Saturday, April 19, 2025

Polaris of Enlightenment

Ad:

Loophole in Chat Control 2.0 compromises information security

Mass surveillance

Published 14 October 2023
– By Karl Emil Nikka

The controversial mass surveillance proposal, Chat Control 2.0, is plagued by several technical and information security-related issues. The biggest problem is the requirement that even end-to-end encrypted communication services be included. This requirement exists despite it being technically impossible for service providers to scan the contents of properly end-to-end encrypted conversations. It has always been this way, and it always will be.

The face of the mass surveillance proposal, EU Commissioner Ylva Johansson, initially believed that such scanning was possible (see for instance Many inaccuracies around Chat Control 2.0 in the ‘Aktuellt’ interview). She likened the process to how a drug-sniffing dog can sniff for drugs in closed bags. This analogy is completely incorrect because properly end-to-end encrypted conversations never leak any sniffable traces of their content. It doesn’t matter how advanced future scanning technology becomes because there are never any traces to scan (“sniff”) for.

Proponents of the proposal, therefore, want to bypass the function of end-to-end encryption by implementing a technology called client-side scanning. This means that service providers have to equip their apps with backdoors, allowing them to scan the content before it is sent (before it’s encrypted) and after it has been received (after it has been decrypted). This is the technology that the UN’s Human Rights Commissioner literally advises against, partly due to the dangers it poses for vulnerable children and adults in totalitarian states. (The imminent risk of data leaks and the obvious risk of self-censorship are two other reasons highlighted by the UN’s Human Rights Commissioner.)

The loophole in the definition

From a strictly technical perspective, client-side scanning could be implemented without either prohibiting end-to-end encryption or weakening the encryption. Technically speaking, the client-side scanning itself doesn’t affect the encryption. Client-side scanning merely causes the encryption to cease serving its purpose. With implemented client-side scanning, conversation participants continue to send messages end-to-end encrypted to each other, but both parties simultaneously have a spy looking over their shoulder, seeing everything they write and hearing everything they say.

This definitional loophole is now being exploited by several parties. The parties and their EU Parliamentarians claim that they want to allow end-to-end encryption, yet at the same time, they demand that the content in end-to-end encrypted services can be scanned. In this way, their permission of end-to-end encryption becomes irrelevant. This loophole argument was, incidentally, precisely what I feared when I expressed my skepticism in an interview with Dagens Nyheter at the end of April (see comment in Possible EU turnaround on chat control law – must not weaken encryption).

On our theme website, chatcontrol.se, we have a monitoring database with over 400 Swedish articles written about the proposal. I’ve reviewed these articles as well as the amendment proposals that Swedish parties’ EU Parliamentarians have put forward. Based on this, I’ve been able to identify which proposal advocates are trying to mislead the public by allowing end-to-end encryption while simultaneously demanding that end-to-end encryption be bypassed.

The Tidö agreement parties and the Green Party

The governing parties have presented a proposal for Sweden’s position in the Council of Ministers. The proposal contains the following text which paradoxically wants encrypted messages to be protected while also needing to be scanned:

A tracing order must ultimately be executed without being impeded by a service being encrypted, for example, through machine scanning before the message is encrypted and sent. At the same time, information security must not be jeopardized; encrypted messages should be protected against unauthorized access”.

(From an appendix to a document from the EU Committee 2023/24:4F1902, 2023-09-18)

In the European Parliament, neither the Moderates nor the Christian Democrats share the stance of the Swedish government. Both the Moderates and the Christian Democrats are clear that the function of end-to-end encryption must never be undermined. This is evident in amendment 389 signed by all EU Parliamentarians from the Moderates and the Christian Democrats (Arba Kokalari, Jessica Polfjärd, Tomas Tobé, Jörgen Warborn, David Lega, and Sara Skyttedal).

