Germany opposes client-side scanning planned by EU
tutanota.com
tutanota.com
https://www.businessinsider.com/police-say-a-google-tip-abou...
https://cbs4indy.com/news/indycrime/muncie-man-arrested-on-c...
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/21/technology/google-surveil...
Microsoft publicly released PhotoDNA only in 2009, and even at that time its use was very limited. A few cloud services adopted it for cloud-uploaded files, which (back then) tended to have a clear UX distinction from private content (in the sense that users either knew they were making a public post, or at least had to make an affirmative decision to upload each piece of content.) Even during this time, some providers only enforced CSAM detection on content explicitly shared with others, while some were more vague about their policies. Still others refused to scan much at all. As an HN reader you may have known this scanning was in place, but in reality it was sporadic and very few platforms made public efforts to engage with customers and explain whether or what they were actually scanning. (For a contrasting example, see Apple's very public messaging efforts around CSAM scanning from 2021.)
Today's big private messaging platforms like Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, WeChat and iMessage didn't really come on the scene until around 2011. Excepting Chinese platforms, most of these messaging platforms do not employ content scanning for private messages. Perhaps the major exception to this rule is Facebook Messenger, which made the (IMHO thoughtless) decision to add CSAM content scanning across its entire network, and didn't bother to make a distinction between "public" and private messaging. But even Facebook has clearly reconsidered this hasty decision, given that they're planning to deploy default E2E encryption for Messenger (as they already do for WhatsApp), and have publicly opposed adding content scanning to that system. Meanwhile transparent smartphone backup systems like iCloud Photos are even newer, and have not always scanned private backup data. (See again Apple's public attempt in 2021 to deploy this scanning, which failed due to customer pushback.)
TL;DR: content scanning is a relatively new technology that only had relatively limited deployments, sometimes only on public data or data explicitly uploaded. It was deployed relatively quietly so that "society" never really had the opportunity to have a public debate about whether or where it should be deployed. For better or worse, we are now having that debate. I think it is very unhelpful to imply that this is some long-deployed technology that all providers have always used on private data, because that's (1) not really accurate, and (2) short-circuits the debate and implies that we've already made an important decision.
Like I don't like this plan but I also have to be realistic that my reaction as someone who values privacy is way overblown.
The way we engage with data is also very different. Back in 2008 I kept most of my photos and private papers in hard-copy form inside my house, or (perhaps) on a local hard drive. Today nearly all of my private papers and photos live in my phone, and for most people a duplicate copy lives on an Apple or Google server somewhere. Having your phone's data stolen is literally a life-altering event for many people, one that is mostly avoided through local data encryption. This is leaving aside the societal implications of ubiquitous scanning, which would effectively undo two centuries of limited policing.
This was also a time before massive data breaches and ransomware and revenge porn and data extortion were routine. The big high-profile leaks of celebrity nudes wouldn't happen until 2014. Indeed, the very notion of having cloud-backed smartphone photos stolen was hardly a thing, because cloud backup mostly didn't exist and routine use of phones to take private, explicit imagery was not a thing most people engaged in. In our time, sextortion has become so routine that it's a major category of child abuse. To deal with this changed landscape, security has been massively upgraded across cloud and messaging services. Part of that upgrade is the default use of user-controlled encryption for local data as well as the default use of E2E encryption for most messaging.
You can't say "everything was fine" because by and large most things were not fine. From a security perspective things were actually fairly bad! We've made a lot of progress since the time when photo scanning was first launched, including the launching of widespread encryption as a means to prevent breaches. Client-side scanning implies at least weakening some of those measures, and possibly eliminating others.
Governments have no right to compel companies to engage in policing activities like this.
It's called privatization of tyranny and it's been going on forever.
Companies like to do it to get closer to the government to get less regulation or government contracts.
A bastion of freedom, leader of the free world and all sorts of similar appellatives.
But living there you start to realize how creepy everything is.
There are practically no privacy laws for the government, they know everything.
I guess it’s an European thing…
There really isn't though, maybe in a built up area, in the middle of a city. But even then it's selective IME, and they are not all part of the same network.
