Europol said Chat Control doesn’t go far enough; they want to retain all data of all citizens forever [Washington Post source in comment]

https://i.redd.it/ehin2a2j8pmf1.jpeg

by Dry_Row_7050

29 comments

  1. We know that it would be useful to law enforcement to have all the data. But that’s not the point. With this reasoning they should say that we should put all the people in prison to make sure that 100% criminals are in prison. That would make law enforcement job so much easier!

  2. >The European court backed the Russian users, finding that law enforcement having such blanket access “impairs the very essence of the right to respect for private life” and therefore would violate Article 8 of the European Convention, which enshrines the right to privacy except when it conflicts with laws established “in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country.”

  3. I don’t understand why. They literally can’t sort though the data they already have. Every time there is a terror attack it seems the guy was on a watchlist but they say they don’t have capacity to monitor them all.

    Suppose it can help unravel a plot after the fact, but it won’t make anyone safer.

    Only a question of time before they try to thrown an AI at it and start rounding up Counter Strike players for talking about hostages and bombs or something.

  4. As a data engineer, all my yes – this my job security for the rest of my life!

    /s

  5. so like half of the population’s jobs would be to control the other half, GOT IT

  6. “unnamed Europol police official” – peak irony

  7. And while we are at it, let’s install some cameras into every building and record it forever, we’ll never know when something Hans said to his fruend could be useful for law enforcement, right?

  8. This is completely contrary to all EU and common sense data security rules: only keep data you absolutely need, and only for the duration that you need it. Getting all data you can and keeping it forever is a flagrant violation of that.

    It’s also impractical for them. They will drown in meaningless data. How many terrorist attacks have happened where afterwards it turned out intelligence and law enforcement organisations already had the data to predict it, they just hadn’t pieced it all together yet. And now they want even more meaningless pieces.

  9. How comes that we have to get this info from an american newspaper? What do european journalists do?

  10. Talk about dystopia.

    Hey remember when people were up in arms over what Snowden revealed in the US?

  11. “All data is useful” is just the most damning sentence of them all.

  12. Even with Patriot act in USA and PRISM to collect all datas authorities are unable to stop the school shootings…

    This project is historically been applied since 2001 to today in the United States and was never useful…

    Why would European Union waste the same amount of money ?

    We finally deserve to be dominated by China in the near future… We’re doomed.

  13. Just felt like reminding everyone of article 8 of the Human Rights:

    ## Article 8: Right to privacy
    1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
    2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

  14. Aside from the obvious privacy concerns; what would be the *cost* of all this?

    Sure, digital storage is fairly cheap nowadays, but we’re talking data for hundreds of millions of people, along with backups and upkeep (replacing older storage as it’s worn out over time).

    Then also development of systems to archive it all properly, systems to be able to search it properly for it to actually be useful in *any* way whatsoever, presumably some automated system to flag certain things (and people to monitor and decide if properly flagged or not), electricity and water costs, various types of pollution, etc.

    All of this for some *potential* minimal upside, and a dozen or more *certain* downsides.

  15. “Would be useful to law enforcement” is not an argument. It’s a rhetorical trick to make it harder for people to argue against it.

    Many things would be “useful to law enforcement”.

    For example, if all people lived in fenced in camps, constantly under armed guard, requiring a permit to do anything outside of work, observed by drones 24/7, with harsh punishments for stepping out of line, that would certainly make the job much easier for law enforcement.

    But that’s not how we want to live our lives.

  16. Willing to bet Palantir and USA have something to do with all these authoritarian initiatives.

  18. Unironically, whoever wrote that, should be benched forever. Huff paint thinner.

  19. “if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear” – liers everywhere 

  20. Compromise: every politician has to wear a body cam 24/7 and it can’t be turned off.

  21. I won’t even be surprised if politicians, law enforcement, military and/or high profile businessman will be exempt from data collection for ‘safety reasons’

  22. Criminals will have tons of ways of bypassing any laws surrounding this

  23. Pure Orwellian wet dreams. And the ugly truth is: technically they’re right – if you hoard every scrap of data, you can crush crime. But you also crush freedom with it. Trade liberty for “security” and you lose both, because power always gets abused. A database of everyone’s life isn’t protection – it’s a loaded gun pointed at society, waiting for the wrong hands. That’s why this has to be fought with everything: civil disobedience, independent code, boycotts of collaborators. Everyone has something to hide – and if you don’t think so, just wait until the watchers decide what your “something” is.

  24. All people being restrained all the time would also bring the crime rate to zero,

    doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.

  25. Two pedo groups in Europe, elite pedos consisting of  politicians and the super rich, and Muslim grooming gangs as documented in England. Solve those first.

  26. >unnamed Europol police official… in 2022

    So, not Europol but some dude that may work in Europol in some capacity. And they are right: if we did remove all privacy we would have more crimes solved. But we don’t do that, we are not putting cameras in every living room as that is more wrong. You have to remember where they are coming from, wanting to solve crimes. Not to put you under iron boot. That is a possible SIDE-EFFECT and easily big enough reason for us to resist. If such a system was created it is going to be abused by those with access to it.

    But, this article is still such bullshit.

  27. Whoever thinks this is going good, clearly didn’t live through any kind of regime. This data will be available to whatever next Nazi authority in the future. Last time it was Jews, but next time they might not like something about you, or send your grandchildren to slaughter for your 60 years old tiktok or whatever.

  29. “An unnamed Europol police official”

    So one dumb fuck said this 3 years ago at a meeting, and we have no idea what the response was from the others at that meeting.

    This is just getting people riled up for no good reason. Yes, it *would* be bad, but no one is trying to do it. Focus on what is actually occuring.

Comments are closed.