“End-to-end encryption is an essential tool to guarantee the security, privacy, and confidentiality of the communications between users, including those of children. Any weakening of the end-to-end encryption’s effect could potentially be abused by malicious third parties. Nothing in this Regulation should therefore be interpreted as prohibiting or compromising the integrity and confidentiality of end-to-end encrypted content and communications. As compromising the integrity of end-to-end encrypted content and communications shall be understood the processing of any data, that would compromise or put at risk the integrity and confidentiality of the aforementioned end-to-end encrypted content. Nothing in this regulation shall thus be interpreted as justifying client-side scanning with side-channel leaks or other measures by which the provider of a hosting service or a provider of interpersonal communication services provide third party actors access to the end-to-end encrypted content and communications”.

(Amendment 389, 2023-07-28)

The Sweden Democrats have not criticized the government’s line domestically. However, in the European Parliament, the Sweden Democrats have clarified that they are opposed to the proposal. SD Parliamentarian Johan Nissinen has signed the same amendment as the Moderates and the Christian Democrats (amendment 389).

The Green Party, which was previously opposed to the proposal, has now chosen to support the government’s line, even though the Green Party initially said they did not want to support “the parts that involve mandatory scanning of private communication as it is formulated in the Commission’s proposal right now” (2023-04-18). The change is evident from the minutes of the Justice Committee’s meeting on 2023-09-14 and is confirmed by Rasmus Ling in an interview with Syre (2023-09-22).

The Social Democrats

The Social Democrats in Sweden support the Presidency’s (Spain) compromise proposal. This is reflected in the minutes of the Justice Committee meeting on September 14, 2023.

In addition, in the European Parliament, three Socialist MEPs are trying to use the same loophole to advocate for scanning of end-to-end encrypted services without banning end-to-end encryption.

Heléne Fritzon and Carina Ohlsson first want to introduce an amendment to allow for end-to-end encryption. They want to add the following point to Article 10’s list of technologies and safeguards.

“[The technologies shall be] not able to prohibit or make end- to-end encryption impossible”.

(From Amendment 1161, 2023-07-28)

In the introductory recitals, they also stress, together with S-Parliamentarian Evin Incir, that nothing in the proposal should be interpreted as prohibiting full-spectrum encryption.

Nothing in this Regulation should therefore be interpreted as prohibiting end-to-end encryption or making it impossible.

(From Amendment 385, 2023-07-28)

However, Heléne Fritzon and Carina Ohlsson also want the following addition to Article 7 (Issuance of tracking orders).

For the scope of this Regulation and for the sole purpose to prevent and combat child sexual abuse, providers of interpersonal communications services shall be subjected to obligations to prevent, detect, report and remove online child sexual abuse on all their services, which may include as well those covered by end-to-end encryption, when there is a significant risk that their specific service.

(From Amendment 1049, 2023-07-28)

Other parties

The Left Party and the Center Party have, unlike the other parliamentary parties, chosen not to use the definitional loophole. Both the Left Party and the Center Party instead side with the children and distance themselves from the mass surveillance proposal that violates the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

 


This article is published under the CC BY 4.0 license, except for quotes and images where another photographer is indicated, from Nikka Systems.

The position of the Swedish parties

More information on the positions of all parties and MEPs can be found on the thematic website chatcontrol.se. The information on these positions is also updated on a weekly basis.

TNT is truly independent!

We don’t have a billionaire owner, and our unique reader-funded model keeps us free from political or corporate influence. This means we can fearlessly report the facts and shine a light on the misdeeds of those in power.

Consider a donation to keep our independent journalism running…

Amazon updates privacy settings – all voice data to be stored in the cloud

Mass surveillance

Published 26 March 2025
– By Editorial Staff
Amazon itself states that it saves users' calls in order to improve the service.

As of March 28, some Echo devices will no longer be able to process voice data locally – all voice information will be sent to Amazon’s cloud service, regardless of the user’s will.

Echo is a series of smart devices, including speakers, developed by Amazon. The device records what you say and sends it to Amazon’s servers to be stored and analyzed, allegedly to improve the service. Privacy settings have previously allowed some devices to process voice data locally without sending it to Amazon.