It's the same problem you allude to, everything discussed online is quantised into 0 or 1, by humans.
The only way to make sense of anything is to remind yourself the truth in what you are reading is invariably more grey and nuanced, writers' unconsciously colour everything to fit their narrative.
This claim appears continuously on HN, but it really isn't backed by reality. The UK is no more covered by CCTV than most major countries and in fact, per capita, has fewer cameras than the US.
https://www.precisesecurity.com/articles/top-10-countries-by...
[1] https://www.tooltester.com/en/blog/the-worlds-most-surveille...
It's not happening with the kind of violence that you sometimes hear about from Mexico, though.
That's bordering on propaganda. The problem the Netherlands have is that Europe's biggest seaport is in Rotterdam - that means a lot of ships that come from South America unload their freight there, and there is an extensive network of rail and highway lines that connect it to the rest of Europe. And that combination attracts drug smugglers like a pile of poo attracts flies - and wherever you have large scale drug smugglers, no matter the country's drug policy, which is only relevant for marijuana anyway, you will get absurd amounts of money luring in corruptible officials.
I think there has been a period that the Dutch authorities were a bit naive about this, but they seem to be taking it more seriously now. But I'm no expert and not remotely up to date on what's really going on.
That's only valid for some chem-drugs (mostly LSD) and marijuana. The real issue is cocaine imported from South America, it's by far the most important drug in the Dutch trade.
Phone number requirements in apps mean that you basically can't use consumer apps without doxing yourself.
Also, what is a "strong" "government" ID? Are there weak, non-government ones, like library cards?
For one, Germany is not a state of law, given that the public prosecutor's office is bound by instructions (not sure if that's the correct translation). It is up to politicians to decide wether state attorneys can go through with lawsuits. I didn't know this until I was close to 30. This came to somewhat public attention because our current chancellor was the superior to the prosecutor while being in the senate of Hamburg, which is why he wasn't prosecuted in the causa cum ex. It's the whole "one big club" thing, but legal.
If you haven't heard of "cum ex", its a fun read of how bad things can go (well, could, so far).
Most recently, the data privacy officer of Hamburg said this:
Principles for avoiding and minimizing the processing of personal information, which are enshrined in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), among other things, "will be unable to be upheld."
Read his job title again :-)
Another prime example is how anything related to the future is compromised in favor of legacy industrial groups. We used to be leading in solar tech, but political support for the related industries was gutted in favor of drum roll coal jobs.
I could go on for a long time.
Not saying you're wrong, genuinely curious about specifics.
[edit: As pointed out by various commenters below, some of these might not be technically true, or have outs, such as being able to go back home to show your ID. My hypothesis is that common official workflows lead to these perceptions from the outside, e.g. As a foreigner in a country, if an official asks you "Where is your anmeldung?", you are not very likely to challenge them back and say "Actually, it's not required, please use the workflow that allows for absence of one."]
- You have to register your current address with the local authorities (anmeldung) after moving into a new place. By itself this seems fine, but it also seems to bea prerequisite for a lot of life necessities like getting health insurance and a mobile phone number.
- If you are in Germany and run a website, you need to have an Impressum on your website that states your address. So you are pretty much auto-doxxed every time you decide to maintain a personal website or blog. I am not sure how much this is enforced.
- There is a "Stop and Identify" law (Personalausweisgesetz) that requires you to be in possession of an identity document, and hand it over when asked to by any authorities, with substantial fines for noncompliance.
- From my own experience as a visitor, Wi-Fi portals always seem to have a great deal of personal data entry before you can get on the Internet. Apparently there were previously laws that put a great deal of liability on whoever ran a Wi-Fi network, which meant that businesses were naturally loathe to offer one.
It would be interesting to me as well to hear from Germans who grew up with these, and how they perceive their impact on privacy.
The one about carrying an ID card at all times is creepy, but it also shows how the concept of "privacy" is a very personal thing for which different people have different tresholds.
For the mobile phone number you must identify yourself, the pretext is terror-prevention, not sure how true this really is. But usually they just check the passport, the address is not really relevant.
