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

181–190 of 443 posts

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

#181

Post by ethanbond »

diffeomorphism wrote: post #169
coldtea wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Not to mention knives Bad example. We definitely do ban carrying large knives (blade length >X), butterfly knives etc. around with you. Relatedly Germany even punishes carrying around lockpicking tools (unless that is your job) -- just carrying them.

Also cars have unique identifiers literally attached to the outsides of them with typefaces you can read from 100 feet away. They do this to, you know, mitigate their criminal uses.

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

#182

Post by PurpleRamen »

ho_schi wrote: post #3

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…

Pretty hard joke to point at the German constitution, after it displayed it hard failing in the last years. Protection from bad state-actors is necessary, but not for the price to also expose the citizens to non-state bad actors. Protecting the citizens is also a state's job, and somewhere they need to find balance between the different protections.

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

#183

Post by White_Wolf »

diffeomorphism wrote: post #169
coldtea wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Not to mention knives Bad example. We definitely do ban carrying large knives (blade length >X), butterfly knives etc. around with you. Relatedly Germany even punishes carrying around lockpicking tools (unless that is your job) -- just carrying them.

A sharp enough 3cm blade is more than enough to make someone bleed to death.

A 5cm screwdriver is more than enough to give brain damage to someone.

A flexible extension hose like the ones that go under the sink (with the nuts attached) is perfect for knocking someone out.

A titanium tipped pen is quite good if you aim for ears, temple or throat.

A tightly rolled newspaper makes a very good blunt weapon.

Breaking/banning encryption like would have minimal benefits while exposing the whole society. Don't think that only the gov't will have the secondary keys if they decide to "only" have back doors. Anyone motivated enough will have them.

If chat encryption is banned... let's say it's not hard to reintroduce it on top of existing layers for anyone motivated enough or with enough money.

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

#184

Post by shakaijin »

It is so tiring to see the constant efforts to erode our rights. Even if they succeed in creating a surveillance state, do they think that it will not blow up in their face one day? It will make violence and revolutions against the surveilling institutions innevitable, or maybe it is just wishful thinking...

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

#185

Post by pantalaimon »

7373737373 wrote: post #11
ho_schi wrote: post #3

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…

They are traitors against the spirit of the constitution. Article 10 of the Basic Law: (1) The privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications shall be inviolable.

Well there is also

(2) Restriction to this are only permitted if required by law.

Which is used to force postal operators to report and investigate suspicious letters that might contain drugs.

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

#186

Post by verisimi »

orbifold wrote: post #171
tetris11 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They are monitoring people in person its just that they also want to break encryption. Why not have it all?

Let's not forget, that the government is doing this to keep us nice and safe. It knows what 'nice' really means, and what 'safe' is too! (You don't)

Sometimes it needs to keep you safe even from yourself!!

So, it turns out, that government (an imaginary concept that only exists in our minds) actually cares about us even more than we care about ourselves! Right?

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

#187

Post by Bogdanp »

denton-scratch wrote: post #155
dathinab wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't. It is equivalent to an automatized search of all peoples conversations all the time, just because it's automatized and done local on the phone doesn't make it not a search. Which means it's pretty much unconstitutional. It's also probably not very useful as when it is people knowingly committing crime with YT access will know about it and will know how to work around it. And outside of cases of people which…

> Which means it's pretty much unconstitutional. In the USA, I guess. But this is an EU proposal; the EU doesn't have a constitution.

But individual countries within the EU can and do have constitutions. Here's title 2, chapter 2, article 28[1] of Romania's constitution:

> Secretul scrisorilor, al telegramelor, al altor trimiteri poştale, al convorbirilor telefonice şi al celorlalte mijloace legale de comunicare este inviolabil.

> Secrecy of the letters, telegrams and other postal communications, of telephone conversations, and of any other legal means of communication is inviolable.

[1]: http://www.cdep.ro/pls/dic/site2015.page?den=act2_1&par1=2&i...

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

#188

Post by Amezarak »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #165
jaywalk wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not like the CIA that breaks your SSL certs and wiretaps on your communications without asking anyone if they can or cannot. It's absolutely hilarious that you believe America is the only country that does this.

> It's absolutely hilarious that you believe America is the only country that does this. where did I say it's the only one? But would you deny that its the one spending more on it and with the most advanced technologies to do it? I don't know many other "free" countries that spied the political leaders of allied Nations.

Every country spies on their nominal allies. That part is not unusual or unexpected and has a long historical tradition. You can find story after story on this.

“Allies” are only allies for reasons of national interest, not because they are genuinely friends, whatever that would mean between countries.

Of course, there’s still outrage when they get caught. Here, for example, is Germany being outraged that the US spied on them. [1] And here’s Germany spying on France [2]. But they all know it’s going on.

And here’s a good quote from French intelligence:

> “If Hollande was genuinely shocked by these allegations, that would mean he wasn’t aware that this kind of thing is normal,” he said. “But of course he is aware. Hollande has to satisfy the feelings of the general public by expressing some indignation, but the truth is all countries spy on their friends and the only limitation is the means at their disposal.

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/31/europe/denmark-us-nsa-merkel-...

[2] https://www.france24.com/en/20151113-germany-spying-france-h...

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

#189

Post by dylkil »

chucklenorris wrote: post #163

I think there are some important questions that need to be answered before such a dangerous decision should be made. How big is the risk of a child being groomed through these electronic means? Is it comparable to being struck by lightning? What is worse weighted by probability: being sexually assaulted as a child or being suspected and having your life turned upside down for years by these algorithms. We already see…

These are the type of questions that need to be presented to the public. This type of attack on encryption hasnt changed in 30 years, except now governments are going hard on the CSAM aspect as opposed to the other 3 horsemen[1]. It makes sense too since its the type of argument which invokes the most emotion in people, how could anyone be against protecting the children.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...

Post reply on HN