In an email to Echo users, shared on Reddit, Amazon announced that the ability to process voice commands locally is being removed. Instead, all recordings will be sent to the cloud for processing, as Sweclockers has reported.

If the user doesn’t actively change their settings before March 28, they will automatically be set to “do not save data”. This means that Amazon will still collect and process your voice information, but that this will be deleted after Alexa handles the request. However, it is unclear how long the information will be stored before it is actually deleted.

Amazon states that voice data is needed to train the company’s AI model, Alexa Plus. At the same time, the company promises that all previously saved voice data will be deleted if the user has the “do not save data” feature enabled.

The tech mogul on the future of AI: Constant mass surveillance

Mass surveillance

Published 24 January 2025
– By Editorial Staff
With the help of AI, Ellison believes that in the future, those in power will be able to follow citizens' every move.

Tech giant Oracle’s CEO Larry Ellison believes in a future where artificial intelligence becomes an integral part of a borderless mass surveillance society where privacy no longer exists and where everything citizens do is mapped and recorded.

Oracle and Larry Ellison will play a key role in Trump’s AI venture “Stargate” expected to cost upwards of $500 billion and described by the President himself as “by far the largest AI infrastructure project in history”.

There is no doubt that Ellison is one of the world’s most successful tech moguls just last fall he overtook Amazon founder Jeff Bezos to become the world’s second richest man after Elon Musk. But how does he see the future of artificial intelligence and how it will affect our lives?

During a meeting with financial analysts last fall, he predicted a future that critics say is reminiscent of dark dystopian novels like George Orwell’s 1984, where humans are subject to constant mass surveillance and AI is used to map citizens’ every move.

According to Ellison, it is highly likely that in the future, AI models will be used to analyze in real time all the material not only from surveillance cameras, police body cameras, but also from car cameras and doorbells.

Citizens will be on their best behavior because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that’s going on.

Every police officer is going to be supervised at all times, and if there’s a problem, AI will report the problem and report it to the appropriate person, he continued.

“Big brother is watching you”

The multi-billionaire also believes that AI-controlled drones will replace real police officers during car chases and other types of crime and disorder.

– If something happens in a shopping center, a drone goes out there and reaches the scene way faster than a police car.

Technology website Ars Technica’s writer Benji Edwards is one of many who reacted strongly to Ellison’s vision of AI surveillance, saying his comments raise questions about the future of citizens’ privacy and right to privacy.

Ellison’s vision bears more than a passing resemblance to the cautionary world portrayed in George Orwell’s prescient novel 1984. In Orwell’s fiction, the totalitarian government of Oceania uses ubiquitous ‘telescreens’ to monitor citizens constantly, creating a society where privacy no longer exists and independent thought becomes nearly impossible“, Edwards notes.

But Orwell’s famous phrase ‘Big Brother is watching you’ would take on new meaning in Ellison’s tech-driven scenario, where AI systems, rather than human watchers, would serve as the ever-vigilant eyes of authority. Once considered a sci-fi trope, automated systems are already becoming a reality: Similar automated CCTV surveillance systems have already been trialed in London Underground and at the 2024 Olympics“, he continues.

“A slave obeys”

He points out that automated surveillance systems have already been implemented in Chinese cities, among others, and that AI software is already available that can sort and organize the data collected on residents using a network of deployed surveillance cameras.

According to many observers, similar and even more advanced solutions may soon become part of everyday life in the United States and other countries, and there are warnings that a “digital dictatorship” is emerging where the surveillance state is so all-encompassing that it is impossible for anyone to escape.

“‘Good Behavior’ as defined by the billionaires who own and control everything. Otherwise known as blind obedience and willful subservience to their every whim and want. Because a slave obeys, expresses one of many worried voices.

“I have nothing to hide”

Mass surveillance

Ten reasons privacy matters for everyone.

Published 8 January 2025
– By Naomi Brockwell
Is there nothing in your life that is actually private and concerns you and only you?