> If you are in Germany and run a website, you need to have an Impressum on your website that states your address.
You need an Impressum if you run a business, meaning you earn money with it. This could already be the case if you have ads. For a purely private site, an Impressum is unneccessary.
> There is a "Stop and Identify" law (Personalausweisgesetz) that requires you to be in possession of an identity document, and hand it over instantly when asked to by any authorities, with substantial fines for noncompliance.
This is a bit misleading. You need to be able to identify yourself, but not instantly. You can have your documents at home, and they either will ignore you, or drive you home, depending you their reasons and the moonphase, and so on.
> - You have to register your current address with the local authorities (anmeldung) after moving into a new place.
Yeah. I do not see a problem with that. In fact, I like the idea of an identity being linked to a location, it makes scamming harder.
> - If you are in Germany and run a website, you need to have an Impressum on your website that states your address. So you are pretty much auto-doxxed every time you decide to maintain a personal website or blog. I am not sure how much this is enforced.
1. That is not entirely true: purely personal websites do not need an Impressum. 2. This is not enforced by the state, but by competitors (not having an Impressum is considered bad competitive practice). 3. The Impressum makes sense once you understand we treat websites like we treat newspapers (which have similar requirements), or flyers (which also have such requirements).
> - There is a "Stop and Identify" law (Personalausweisgesetz) that requires you to be in possession of an identity document, and hand it over instantly when asked to by any authorities, with substantial fines for noncompliance.
This is not true.
You must own an ID document (either a personal ID card, or a passport). Nowhere does it say you need to carry it around with you. When stopped, you can be held until your id can be verified (which takes about 5 minutes without an ID document, or 3 with one).
> - Wi-Fi portals always seem to have a great deal of personal data entry before you can get on the Internet. Apparently there were previously laws that put a great deal of liability on whoever ran a Wi-Fi network, which meant that businesses were naturally loathe to offer one.
Hm, whenever I am abroad (UK, France, Spain, Morocco), public WiFi seems to be a lot more restrictive and a lot more nosey than German public WiFi, so YMMV...
- you have to be able to identify yourself within 24 hours, usually at the nearest police station. As a matter of convenience, most people just carry their ID with them.
- registering your address also serves as registering for stuff like voting. As a matter of fact, you need some kind of address, wherever that is. Apparently you can register somewhat generically, e.g. digital nomads travelling in their vans ehich are registered in Germany, just don't ask me how
- most hosting companies offer generic impressum addresses for websites to avoid exactly that, I know because I used those. As soon as you run a company, the company address as well as the name of the managing director become public record. Again, ome can use a "letter box" address, say your tax advisor, as a work around.
You make it worse than it really is, and simultanously miss all the bad stuff going on...
I am sure that I am making it seem worse than it is, which is why I asked for views from people who grew up with these laws. As a first-generation immigrant American, a lot of things that shock me about laws and culture in the US are quite natural to people who grew up here (the most obvious example being guns) -- so I'm sure that the case in Germany would be similar.
I am curious though, what do you view as "all the bad stuff going on" with regards to privacy?
True. However, this is the case at least in CH and IT as well (in IT you will probably have also a visit from the local police to check that the place is up to some standards), I grow up thinking this was common in EU - isn't it?
> If you are in Germany and run a website, you need to have an Impressum on your website that states your address.
Kinda: if you run a _commercial_ website. My blog doesn't have my address.
> - There is a "Stop and Identify" law (Personalausweisgesetz) that requires you to be in possession of an identity document, and hand it over instantly when asked to by any authorities, with substantial fines for noncompliance.
There is no mandate to have the ID card with you in Germany. In Italy there is. You must provide your identity to the authority over request, but you can also have your ID at home.
> - Wi-Fi portals always seem to have a great deal of personal data entry before you can get on the Internet. Apparently there were previously laws that put a great deal of liability on whoever ran a Wi-Fi network, which meant that businesses were naturally loathe to offer one.
True and incredibly annoying. Things have slowly improved, but a lot still request too much data.
