheaply and at scale. Free speech, privacy and free association is indeed a threat -- or at least a speed bump -- on the path to the dominance of central authority. The justification will evolve. Terrorism, anti-vaxxers, child abuse, fascism, the outrage of the moment. What doesn&#x27;t change is the consistent pressure to suppress private communication and coordination, in service to the leviathan.
评论 #27830393 未加载
评论 #27828537 未加载
ranguna将近 4 年前
This is the EU right?<p>There must be a mechanism where we can discuss this as people and try to revert this vote.
评论 #27831149 未加载
评论 #27830463 未加载
encryptluks2将近 4 年前
It&#x27;s almost as if handwritten letters sent through the USPS and cash printed by the Treasury is more private than email and cryptocurrency.
评论 #27830131 未加载
zaarn将近 4 年前
I was hoping most of HN would be aware that this only applies to CSAM (in fact there is a clause in there that prohibits use outside CSAM detection) and doesn&#x27;t affect a providers ability to just encrypt the users communications.<p>This legislation merely means if the provider has cleartext access, they can <i>voluntarily</i> scan for CSAM. This basically creates a loophole in the GDPR for CSAM processing with some protections for both users and the provider.<p>Sadly I was proven wrong, most commenters read the title, skip the content and then run off with US-based narratives about Snowden and PRISM or some other new noun that the conspiracy people use to scare people off their political platform.
pjg将近 4 年前
Seems like this applies to unencrypted communications only. Most http traffic is over https so will need considerably more work to decrypt it
NiceWayToDoIT将近 4 年前
Can someone explain please on one side we have this on other GDPR?
评论 #27830062 未加载
mickotron将近 4 年前
Water is wet
sebow将近 4 年前
I would say it has officially been almost a decade now and people still wonder if() this happens, which is kind of mind boggling.<p>Keep informing people everyone, the truth will eventually reach everyone(or at least those interested in it).I just wonder if it&#x27;ll be too late and we will just enter &#x27;a new cycle&#x27; without changing our paradigm about basic things that are the pillars of our civ.
stevespang将近 4 年前
Telegram&#x27;s &quot;secret chat&quot; option get&#x27;s around this ?
sennight将近 4 年前
What a relief, this article is about the EU - I instantly assumed it was about Biden&#x27;s latest SMS &quot;Fact checking&quot; idea...