61–70 of 443 posts
The commission does not seek to break encryption Okay. Encryption is not only important to protect private communication, but would also help perpetrators/criminals No. It is there to protect us from perpetrators, criminals and all the people which think they are on the good side. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Authoritarian regimes on our planet always thought they were the "good guys". Encryption i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
No need to be so rude. From the law enforcement side, that is the system working as it should - the police investigated and cleared him of any wrongdoing. That Google can close someone's account for any reason and without any recourse is a wider issue, and one separate to this EU regulation.
no, not separated at all
laws have to take the implicit effects they have into account they could have added a clause to require providers to not close the account until the police investigation finishes. They didn't. Which means they are implicitly partial responsible for such abuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was hard to arrest criminals before digital communication as well, I’m sure we’ll deal.
But each improvement in communications tech (landlines, mobile phones, internet) have enabled new, faster, easier, better communication methods. Medieval criminals would have to physically meet to coordinate a coach robbery; nowadays a terrorist attack can be coordinated fully remotely and anonymously. There is no point in denying the facts - that encryption and the ease of use of the Internet enable criminals to coo…
How many EU beaureaucrats got their training in East Germany, I wonder? Or is it rather that they are too young and do not know about/remember what constant surveillance does to trust in a society?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
No need to be so rude. From the law enforcement side, that is the system working as it should - the police investigated and cleared him of any wrongdoing. That Google can close someone's account for any reason and without any recourse is a wider issue, and one separate to this EU regulation.
Is that the world you want to live in?
Why should everyone suddenly have to trust the discretion of complete strangers?
That old adage " if you've nothing to hide, then you've nothing to fear " is oft berated in these sort of discussions, but it really does apply here. This regulation is for the purposes of criminal investigation into serious harms against children, not for spying on whatever innocuous messages you happen to be sharing with friends and family. The privacy fears are being way overblown for us ordinary people. Paedophil…
It doesn't apply at all. If you get accidentally flagged as criminal it can easily destroy your live, without a years log curt case you might never get properly un-flagged even if you are innocent but then the damage is more then just done. Worse after wards the chance to again be attacked when you are innocent aren't that small because even if you get un-flagged the system is most likely remembering that you had bee…
The scenario you are describing just isn't going to happen.
I'm glad that the EU are proposing sensible and proportionate solutions to the thorny issue of paedophiles concealing their depraved activities online. The privacy activists have cried wolf for so long on this one, I think people just aren't buying their arguments any more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was hard to arrest criminals before digital communication as well, I’m sure we’ll deal.
But each improvement in communications tech (landlines, mobile phones, internet) have enabled new, faster, easier, better communication methods. Medieval criminals would have to physically meet to coordinate a coach robbery; nowadays a terrorist attack can be coordinated fully remotely and anonymously. There is no point in denying the facts - that encryption and the ease of use of the Internet enable criminals to coo…
Compromising everyone's security to target a few seems backwards.
I don't have the numbers but I think that during an investigation, way more than 10% of suspects did nothing wrong. In fact, some people estimate that 10% of convictions are wrong (though I think that's an overestimate). A 90% effective system may actually end up preventing false arrests, search warrants, etc... a win for privacy!
The real concern is the potential for abuse, not that 90% bar that is, I think, completely reasonable.
This whole debacle reeks of stupidity. The only thing that will happen is that the criminals they are (allegedly) trying to catch will simply move their comms to different channels. What's stopping a sophisticated crime syndicate form simply creating their own app which will have a small enough footprint such that it will fly under the radar? From the perspective of tech companies, they are being put between a rock a…
The commission does not seek to break encryption Okay. Encryption is not only important to protect private communication, but would also help perpetrators/criminals No. It is there to protect us from perpetrators, criminals and all the people which think they are on the good side. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Authoritarian regimes on our planet always thought they were the "good guys". Encryption i…
Quoted post unavailable.
That’s an absolutely wild claim and I’d like to know where you got this impression from.