The “Nothing to hide” argument isn’t really an argument, it’s more of a conclusion. That conclusion is then taken to support mass surveillance. It’s also not a logical fallacy (even if it’s wrong). It may be “proven” using logical fallacies, but that doesn’t make it a logical fallacy on its own. So I think it’s correct to remove the logical fallacy text.
I think the more effective defense against this one is to provide counterexamples for why you might care about mass surveillance:
- People do have something to hide. E.g. browser history, religious/political beliefs, etc…
- You may not have something to hide now, but in the future you may wish it was still hidden. You can’t unpublish information these days.
- People you care about may have something to hide, and not caring about mass surveillance puts them at risk.
- Relatively harmless individual datapoints can be combined to create harmful datasets that allow for mass exploitation.
- Governments may abuse mass surveillance, whereby you may experience negative effects from journalists/political dissidents being silenced
- Etc…
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.
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.
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.
Proton edited and deleted some of their responses because it made them look even worse. You can find one here: https://archive.ph/quYyb
Complete delusion believing Trump will “stand up for the little guy”. The GOP is the party that gutted net neutrality after all. They had the Chevron doctrime overturned. The Thiel-Musk funded party standing up for “little tech”? Please.
The CEO tried to spin it off as “missing context” but the responses show he’s either completely delusional, has been comatose for the past two decades or is just pro-Trump. I can’t look inside his head, but his tacit endorsement of the party actively dismantling US democracy is not something that can really “lack context”.
Proton, the company, has donated to liberal parties. The CEO seems to be a bit more of the “libertarian” type, that doesn’t seem to mind everything the GOP did in the past years.