𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠

Both WhatsApp and Signal show the same amount of chats to me (9 for both). WhatsApp does show a small sliver of a tenth chat, but it’s not really properly visible. There is a compact mode for the navigation bar in Signal, which helps a bit here.

From what I can see there’s slightly more whitespace between chats, and Signal uses the full height for the chat (eg same size as the picture), whereas WhatsApp uses whitespace above and below, pushing the name and message preview together.

In chats the sizes seem about the same to me, but Signal colouring messages might make it appear a bit more bloated perhaps? Not sure.

Shareholders can demand external audits under threat of selling the stock. There’s plenty shareholders can do (and have done in the past). They don’t just sit idle and not do anything you know.

Shareholders seek to maximize profits. If that includes a lawsuit to squeeze out even more investments, then why not?

They never bothered to check if Boeing did what they had to do security wise. Only once it threatened their profits they sprang into action.

If I understand correctly they already can. It’s not user-facing, but votes are federated if I understand correctly.

That’s a very specific usecase though that the majority of programmers likely will never have to face.

Better rebrand to Clownstrife I guess.

In the Netherlands 112 is fine, most critical systems are. It’s mostly airports that are getting fucked by this it seems.

Banks and PSPs are fine here too.

The PR had some issues regarding files that were pushed that shouldn’t have been, adding refactors that should have been in separate PRs, etc…

Though the main reason is that Signal doesn’t consider this issue a part of their threat model.

Aaand here’s your misunderstanding.

All messages detected by whatever algorithm/AI the provider implemented are sent to the authorities. The proposal specifically says that even if there is some doubt, the messages should be sent. Family photo or CSAM? Send it. Is it a raunchy text to a partner or might one of them be underage? Not 100% sure? Send it. The proposal is very explicit in this.

Providers are additionally required to review a subset of the messages sent over, for tweaking w.r.t. false positives. They do not do a manual review as an additional check before the messages are sent to the authorities.

If I send a letter to someone, the law forbids anyone from opening the letter if they’re not the intended recipient. E2E encryption ensures the same for digital communication. It’s why I know that Zuckerberg can’t read my messages, and neither can the people from Signal (metadata analysis is a different thing of course). But with this chat control proposal, suddenly they, as well as the authorities, would be able to read a part of the messages. This is why it’s an unacceptable breach of privacy.

Thankfully this nonsensical proposal didn’t get a majority.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=COM:2022:209:FIN

Here’s the text. There are no limits on which messages should be scanned anywhere in this text. Even worse: to address false positives, point 28 specifies that each provider should have human oversight to check if what the system finds is indeed CSAM/grooming. So it’s not only the authorities reading your messages, but Meta/Google/etc… as well.

You might be referring to when the EU can issue a detection order. This is not what is meant with the continued scanning of messages, which providers are always required to do, as outlined by the text. So either you are confused, or you’re a liar.

Cite directly from the text where it imposes limits on the automated scanning of messages. I’ll wait.

The point is is that it should never, under no circumstances monitor and eavesdrop private chats. It’s an unacceptable breach of privacy.

Also, please explain what “specific circumstances” you are referring to. The current proposal doesn’t limit the scanning of messages in any way whatsoever.

It does require invasive oversight. If I send a picture of my kid to my wife, I don’t want some AI algorithm to have a brainfart and instead upload the picture to Europol for strangers to see and to put me on some list I don’t belong.

People sharing CSAM are unlikely to use apps that force these scans anyway.

https://hackaday.com/2024/05/03/google-removes-risc-v-support-from-android/

The financial sector offers a magnitude more services than just “transactions”. It’s a stupid comparison.

Music locker services are frequenly targeted and taken down, as GlitterInfection mentioned. There’s multiple cases on the Wikipedia page.

There is a jump between hosting and sharing, but that jump is very small. Share it with 1 other person, and you have made unauthorised copies of the licensed material, and are therefore acting against the law. That’s not FUD, that’s been reality for the past few decades.

Whether or not the illegal sharing of licensed material is done via a generic website, a federated service of even carrier pidgeon doesn’t matter, an unlicensed copy is an illegal copy. Rightsholders have pleny of avenues to force a takedown against specific instances. And if they can successfully argue that the primary purpose of this software is piracy, they may even have enough legal arguments to force a takedown of the sourcecode.

Of course, the main question is whether rightsholders will bother with this as long as it remains small-scale. Legal costs would likely outweigh the missed income. But that doesn’t actually shield you from legal liability.

They would be able to sue the webhost in order to retrieve basically all the data if they have strong and reasonable suspicions that the website is hosting copyrighted material.

This really isn’t as foolproof in legal terms unfortunately. With torrent websites there’s still some ambiguity as the website doesn’t host the copyrighted material, just the torrent files. But here the website itself is liable, painting a massive legal target on their backs.

ISPs can be compelled to share name/address information of anyone involved in publishing licensed material through the courts. Then they’ll summon you to stop or pay a fairly hefty fine.

At least in the Netherlands this would still constitute unauthorised copying of licensed material, and therefore be illegal.

If the US hadn’t pulled out, the Taliban wouldn’t be in charge. So Trump killed it.

Indirectly doing things allows anyone to take the blame!