Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats

netzpolitik.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 443 posts

Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats

#171

Post by orbifold »

tetris11 wrote: post #67
sofixa wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Can't the authorities do what they've always done since time immemorial: monitor these activities from afar (without needing to know specifically what was said), and plant people in these organizations. Compromising everyone's security to target a few seems backwards.

They are doing that, this scales to ~100-1000s of people per state. I suspect that on the current trajectory they will need to monitor far more and they are dealing with technology that most likely has been compromised by the US but not them.

Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats

#172

Post by [deleted] »

jetbooster wrote: post #118
delusional wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kinda get it, but it doesn't make sense to blame it on the EU when you own government would likely impose the exact same (if not harsher) rules. Thats at least what I tell myself. I'm under no illusion that my own government is any better.

See: The UK, doggedly pursuing similar legislation

[deleted]

Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats

#173

Post by hn_throwaway_69 »

Mordisquitos wrote: post #134
hn_throwaway_69 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No. Assume for sake of argument that it were possible to develop an encryption regime which protected bona fide users, but did not protect criminals. That would be a good thing. As a matter of public policy, criminals shouldn't be given the right to communicate for the sake of furthering criminal activity without the possibility of lawful interception. It's here that some technologists lose sight of the real world.…

> Assume for sake of argument that it were possible to develop an encryption regime which protected bona fide users, but did not protect criminals. That would be a good thing. [...] The real issue is that you can't separate the two from each other - weakening encryption for criminals means weakening it for everyone. Even if such a hypothetical encryption scheme was not intrinsically weaker, it still requires two very…

Here's the thing - both of those issues you've identified are broader societal issues that concern everyone, not just you.

(2) in particular is suggesting, effectively, that you should be allowed to circumvent a law you disagree with. In other words, you should be allowed to communicate unlawfully if you don't agree the communication should be unlawful.

That's just not how it works. As a society, your view is one of many. I'm sure many people involved in illicit activity disagree in their activity being characterised as criminal.

(1) undermines the fabric of institutions and assumes that law enforcement targeting criminals may do so for collateral purposes, so they shouldn't be allowed to target criminals just in case.

I don't agree with either.

Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats

#174

Post by mayoi »

jaywalk wrote: post #159
mayoi wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does someone have recommendations for US based E-Mail providers which are reliable and "not free"? Buy a refurbished server rack and mount it anywhere in US, install and configure email software with everything else that you need. > The situation changes somewhat if you pay with money for service instead with data Yeah, now company is profiting not only from your data, but from your bank account aswell, that's the…

> > Does someone have recommendations for US based E-Mail providers which are reliable and "not free"? > Buy a refurbished server rack and mount it anywhere in US Not anywhere. You won't get very far trying to host an email server on a residential Internet connection.

As the old saying goes... Works on my machine.

Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats

#176

Post by PurpleRamen »

coldtea wrote: post #164
ben_w wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > Encryption is not only important to protect private communication, but would also help perpetrators/criminals > No. Without going into whatever context the original quote has: doch — encryption does both. There is no technology so pure it only helps the "good guys", from fire to firearms[0] there are things we can't possibly survive without, and yet criminals can use them for crimes. I don't know the best way to…

> Without going into whatever context the original quote has: doch — encryption does both. There is no technology so pure it only helps the "good guys", from fire to firearms[0] there are things we can't possibly survive without, and yet criminals can use them for crimes. So? Cars also help the bad guys escape from robberies faster, but we don't seem to ban those... Not to mention knives... those can be deadly if som…

All those things are regulated, specifically to reduce chances for abusing them, but also to help in fetching criminals. Similar, nobody is demanding a ban on encryption (anymore), what they want (now) is the balanced middle, to allow justified access for "the good guys".

Whether the balance is good or bad, we will see. But society is all about balancing the good and the bad.

Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats

#177

Post by ben_w »

coldtea wrote: post #164
ben_w wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > Encryption is not only important to protect private communication, but would also help perpetrators/criminals > No. Without going into whatever context the original quote has: doch — encryption does both. There is no technology so pure it only helps the "good guys", from fire to firearms[0] there are things we can't possibly survive without, and yet criminals can use them for crimes. I don't know the best way to…

> Without going into whatever context the original quote has: doch — encryption does both. There is no technology so pure it only helps the "good guys", from fire to firearms[0] there are things we can't possibly survive without, and yet criminals can use them for crimes. So? Cars also help the bad guys escape from robberies faster, but we don't seem to ban those... Not to mention knives... those can be deadly if som…

This is why I didn't go beyond the quote.

My general point is that even though crypto is necessary (despite criminals using it), keeping it available isn't sufficient.

Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats

#178

Post by noodles_nomore »

perryizgr8 wrote: post #53

How ironic. On one hand EU forces legitimate businesses to spend billions of dollars to satisfy GDPR in the name of privacy. On the other, they are planning to stream teenagers' private pics directly to designated "investigators".

It's not ironic at all. Both decisions benefit the government which considers itself the sole proprietor of your privacy rights. Slave owners don't like it either if you mess with their 'property' without their consent.

Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats

#179

Post by kurupt213 »

vaylian wrote: post #145

It doesn't matter how low the error rate is. The fact that the European Commission wants to have a third (robotic) participant listening in on every digital communication is absolutely ridiculous. Saying that this is about child protection is a blatant lie. This serves only as a stepping stone to introduce other screening criteria later. And with opaque ML models it will be very tedious to determine what the model is…

I agree, child protection isn’t what’s driving this. It’s the deflection

Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats

#180

Post by Proven »

dylkil wrote: post #18

Is there any estimate for what percentage of chat communication happening within the EU is done by "perpetrators/criminals"? The average crime rate is 40 incidences per 100000 people per year, which would mean 0.0004% of the population is considered a criminal every year. What % of that tiny margin are going to be using online chat to commit their crimes? is it really worth abandoning the privacy of 450mil other peop…

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN