Robin Edgar’s Post

The EU 'Proposal for a #Regulation laying down rules to prevent and combat child sexual abuse' aims to better protect children and young people from sexual abuse in the digital space. 𝗔𝗰𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘀𝗶𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗘𝗨 𝗱𝗿𝗮𝗳𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗮𝘀 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹 𝗷𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗶𝘇𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗻𝘀. 𝗜𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗿𝗲𝗻, 𝗶𝘁 𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝘃𝗲𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗼𝗶𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗘𝗨. 𝗜𝘁 𝘀𝘂𝗴𝗴𝗲𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗮 𝘁𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁, 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝘁, 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘆𝗲𝘁 𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘀𝘁. Instead, the implementation of what is better known as the European Union's #CSARegulation or #ChatControl initiative will, in the future, allow state security authorities new possibilities unintended by the legislator, such as mass surveillance. On entry into force of the draft regulation, a massive infringement of the fundamental right to #security and #confidentiality of digital #communication will occur, affecting all EU residents and undermining a cornerstone of our democratic community of values. We, therefore, demand the preservation and continued protection of the fundamental right to security and confidentiality of digital communication. The envisaged technical implementation of chat control massively jeopardizes the confidentiality of even end-to-end encrypted chat messages. On October 10, the Council plans to conduct the first reading of this regulation, which has numerous unintended and severe effects on our civil rights. The European Union should, therefore, not transform the CSA Regulation in its current form into an EU Directive or Regulation.

MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD BY COMMISSIONER JOHANSSON: DEFEND YOUR PRIVACY NOW! Many of you asked what can be done before October to stop Chat Control regulation, officially known as “Regulation … to prevent and combat child sexual abuse”). The most effective if you urge to respect the right for privacy of people and reject the Chat Control proposal altogether by:  🔻 Mrs Ylva Johansson, Commissioner for Home Affairs (Sweden) https://lnkd.in/e_ziEfxE  🔻Representative of your government to the EU (including Min. of Interior and Min. of Justice): https://lnkd.in/evQbE9AT   Why so? On 4 Sept 2024, while representatives of EU governments were discussing the proposal of the #ChatControl regulation behind closed doors (😣!!!), the European Parliament Members (MEPs) called on the European Commission to reject the proposal once again. 👏🌸 MEPs believe that Chat Control proposal is neither appropriate nor proportionate, and most importantly, it will not help protect children from online abuse. That position was once again presented by MEP Charlie Weimers, a Swedish politician and Vice-Chair of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. Thanks to your active position, such MEPs, as Charlie Weimers urged Commissioner Johansson to respect the right to privacy of people and acknowledge, that Chat Control proposal will be recognised in history as a law on mass surveillance of electronic communication in the EU! What was the Commissioner's reaction? Mrs Johansson said that she "was not putting forward any proposal for mass surveillance", but "the responsibility of internet companies to protect children online". 🔴As you see, nobody wants to be associated with mass surveillance. So: 🔻Make your voice heard before October by EU Commission and your government. Do it NOW!  🔻Follow up with your Member of the European Parliament what you could do jointly to protect privacy! Full discussion in the European Parliament here: https://lnkd.in/exZxAFFQ (15:47:17)

EU - all private messages on all messaging platforms will be watched indiscriminately - it's for your own good! The EU Commission proposes to oblige providers to search all private chats, messages, and emails automatically for suspicious content – generally and indiscriminately. The stated aim: To prosecute child sexual exploitation material (CSEM). The result: Mass surveillance by means of fully automated real-time surveillance of messaging and chats and the end of privacy of digital correspondence. Strangely enough some parties such as the EU Commission members will be exempt from this scheme, one wonders why. Refer to https://lnkd.in/eBxYvW7z

This development is totally undemocratic

It's not over, but there's a break. "The EU Council did not make a decision on chat control today, as the agenda item was removed due to the lack of a majority" (...) "On June 17, Whittaker published an official position condemning the EU’s proposed “upload moderation” as a rebranding of client-side scanning that fundamentally undermines end-to-end encryption." (...) "With the EU Council withdrawing the vote on the Chat Control proposal today, the legislative process faces new uncertainty. The proposal will return to the drawing board, as the European Commission and the European Parliament continue to deliberate on the best way forward. The discussions will resume after the summer, once the new Parliament is seated and Hungary assumes the Council presidency from Belgium in July. Hungary has already committed to developing a comprehensive legislative framework to prevent and combat online child sexual abuse and revising the directive against the sexual exploitation of children." #ChatControl #ChatKontrolle https://lnkd.in/dMUJ7tfy

