| |
| ▲ | Xelbair 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This type of legislation should never ever be proposed in a democratic system, so had disagree. This is an extremely totalitarian-style move from EU - governing bodies are exempt from the law, meanwhile peasants have to be watched 24/7 for wrongthink, all under guise of protecting the children. | | |
| ▲ | ben_w 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | While I agree with the sentiment, you need to think like a state to stop this kind of thing. Even without any argument about personal rights and what's totalitarian, I can't even square the circle of the unstoppable force of "the economy is dependent on encryption that can't be hacked" with the immovable object of "hostile governments and organised criminals undermine ${insert any nation here} and communicate with local agents via encryption that can't be hacked". | | |
| ▲ | Xelbair 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >While I agree with the sentiment, you need to think like a state to stop this kind of thing. I'm thinking like state already, i would never trust ANY state with such powers, even the one that was perfectly aligned with my political views. It's not issue of state, but dilution of responsibility and the way the votes are counted. It is also an issue of unelected officials deciding things - the whole system is broken. Before you say that heads of state were elected - this is highly contentious issue, no one ran on this in internal campaigns, and votes on this issue are counted country-wide(all for or all against), without any regards to distribution of populace's opinion on this subject. >Even without any argument about personal rights and what's totalitarian, I can't even square the circle of the unstoppable force of "the economy is dependent on encryption that can't be hacked" with the immovable object of "hostile governments and organised criminals undermine ${insert any nation here} and communicate with local agents via encryption that can't be hacked". You're enacting legislation that will actually empower those entities this way! Criminals - surprise surprise - can just break the law, and use devices/software that just.. does not do content scanning, and uses true E2E encryption. Even over insecure channel by using steganography and key exchange over it. Espionage can be handled the same way, probably even easier as they can easily use one-time pads and key phrases established beforehand in their country of origin! Meanwhile only group affected by it are just normal citizens. | |
| ▲ | zx10rse an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I keep seeing this fallacy argument about some bad actors and criminals etc. etc. Every government have structures and laws to prevent such activities, in absolutely no shape or form it does not need to read every single message of it citizens. I don't understand how someone can be apologetic for totalitarian state. | |
| ▲ | DangitBobby 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Organized criminals (especially state actors) will find ways to communicate in the dark regardless, including just continuing to use illegal encryption. | | |
| ▲ | ben_w 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > including just continuing to use illegal encryption. First, this can be made a crime by itself, and detected automatically because the mandatory back-doors fail. Second, what gets talked about in public (the only thing any of us knows for sure, but also definitely not the whole picture) includes foreign governments recruiting locals via normal messenger apps. More of a problem is that the back-doors can be exploited by both criminals and hostile powers. | | |
| ▲ | DangitBobby 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > First, this can be made a crime by itself, and detected automatically because the mandatory back-doors fail. You're assuming they continue to use monitored channels to carry it out. | | |
| ▲ | ben_w 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I am assuming that the entire (EU in this case) internet is monitored for un-decryptable messages, and that they use the internet. Can you square the circle, even in principle, without questions of cost? | | |
| ▲ | ndriscoll 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Chat messages are tiny. You can easily put the encrypted signal into e.g. the residual portion (i.e. high entropy/looks like noise part) of lossless images/sound that you send unencrypted. "That was just a FLAC of me singing". Or innocuous cat pictures. Or whatever. | |
| ▲ | Xelbair 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The issue is that EU does not control the internet, nor all means of communication. Nor perfect form of monitoring exists so question is moot in itself. Especially as perfect encryption is indistinguishable from noise. and the answer is no but yes - by encrypting everything E2E you can massively reduce harm done, and treat espionage/crime as policy/economic problem instead. | | |
| ▲ | ben_w 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | The EU delegates stuff to the member states, those states
enforce laws, that could in principal include requiring everything up from the physical link layer to scan for watever they say so. > Especially as perfect encryption is indistinguishable from noise. Irrelevant. If powers can't decrypt it, powers deem it a crime to have or send. "white-noise.wav is a test file and I'm an acoustics engineer": tough, supply the seed to the PRNG which created it or fine time. > policy/economic problem instead Instead? Everything about this is about groups wanting to act in secret for their best interests, and other people wanting to ensure that only the interests they share get to do that. This is true when it's me logging into my bank and criminals trying to get access to the same, when it's the Russian government sponsoring arson attacks in Europe and local police trying to stop them, and when it's the CIA promoting Tor for democracy activists in dictatorships and those dictatorships trying to stop them. We must have unbreakable encryption, and yet also we cannot have it. | | |