2) Only for businesses. It seems pretty sensible to me that someone who is taking money in return for the future delivery of a product or service should have some legally watertight method of contact, and not just an e-mail address which might bounce, or a contact form. You also only have to identify the person who is willing to be the legal contact for the content, it doesn't have to be the actual owner/author.
3) As said by others, you only have to produce it later, not on the spot. In some countries the idea of a mandatory ID is anathema, but as I see it modern society is not really possible without proof of ID, and countries which insist on not issuing ID documents effectively end up with an poor unofficial substitute. In the US the driving license and SSN is effectively the mandatory form of ID, it just isn't very good at it since it wasn't designed to be one.
Same with ID cards, you’re expected to always be able to prove your identity if asked by the police.
The impressum is only for businesses.
I don’t really see what that has to do with privacy laws.
- You have to specifically register your address on a special list for voting purposes. If you don't, you can't vote.
- Payroll taxes are for almost all people done automatically and there is no benefit to doing an individual tax return. Your employer handles the tax communication and informs the tax authorities of your address.
- Property taxes get sent to the address, regardless of who lives there.
- The health service is not insurance based, all residents are automatically covered, so they don't need your contact details.
- For anything else(pension, driving license etc.) you have to notify them individually and if you don't, that's your problem. There are no restrictions like having to take the driving test in the city you live in.
Seems like Germans do a good tradeoff.
Not really surprising given the Cold War history in my book.
I also think it's credible that some of these close ties were kept way past "expiration", who likes to give up privileges, esp. as an intelligence service.
As a matter of fact though, looking at the long list of intelligence service scandals, there has been more and more light shed on these tricks by parliament and a free press since the 2010s [0].
Also, there was a law past in 2016 after the NSA revelations increasing control and limiting capabilities of the BND [1].
So while going back 30+ years I am inclined to go with your statement, I can't find objective evidence, hints, whatsoever, that this is still true.
With all that being said, as a German citizen, I'd much rather be allied with US intelligence services than Chinese or Russian ones.
Yes, it's a dragnet, yes it's a hassle to protect your privacy effectively, yes intelligence services are no lambs and always play by the books.
But let's not kid ourselves, both Germany and the US are pretty free countries for their citizens?
[0]: For example for a critical opinion of the NSA <> BND relationship, which is also being itself critized by other experts https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globale_%C3%9Cberwachungs-_und...
[1]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesetz_zur_Ausland-Ausland-Fer...
Julian Assange has entered the chat. Oh no, wait, he hasn't, because he's being chemically lobotomized by the very criminals whose crimes he revealed to the world ..
I think even interest in privacy is waning. Ever since companies have been dragging their heels and making users run through (often outright illegal) cookie consent popups I've been hearing people complain more about privacy protections than about privacy abuses. The attempts to portray these laws as "red tape" have been very effective.
Edit: In fact, post WW2 German intelligence started as "Organisation Gehlen", as in Gehlen, former head of Fremde Heere Ost of the Wehrmacht (none of the anti-Nazi Abwehr people). Quite an ibteresting choice, picking a Nazi intel officer that was wrong basically all the time to head the new German intelligence service. To be fair so, the Russians staffed the East German coubterparts with former Gestapo and Abwehr people as well.
If people had stronger privacy, these sorts of things wouldn't work.
Reddit is chock full of expats in Germany who got burned by this. And also the locals, but rare because they know how the system works.
In Germany it's difficult to defend yourself in court against copyright bullying from big corporations if you don't have deep pockets for a top lawyer, as there's no jury trials, nor double jeopardy, like in the US, so you're at the mercy of a major corporation with unlimited money and an old judge who has read about the internet in the newspaper, so people will instantly fold and stop what they're doing and pay whatever bullshit fine they're issued even when they do nothing illegal because paying the fine is cheaper than battling in court.
Honestly, Americans take for granted some of the freedoms they have online and in their justice system.
Look up the case of Axel-Springer suing the company that created AdBlock. Luckily Axel lost the first round[1], but it's scary how bold these companies are in Germany as many private individuals don't have the means to defend themselves in curt against such an entity.
[1] https://digiday.com/media/axel-springer-reinvigorates-legal-...