Challenging the myth

“I have nothing to hide”. It’s a phrase we’ve all heard, and perhaps even said ourselves, when privacy comes up. But it reveals a dangerous misunderstanding of what privacy is and why it matters.

Privacy isn’t about hiding—it’s about control. It’s about having the freedom to decide who gets access to your data and how it’s used. Over the last decade, that freedom has eroded. Today, governments, corporations, and hackers routinely collect and exploit our personal information, often without our consent.

Worse still, the narrative around privacy has shifted. Those who value it are seen as secretive, even criminal, while surveillance is sold to us as a tool for safety and transparency. This mindset benefits only those who profit from our data.

It’s time to push back. Here are 10 arguments you can use the next time someone says, “I have nothing to hide”.

1. Privacy is about consent, not secrecy

Privacy isn’t about hiding secrets—it’s about having control over your information. It’s the ability to decide for yourself who gets access to your data.

We don’t have to hand over all our personal information just because it’s requested. Tools like email aliases, VoIP numbers, and masked credit cards allow us to protect our data while still using online services. Privacy-focused companies like ProtonMail or Signal respect this principle, giving you more control over your information.

2. Nothing to hide, everything to protect

Even if you think you have nothing to hide, you have everything to protect. Oversharing data makes you vulnerable to hackers, scammers, and malicious actors.

For example:

  • Hackers can use personal details like your home address or purchase history to commit fraud or even locate you.
  • Data brokers can manipulate you with targeted content and even influence your political beliefs, as seen in the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

Protecting your data is about safeguarding yourself from these threats and protecting your autonomy.

3. Your data is forever

Data collected about you today will still exist decades from now. Governments change, laws evolve, and what’s harmless now could be used against you or your children in the future.

Surveillance infrastructure rarely disappears once it’s built. Limiting the data collected about you now is essential for protecting yourself from unknown risks down the line.

4. It’s not about you

Privacy isn’t just a personal issue—it’s about protecting others. Activists, journalists, and whistleblowers rely on privacy to do their work safely. By dismissing privacy, you’re ignoring the people for whom it’s a matter of life and death.

For example, Pegasus spyware has been used to track and silence journalists and activists. We should be leaning in to privacy tools, supporting the privacy ecosystem, and ensuring that those helping to keep our society free and safe are protected, whether we personally feel like we need privacy or not.

5. Surveillance isn’t about criminals

The claim that surveillance is “only for catching bad guys” is a myth. Once surveillance tools are deployed, they almost always expand beyond their original purpose.

History has shown how governments use surveillance to target dissenters, minorities, and anyone challenging the status quo. Privacy isn’t just for criminals—it’s a safeguard against abuse of power.

6. Your choices put others at risk

When you disregard privacy, you expose not just yourself but also the people around you.

For example:

  • Using apps that access your contact list can leak your friends’ and family’s phone numbers and addresses without their consent.
  • Insisting on non-private communication tools can expose sensitive conversations to surveillance or data breaches.
  • Uploading your photos to a non-private cloud like Google Drive allows those in your photos to be identified using facial recognition, and profiled based on information Google AI sees in your photos.

Respecting privacy isn’t just about protecting yourself—it’s about respecting the privacy boundaries of others.

7. Privacy is not dead

For some people, “I have nothing to hide” is a coping mechanism.
“Privacy is dead, so why bother?”

This defeatist attitude is both false and harmful. Privacy is alive—it’s a choice we can make every day. Let’s stop disempowering others by convincing them they shouldn’t even try.

There are countless privacy tools you can incorporate into your life. By choosing these tools, you take back control over your information and send a clear message that privacy matters.

8. Your data can be weaponized

All it takes is one bad actor—a rogue employee, an ex-partner, or a hacker—to turn your data against you. From revenge hacking to identity theft, the consequences of oversharing are real and dangerous.

Limiting the amount of data collected about you reduces your vulnerability and makes it harder for others to exploit your information.