| ▲ | DangitBobby an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | It is possible for unauthorized hardware to exist. People who want to do illegal things to begin with won't mind so much if their methods of communication happen to be illegal. | | |
| ▲ | ben_w an hour ago | parent [-] | | Irrelevant. 1) Illegal telecoms equipment can be seized 2) Someone doing this on the public Internet would only get away with it if their encrypted packets *never ever* went through a government licensed router. The moment they go through a public router: instantly detected. |
| |
| ▲ | gf000 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > "white-noise.wav is a test file and I'm an acoustics engineer": tough, supply the seed to the PRNG which created it or fine time. It's a photo I took yesterday. Now what? It may or may not have a secret message that only the target knows how to decrypt. Or maybe it's just more "traditional" text encryption with code names, but real human-legible text. It's technically unfeasible to ban encryption. | | |
| ▲ | ben_w an hour ago | parent [-] | | > It's a photo I took yesterday. Now what? If that seed doesn't generate that particular white noise sequence, or if you can't supply that photo, then you go to jail. > It's technically unfeasible to ban encryption. It's also economically unfeasible. Am I using moonspeak without realising it when I say "I can't square this circle"? Is this a phrase that people are unfamiliar with and I just haven't realised? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | raxxorraxor 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | And while all this is happening, there are cases were peoples homes get search for comments on twitter. These are often in bad taste, but what tastes even worse is that the judiciary doesn't seem to understand proportionality anymore. Mean tweets carry higher sentences than raping someone, stern look at Germany here. A judiciary in such a sorry state, that has not adapted to a changed reality, cannot be permitted to read private communications. | | |
| ▲ | Fnoord 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 'Mean tweets' is such an empty meaning. Come with examples. It is on paper very easy to break the law via speech. If I post something here about how I want to reward a murder on a certain politician (or want to do it myself), I can guarantee you the police would be involved. And rightfully so. Freedom of speech is about pre-moderation. It doesn't mean your actions do not have consequences. If you yell fire in a theatre while there is none, you should be held liable. See also the case of Gennaro P. (the Damschreeuwer) who at May 4 of 2010 yelled during two minutes of silence of Rememberance of the Dead. | | |
| ▲ | gregbot an hour ago | parent [-] | | >doesn't mean your actions do not have consequences YES IT DOES THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT You obviously do not believe in freedom of speech as defined by US law. You are conflating extremely narrow exceptions with broad politically motivated violations of freedom of political speech | | |
| ▲ | Fnoord 19 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The US Constitution. What a beautiful piece of paper, such a nice theory. Yet your current president is circumventing Congress. Your president is bullying states. You don't even have a functional popular vote. Your SCOTUS is dysfunctional. And, this 1st amendment, is that why peaceful protestors got shot by rubber bullets when they were protesting against the war in Iraq? Which, as it turned out, was started for dishonest reasons. You folks also were first with DMCA. Yet we don't have BS like filibuster and gerrymandering. There's a good reason why on every half-serious index about freedom of speech or freedom of press, the best countries are Scandinavian and Switzerland, followed by West-Europe. And that data is from before the current orangutan is in office. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | YeahThisIsMe 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes, there is. This shouldn't move forward at all, regardless of how many steps are involved and how small they are. | | |
| ▲ | TeMPOraL 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Anyone can and does say this about their pet favorite bit of legislation. And so journalists are more than happy to pull this shit with every other topic, too. | | |
| |
| ▲ | LexiMax 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | While I disagree with your position for the reasons already given by others, it's quite ironic that in this thread about government censorship that your opinion is in the process of being censored by other HN users. | | |
| ▲ | squigz an hour ago | parent [-] | | Being downvoted is not remotely "censorship" | | |
| ▲ | LexiMax 34 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It makes the opinion hidden from the vast majority of visitors, except those who go out of their way to both have an account and showdead. It is in every appreciable way censorship via unaccountable mob. It's censorship in a way that Reddit's downvote isn't, because Reddit allows anonymous users to read downvoted posts - or at least did the last time I checked. |
|
|
|
