Is that actually part of the chat control proposal, to exempt politicians? Because I have definitely never heard that. All I’ve heard is they want backdoors placed at the provider level, to affect...
Is that actually part of the chat control proposal, to exempt politicians? Because I have definitely never heard that. All I’ve heard is they want backdoors placed at the provider level, to affect everyone.
Several sources (eg, https://fightchatcontrol.eu/) claim that there is a 'professional secrecy' exemption that would exempt politicians. But actually, looking at the closest thing I can find to an...
Several sources (eg, https://fightchatcontrol.eu/) claim that there is a 'professional secrecy' exemption that would exempt politicians.
But actually, looking at the closest thing I can find to an actual text, the exemption is broader-reaching and arguably worse. Essentially, only individuals in their personal lives would be spied on; corporate and government communication would be exempt out of respect for the privacy of confidential communications and trade secrets, and because those spaces would have 'less risk' of CSAM:
In the light of the more limited risk of their use for the purpose of child sexual abuse and the need to preserve confidential information, including classified information, information covered by professional secrecy and trade secrets, electronic communications services that are not publicly available, such as those used for national security purposes, should be excluded from the scope of this Regulation. Accordingly, this Regulation should not apply to interpersonal communications services that are not available to the general public and the use of which is instead restricted to persons involved in the activities of a particular company, organisation, body or authority. (page 11 here)
It seems that the regulation sees any company as more trustworthy than a private individual, and sees any trade secret as more worthy of respect than an individual's personal privacy.
Of course, elsewhere, the regulations will keep that personal information perfectly safe, but here, the regulations apparently won't. And CSAM purveyors who will know that what they are doing is illegal, and that these regulations and exclusions exist will of course not think to use the entire class of corporate communication systems that will be exempt. There's no need to justify this contradiction; it simply exists. That, and the example of "classified information" and "national security purposes" in the motivation turning into any employee of any company and any corporate trade secret in the conclusion is typical of the European hypocrisy around rights and 'fairness' that increasingly frustrates me.
To be honest, I feel like there is an inherent need in many contexts for communications that are not fully recorded, and this is perhaps particularly the case for governance. It is very difficult...
To be honest, I feel like there is an inherent need in many contexts for communications that are not fully recorded, and this is perhaps particularly the case for governance. It is very difficult to have open or thoughtful discussions or negotiations knowing that every word you say can be scrutinized years later, often by parties specifically trying to hurt you by interpreting them in as misleading a way possible. That even well-meaning people end up trying to find ways to have those sorts of communications is perhaps evidence of this need. That is perhaps because our culture has not yet adapted to the technological ability to record and have so much information available, and can't reasonably handle exploratory and conversational speech that is given the permanency of carefully-considered text. In my personal experience, when I have been in positions where records of everything were the norm, it tended either to stifle discussion and harm processes, to lead to unofficial communications methods, or to result in later, arguably bad-faith 'gotcha' attempts causing varying amounts of damage.
I feel like it might be a reasonable alternative, instead of pushing people to expensive (in-person discussion) or unsafe (phone, texts, WhatsApp) methods of unrecorded conversations, to accept that it is beneficial despite the problems, encourage safe methods, and try to reasonably limit what conversations are acceptable in those spaces.
On the other hand, pushing this while also pushing to make these communication methods illegal for individuals is very hypocritical.
That's an interesting recommendation, given the ongoing "Chat Control" proposal that wants to break E2EE.
My understanding is that there is no proposal to break E2EE chat for politicians, and presumably their staff as well.
Is that actually part of the chat control proposal, to exempt politicians? Because I have definitely never heard that. All I’ve heard is they want backdoors placed at the provider level, to affect everyone.
Several sources (eg, https://fightchatcontrol.eu/) claim that there is a 'professional secrecy' exemption that would exempt politicians.
But actually, looking at the closest thing I can find to an actual text, the exemption is broader-reaching and arguably worse. Essentially, only individuals in their personal lives would be spied on; corporate and government communication would be exempt out of respect for the privacy of confidential communications and trade secrets, and because those spaces would have 'less risk' of CSAM:
It seems that the regulation sees any company as more trustworthy than a private individual, and sees any trade secret as more worthy of respect than an individual's personal privacy.
Of course, elsewhere, the regulations will keep that personal information perfectly safe, but here, the regulations apparently won't. And CSAM purveyors who will know that what they are doing is illegal, and that these regulations and exclusions exist will of course not think to use the entire class of corporate communication systems that will be exempt. There's no need to justify this contradiction; it simply exists. That, and the example of "classified information" and "national security purposes" in the motivation turning into any employee of any company and any corporate trade secret in the conclusion is typical of the European hypocrisy around rights and 'fairness' that increasingly frustrates me.
Politicians, law enforcement officers, intelligence agencies and militaries.
So you're saying all I have to do is send my CV to the Commission and move to Brussels...
It's very hypocritical, this communication is their job and they are public servants. Yet not even the institutions they work in can keep a record.
To be honest, I feel like there is an inherent need in many contexts for communications that are not fully recorded, and this is perhaps particularly the case for governance. It is very difficult to have open or thoughtful discussions or negotiations knowing that every word you say can be scrutinized years later, often by parties specifically trying to hurt you by interpreting them in as misleading a way possible. That even well-meaning people end up trying to find ways to have those sorts of communications is perhaps evidence of this need. That is perhaps because our culture has not yet adapted to the technological ability to record and have so much information available, and can't reasonably handle exploratory and conversational speech that is given the permanency of carefully-considered text. In my personal experience, when I have been in positions where records of everything were the norm, it tended either to stifle discussion and harm processes, to lead to unofficial communications methods, or to result in later, arguably bad-faith 'gotcha' attempts causing varying amounts of damage.
I feel like it might be a reasonable alternative, instead of pushing people to expensive (in-person discussion) or unsafe (phone, texts, WhatsApp) methods of unrecorded conversations, to accept that it is beneficial despite the problems, encourage safe methods, and try to reasonably limit what conversations are acceptable in those spaces.
On the other hand, pushing this while also pushing to make these communication methods illegal for individuals is very hypocritical.