Encryption under fire in Europe as France and Germany call for decrypt law

Post by pif » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 10:59 AM UTC

ragebol wrote: post #24

pif wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, banning something doesn't mean to make it impossible, but to declare it illegal. Hypothetically, they (actually, we , as governments are just representative of the voters) can ban encryption. Which means that any communication with no signal naturally emerging from noise is suspicious, thus they/we can ask you to justify yourself and keep you locked until you demonstrate that what you were hiding doesn't re…

With steganography [0], you can send encrypted messages embedded in images. Sending normal looking pictures is not suspicious (at least currently, for some definition of normal). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography

Post by zakk » Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 11:56 AM UTC

sevenless wrote: post #50

zakk wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> States do make new laws Of course they do. You didn't read my reply thoroughly. I just said that if you believe they have no right to exist, you must also believe that they cannot have a right to make laws. > a referendum to split the state into two also threatens the state Threatening the state by splitting it, and threatening the state with terrorism are two completely different things. The former is somehow enco…

States don't make laws because they have a right to; they do it because they can. There's no supra-national law that specifically gives states a right to make laws, it's just part of national sovereignty. The mafia can also force people to go along with its protection racket, but that doesn't mean the mafia has a right to do it. Just that we live in a world where it's possible. > Threatening the state by splitting it…

Post by mafribe » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 8:45 AM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #43

mafribe wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was not addressing the question of whether the axioms are true or not, although I have an opinion on this matter. I was addressing lazy "whataboutism". You still have not given an workable account of what you would accept as "proof". I imagine that that's because you have not actually though about this issue. The question of regime change has been thought about deeply for millenia, but there has never been a "proof…

Proving this is nearly impossible, that's why the discussion never ends. The argument 'If we don't ban encryption, the terrorists will take over the world' is compelling, if you believe it. But it is simply a dire prediction of the kind that can be made (and often is) about anything. Even regular murders. Not so long ago politicians were talking about crime waves and 'superpredators'.

   That cannot be accepted as an 
   'axiom' without proof. 

   Proving this is nearly impossible

Post by mafribe » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 8:53 AM UTC

sevenless wrote: post #49

maze-le wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You forget that in both instances of the 'handful of revolutionaries' you quote had full popular support on their side. The terrorists have neither popular support nor superior weaponry (the pizarro example). I also doubt that this is a goal of these groups, the goal is to spread fear so that popular opinion in France turns against the muslim minority. This in turn, gives these groups a pool of new recruits.

I think Pizarro had some religious support too. The Incans had a prophecy about 'white people' coming from the gods, and he just happened to turn up at the right time...

Post by mafribe » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 11:34 AM UTC

RealityVoid wrote: post #41

mafribe wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no significant mortality risk to Europeans. This is "Whataboutism". The rational behind being wary about terrorism is as follows. 1. Normal homicides are random individual actions, and they are under reasonable control by standard policing. In other words, if we continue policing as we do now, normal homicide rate will remain constant. 2. Terrorism is not random individual action, but rather organised violence by lar…

I think that calling this "whataboutism" is wrong. It is good to weigh the actual risk something presents and putting it into perspective. The truth is that terrorism is a minor threat compared to others in our life yet a disproportionate amount of effort and fear stems from it. Your assertion that they would eventually take over is an overstatement. There have been countries under occupation with strong resistance m…

   If, a comparatively similar amount of 
   effort and research would have gone 
   into developing cures and treatments 
   for the other diseases, the benefits 
   would have also been, probably, order 
   of magnitudes greater.