351–360 of 780 posts
The way I see it is the government/EU, whatever, needs to first force this encryption backdoor into use, then force everyone to only use chat apps with the backdoor, and finally force everybody not to go looking for this backdoor.
They are listed in order of difficulty. And they are totalitarian in their level of force.
I see this as follows: 1. Terrorism and trafficking of children will win the moral high ground. 2. App stores will be forced locale by locale to conform to these policies. 3. Most people will not notice or care. 4. This will be used by N-Eyes and totalitarian governments to quash dissent. 5. Meanwhile the tech crowd will create alternate app distribution mechanisms allowing those who care to communicate securely. 6.…
7. People in group 6 will be subject to increased abuse by authorities simply because they fall into this category regardless of whether other evidence suggests that they're a likely privacy advocate, political activist, or actual terrorist. 8. Privacy activists will leave group 6 by attrition, further reinforcing justification by authorities for 7.
Privacy only works well when everyone has it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being better than North Korea is a pretty low bar I would expect from the greatest democracy and country in the World to be in the top three, not a little bit better than those at the bottom
My point is NK is a lot worse, not “a little bit”.
Can you name one which isn't already bad?
Like, I don't know, Spain? Germany? Argentina? South Africa?
The greatest democracy and country in the World shouldn't even be in the same business of North Korea style
And yet...
I don't understand what this solves. If bad guys want to do bad things via chat, they can easily create their on chat app that encrypts messages in a few lines of code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like TSA luggage keys.... there's no way those would leak online, and no way anybody would be able to download them from https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1687424 and 3d-print them... no way something like that'd happen!
Luckily, you can't 3D print an encryption key that would be useful in any way. Although, now I wish the guy from Lavabits had handed in his SSL cert as 3D printed letters and numbers like a puzzle.
Austia, for instance, was informed by Turkey and Slovakia about that man's IS affiliation.
https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/jqe37d/turk...
Further reading:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/10/orders-top-eus-timetab...
https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/the-story-behi...
https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/german-preside...:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps, but see Article 8 which is cited in your sibling comment. It already contains a right to privacy. But the term privacy is not very rigid. It can be taken and interpreted in various ways. It's certainly a good thing to mention it, but encryption needs to be mentioned explicitly, spelled out even. There cannot be any room for interpretation: citizens have a right to encrypt their communication, end-to-end with…
That still leaves too much room for interpretation (namely, quibbling over the definitions of "encrypt" or "end-to-end"). People have a right to encrypt their communication, end-to-end with their intended participants, such that no one other than their intended participants can decrypt any aspect of their communication.
Let's give them a good fight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The German article is more on point and it goes into more details about the background and also the probable solution with "Exceptional Access" architecture. The official EU draft documents always use a very careful language to not create too much suspicion. Only one or two sentences actually tell the truth: "Possible solutions may need the support of service providers in a transparent and lawful manner, as well as i…
I'm certainly open to changing the URL from what is probably an obscurantist press release to a more accurate and neutral source. But it would need to be in English. Sorry—I realize that's frustrating to anyone who reads both languages, but most HN readers can't. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
https://files.orf.at/vietnam2/files/fm4/202045/783284_fh_st1...
I can't find it from public sources, the REV 1 is referenced here: https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/EU/XXVII/EU/03/62/EU_36280/... But it's marked as not public.