| ▲ | dghlsakjg 8 hours ago |
| > “Privacy is really, really important and we all have the right to our privacy,” said Catherine De Bolle, executive director of Europol, the law enforcement agency of the European Union. “But when we see now that encrypted communication is really an enabler for crime, then we have to do something.” Can she hear herself when she talks? Apparently we don’t have a right to our privacy. Interpol intercepting every message going across a server just because some of the messages might be criminal is explicitly acting in a way that does not imply any right to privacy. |
|
| ▲ | curious_cat_163 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I think the inherent contradiction stands. You are right to point it out. However, there _is_ another side to it: the law enforcement agencies have a harder job now and it needs to be acknowledged as such. The acknowledgement does not require agreeing to let up on fundamental principles of privacy. But, so that resources could be invested in ways that do not require hoovering up people's personal data en masse. |
| |
| ▲ | dghlsakjg 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Harder in what sense? Criminal communications have always existed, and I don’t buy that a smartphone is a fundamental change from encoded letters, whispers, or any more primitive signaling device. With an electronic surveillance warrant it is easier than ever to compromise communications. If they suspect that a crime is being committed they should use the existing legal framework that exists for exactly this purpose. | | |
| ▲ | curious_cat_163 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Harder in the sense that never before in human history could any person communicate with any other person on most of the inhabited planet through instant wireless internet. They can do all this with end-to-end encryption, if sufficiently motivated, via apps like Signal. Most (I would hazard > 99%) people won't use this capability for criminal enterprise. Some would. Some do. BTW, This does not mean that we should open illegal backdoors to our end-to-end encryption. Private communication must remain possible and viable and easy for everyone. It also does not mean that law enforcement should resort to unconstitutional means (at least in the US). But, this is just a different game than what they are used to. It is okay to acknowledge it and resource them to do without. | |
| ▲ | coretx 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "Harder" is a blue extremist lie. The information position of law enforcement has never been this good before. Yet they ask for more - a clear indication for their true motive: Power. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Workaccount2 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > “But when we see now that unmonitored communication is really an enabler for crime, then we have to do something.” Fixed for her. |
| |
| ▲ | loup-vaillant 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | "Nothing someone says before the word 'but' really counts". | |
| ▲ | AnimalMuppet 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think that's the unstated part: Encryption doesn't handicap law enforcement if they weren't monitoring the communication anyway. [Edit: Though in fairness, if they weren't monitoring everything but then decided they had grounds - or even (gasp) a warrant - to monitor a specific set of communications, then encryption handicaps law enforcement.] |
|
|
| ▲ | 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | hbn 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| As soon as someone follows "we all have the right to privacy" with "but", a springboard should pop up from under their feet and launch them into space. Unsurprising the first time I see a CBC article at the top of HN, it's a puff piece about how taking people's privacy is supposedly good for us. Real glad I paid for this article, but it's not like I'm not constantly paying for these clowns to produce slop that I find appalling. They recently spent $2 million to create a bunch of liberal propaganda podcasts that got a few hundred views per episode. I hate this country. |
| |
| ▲ | ipython 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | When the entire point of the enterprise (sky in this case) is to enable criminals, wouldn’t the enterprise itself be part of the criminal conspiracy? I am all for privacy, but I’m also for rule of law. If I could start an encrypted messaging company that marketed exclusively to criminals, then wouldn’t I expect to be charged as abetting the crimes committed as a result of facilitating that communication? It’s a question of intent. Law isn’t black and white- and law recognizes that tools can be dual use. It’s not perfect but nothing is. |
|
|
| ▲ | 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [deleted] |