9. Surveillance stifles creativity and dissent

Surveillance doesn’t just invade your privacy—it affects how you think and behave. Studies show that people censor themselves when they know they’re being watched.

This “chilling effect” stifles creativity, innovation, and dissent. Without privacy, we lose the ability to think freely, explore controversial ideas, and push back against authority.

10. Your choices send a signal

Every decision you make about technology sends a message. Choosing privacy-focused companies tells the market, “This matters”. It encourages innovation and creates demand for tools that protect individual freedom.

Conversely, supporting data-harvesting companies reinforces the status quo and pushes privacy-focused alternatives out of the market. When people say “I have nothing to hide” instead of leaning into the privacy tools around them, it ignores the role we all play in shaping the future of society.

Takeaways: Why privacy matters

  1. Privacy is about consent, not secrecy. It’s your right to control who accesses your data.
  2. You have everything to protect. Data breaches and scams are real threats.
  3. Data is forever. What’s collected today could harm you tomorrow.
  4. Privacy protects others. Journalists and activists depend on it to do their work safely.
  5. Surveillance tools expand. They rarely stop at targeting criminals.
  6. Your choices matter. Privacy tools send a message to the market and inspire change.
  7. Privacy isn’t dead. We have tools to protect ourselves—it’s up to us to use them.

A fight we can’t afford to lose

Privacy isn’t about hiding—it’s about protecting your rights, your choices, and your future. Surveillance is a weapon that can silence opposition, suppress individuality, and enforce conformity. Without privacy, we lose the freedom to dissent, innovate, and live without fear.

The next time someone says, “I have nothing to hide”, remind them: privacy is normal. It’s necessary. And it’s a fight we can’t afford to lose.

 

Yours in privacy,
Naomi

Naomi Brockwell is a privacy advocacy and professional speaker, MC, interviewer, producer, podcaster, specialising in blockchain, cryptocurrency and economics. She runs the NBTV channel on Youtube.

Police used Tesla driver data: “A double-edged sword”

Mass surveillance

Published 6 January 2025
– By Editorial Staff
The Tesla Cybertruck that exploded outside the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas, January 1 this year.

The explosion of a Tesla Cybertruck in Las Vegas on New Year’s Day has highlighted how much information modern cars collect about their drivers and events around them. Tesla CEO Elon Musk quickly provided police with data and video footage, which helped the investigation determine that it was a suicide rather than an accident or terrorism.

The data collected has been praised by police for helping to quickly clarify the circumstances. At the same time, the collection has raised questions about privacy and potential abuse.

It’s a double-edged sword, David Choffnes of the Cybersecurity and Privacy Institute in Boston told the Washington Post.

– The companies collecting the data could misuse it.

Others, like Tesla enthusiast Justin Demaree, agree on the dual aspect. He emphasizes the importance of helping in the event of a serious incident, but also the concern about how much personal information is being stored:

– We want our privacy and we don’t want our data shared … but you want to help in a situation where terrorism could be a factor.

Tesla and other car companies have access to extensive data that includes camera recordings and location information, among other things. According to a 2023 Mozilla Foundation report, over 75 percent of automakers say they may share or sell driver data, often without drivers being aware of this. Only two brands, Renault and Dacia, offer drivers the option to delete their personal data.

Cars, often associated with freedom and autonomy, risk becoming one of the most monitored spaces in people’s lives, experts warn.

– There’s something deeply ironic that this emblem of personal autonomy, might be one of the most heavily surveilled places in many of our lives, said Albert Fox Cahn of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project.

Our independent journalism needs your support!
We appreciate all of your donations to keep us alive and running.

Our independent journalism needs your support!
Consider a donation.

You can donate any amount of your choosing, one-time payment or even monthly.
We appreciate all of your donations to keep us alive and running.

Dont miss another article!

Sign up for our newsletter today!

Take part of uncensored news – free from industry interests and political correctness from the Polaris of Enlightenment – every week.