Torrenting is a weird example to argue, but I definitely agree with the quoted sentiment. Americans tend to (perhaps justly) complain about the costs of standing up to big corporations (or the government) in courts, but in continental Europe there is absolutely no option to have a case against a corporation judged solely on its merits as the judge will be immensely biased to favour the larger, more "respected" entity.
Your sweeping generalization is especially ironic here, as the parent finished their comment with the example of Axel Springer losing to AdBlock plus...
Because AdBlock is a company who luckily had the means to defend themselves in court. Small time individuals don't have that luxury, so the likes of Axel-Springer will use their massive war-chest for lobbying and to abuse the copyright system again and again until they get their way. Even if they're in the wrong and they end up loosing a court battle, it's still a very powerful intimidation tactic.
Look up newer articles. Axel-Springer was still pushing for the AdBlock ban in 2022 and lobbying for it despite loosing a court battle. They're playing the long game.
That's not really a fair debate.
Parent's author, whom I quoted, did not focus on copyright cases as you did and do in this comment.
Hence I called him out on his generalization.
Now you are going back to "small time individuals" in the context of copyright and how that seems to be an unfair system to you.
I won't debate the merits or unfairness of copyright.
I just disagree with the general notion that all of continental Europe is a corporation paradise and all citizens are oppressed and all judges rule with corps.
It's frankly ridiculous.
If you break those laws, it's not really the judges fault, but yours? In Germany you can at least expect a fair trial that isn't overturned by the lawyer that is better at manipulating the jury's emotions...
Man, I'd love to see the first jury that sides with the evil megacorp and not the 19 year old who downloaded an mp3, like every member of the jury who had a childhood. I'd pay to see that.
According to German, and many other law systems, piracy is stealing, it's just that in Germany they are enforcing it strictly thanks to those private firms.
There's no such thing as "downloading an mp3 or a book" by an accident. You know that you are downloading something illegally.
And that 80-year-old judge understands something you don't, that the internet is a neutral medium which doesn't make local laws void just because "you downloaded it from the internet".
Dude, you can install software fully hijacking your device by clicking or tapping a link. You have mobile and computer operating systems by default displaying "news" with links to ads and scams.
Are you actually being serious?
Schufa already had to cut their storage duration for data regarding private bankruptcy so there's definitely blood in the water.
So you got caught pirating content? How is that an argument for or against anything or proof of anything?
A committee of the parliament held a hearing where the invited experts said that it's a bad idea.
That's it. Parliament didn't vote on it. The government didn't publish a guideline that they'll oppose EU decisions.
Please stop upvoting this stuff. It's content marketing that pretends "experts say" means "Germany opposes".
If Germany would get the image of being a privacy hellscape, their business could get in trouble.
They're independent journalists, no product other than info and have been at this for over a decade.
CCC is another extremely informed one.
[1]: https://www.svd.se/a/76mlxW/jan-jonsson-stoppa-forslaget-om-...
It is much easier to cast a broad net and become a surveillance state than do traditional police leg work.
Аnd also, power is addictive, and investigators are not immune to this.
Germany still has living memory of the DDR and Stasi, and the revelation of their extensive surveillance is very much a culturally formative event in Germany and its sphere of influence.
Does it seriously surprise you that Germany as the aggresor that lost the war, became a border country to the Soviet block with a large US military presence was influenced by the CIA or other US intelligence services?
It does not surprise me to the least.
I don't think your argument is particularly strong though if all you present to make your point are well documented historic facts going back 50-70 years.
You're missing a whole lot between those times and today.
Last reference to the CIA in your first link is that the German gov. expelled several high ranking CIA officers post the mid 2010s NSA leaks.
So where are you deriving the notion from that, today, the CIA controls the BND?
Give us facts, posts, experts, discussions, anything. And recent.
Not just an opinion.
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA%20AND%20THE%20ORIGI...
How is this relevant at all?
It was defunct on 2018. That is not 30 years ago.
User telmo wanted a source for spying on citizens. I provided an example of that. It is not exactly what he asked for, but it is not nothing.
Literally the second sentence of the link you posted.
So no relevance in the context of Germany and BND.
come on...