Sad to see Euronews run with false information about Eu Digital Wallet like this https://lnkd.in/d-VBkq9q Notice how they cherry-pick a non-essential claim out of context - that "the wallet is about the citizens choosing which personal information to share". As Bart Jacobs clearly say this is only about the illusion of consent, i.e. a weak protection. Because, really, you won't have any choice - certainly not to provide no personal data as that will not be an option within this thinking. Everything you do will feed central profiling and central profiling will drive a destructive feedback loop when applied whenever you do anything. Lilly Schmidt - politely, consider what happens when the Bundesverfassungsgericht predictably strike down this inherent surveillance structure where everything the citizens does is 100% linkable outside citizen control. Then, when Germany have wasted billions of EURO on bad structures and have to restart at an even worse starting point than today, it is a bit late to regret. The real question is why the aim does not to provide identity non-linkability as the GDPR law states as an obligation if possible within state-of-the-art and required by eIDAS 2.0 article 5a? The reference architecture work with a large number of use cases - all of which are non-compliant as they assume surveillance and doing nothing to secure the citizens from leaking personal data in every transaction. And that is just the most obvious flaw. The problems grow exponentially when you realise that they aim to locate control in a BigTech controlled smartphone space. Fact is, e.g. that the wallet as-is will do nothing to resolve the massive Schrems II (FISA), BigTech or BigGov problems. So, politely, Euronews. Climb down from the propaganda high tower and start addressing the democratic issues as if EU foundational values actually matter. The eIDAS 2.0 regulation is not bad, but the ARF implementation and large scale pilots clearly are. The claim that the wallet approach is secure and protecting citizens is misinformation favoring the interests of both BigTech surveillance capitalism and BigGov authoritarian bureaucracy - but not adding constructively to society, democracy or markets. It could, should and must, but it does not. So, dear Euronews, shouldn't we leave the propaganda to Putin and instead focus on the pro-democratic and market perspective?

Commissioner and Vice-President for Values and Transparency at the EU Commission Věra Jourová mentioned that #chatcontrol does break encryption of ALL of our communication. Last night she tweeted the opposite on X "Let me clarify one thing about our draft law to detect online child sexual abuse (Child Sexual Abuse Regulation #CSAR). Our proposal is not breaking encryption. Our proposal preserves privacy and any measures taken need to be in line with EU privacy laws." -> link: https://lnkd.in/drH4ySDh How we can still trust commissioners that play with the paleolithic emotions, spread misinformation or in this cases is just an opportunistic weathercock that say whatever they what in order to create draconian laws, that give the EU more power and control. Hundreds of security researchers & academics have warned against the measures in the EU's proposed #CSAR, citing harmful side-effects of large-scale scanning of online communications which would have a chilling effect on society and negatively affect democracies. I am all for protecting our children; increase sentences, work towards prevention, do what is necessary but don't throw the baby out with the bath water. These kinds of big brother draconian practices are unheard of in a (real) democracy and a (real) rule of law. They undermine the trust in our "democratic" institutions and most of all the EU. I am 100% pro EU, introduce myself always as a European, however I feel that we need a different from of leadership and replace nepotism with true democratic values. #notmyEUleaders

Don’t mess with (the) Texas (PrivacyAct). Texas Department of Information Resources issues implementation status for the Texas Privacy Act: 🔹️ In the first four and a half months of the complaint portal’s activation, 1,047 consumers filed complaints through the portal. Of those complaints, 70.6% were privacy focused, a number much higher than other states with a similar complaint process 🔹️ Key issues flagged by consumers included the difficulty of the process for exercising their rights and understanding whether the right go opt out applies prospectively and for how long 🔹️Controllers asked for clarity on implementation of the right to delete, the definition of publicly available information, how to carry out authentication without asking for too much extra information and what additional provisions to include in the data processing agreements. 🔹️ The DIR made some recommendations regarding the amendment of the law to address these issues. However, in the report it cites provisions in other US state privacy laws as a way to get more color on your Texas compliance in the interim. #dataprivacy #privacyFOMO #dataprotection Pic by ChatGPT https://lnkd.in/e7MDtqGR

Digital Arrest, Negative Impact of Digital Arrest The concept of “digital arrest” involves using surveillance and digital restrictions to monitor individuals’ online activities without physically detaining them. While potentially useful for controlling cybercrime, digital arrests raise serious legal and ethical concerns. Privacy Violations: Digital arrests can infringe on individuals’ right to privacy by allowing invasive monitoring without their knowledge. The Indian Supreme Court, in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), declared privacy a fundamental right, which digital surveillance threatens. Undermining Due Process: Traditional arrests come with legal safeguards, such as the right to representation. Digital arrests, however, often lack judicial oversight, allowing authorities to restrict individuals without due process or recourse. Erosion of Presumption of Innocence: Digital restrictions imply guilt before any formal charges, stigmatizing individuals and causing reputational harm without evidence of criminal activity. Potential for Abuse: Vaguely defined digital surveillance laws can lead to abuse, targeting dissenters, activists, or journalists under the pretext of national security, undermining democratic freedoms. Chilling Effect on Freedom of Speech: Knowing they’re being monitored can cause individuals to self-censor, limiting free speech and deterring criticism of government, thus stifling democratic discourse. In sum, while digital arrest can aid in crime prevention, it risks violating constitutional rights, raising urgent calls for clearer legal guidelines and strict judicial oversight to balance security needs with individual freedoms.