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

401–410 of 443 posts

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

#401

Post by sofixa »

HeckFeck wrote: post #110
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…

How will you enforce 'limiting encryption'? Will you prosecute everyone who runs a few mathematical calculations on their own computers, presuming guilt? Do you think that criminals will care that it is 'illegal' to send messages when they're plotting more heinous acts? In such a scenario you'll have to radically enforce what programs may or may not be run on everyone's computer. If you do that, you're worse than the…

> Do you think that criminals will care that it is 'illegal'

If that sort of logic were to be applied what's the point in any law? Deterrence, making it harder, and punishment. Rolling your own crypto is hard, just like building your own gun for a robbery is. Not impossible, but it will certainly deter less motivated individuals. If all crypto was broken with law enforcement owned escrow keys (not in any way advocating for this, just playing devil's advocate, criminals would know not to rely on it and would have to first build a reliable safe method of communication (like physical meetings). Not the end of the world, just a deterrent.

> In such a scenario you'll have to radically enforce what programs may or may not be run on everyone's computer. If you do that, you're worse than the criminals.

That's a wild exaggeration. All sorts of things radically enforce what software can run on anyone's computer (DRM, antiviruses, licenses, etc.) and that's not great, but comparing that to an actual violent crime for instance is just stupid and honestly insulting.

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

#402

Post by sofixa »

neurostimulant wrote: post #126
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…

Without encryption, criminals will have even easier time stealing personal information and breaking into accounts. Limiting encryption use may hurt certain types of criminals, but also helps another types of criminals, mainly cyber criminals.

I think all the legislations proposed have been for backdoored encryption, not a blanket ban on encryption, under the (probably extremely naive) assumption that encryption can be backdoored only for law enforcement use and nobody else would be capable of exploiting that.

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

#403

Post by norswap »

imtringued wrote: post #224
norswap wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure they're ideologically against it, or where they against it because they were in the opposition and it was convenient for them to be?

The Greens in Germany are basically a more serious/realistic Pirate party when the topic is related to the internet. Honestly I vote Greens because of that alone. The fact that the rest of their program is sane is a cherry on top.

Sane policies like shuttering nuclear (in favour of more coal and reliance on Russia)? Yikes

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

#404

Post by easytiger »

em-bee wrote: post #391
easytiger wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You set up a camera to cover your front garden and if you happen to cover a portion of the street leading up to your property you are breaking the law. That's genuinely absurd. Keep in mind these apply to residential systems also. The rest of your quote is just as ridiculous. > There are no logs of video surveillance processing operations. It's a private system, why should there be. > There is no deletion of the pers…

if you happen to cover a portion of the street leading up to your property you are breaking the law in germany too. why is that absurd? you can monitor your own property, but don't record me when i am walking along the street please.

don't go to pretty much any other country on planet earth then

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

#405

Post by bArray »

paganel wrote: post #222

As an EU citizen I didn't know exactly what that Chat Control thing was, so I web searched it: > The EU wants to oblige providers to search all private chats, messages, and emails automatically for suspicious content – generally and indiscriminately. The stated aim: To prosecute child pornography. [1] Yeah, that will go down well, a central government checking our private conversations for "suspicious content". Of co…

> F. that, the only viable solution I see for my country is an exit from the EU, but the money (still) coming in from Bruxelles is too good to leave aside for pesky political principles, so of course that no serious politician from around these parts puts the problem that way.

Without any shadow of a doubt, the EU is trying to create a super state. In its original scope it was a trade union, but it has clearly exceeded its mandate. They now actively look towards creating an army and will be soon forced to start significantly increasing taxes (for complex reasons).

Your sovereignty is worth the cost in the long run. You get a large EU tax, and then Brussels decides that it knows how to spend your money better than your own government.

Maybe (maybe) you receive an excess amount from Brussels, but there are also hidden costs. One is a slower and more complex political system with many more actors. Another is uncontrolled migration which the EU is currently plagued with. Another is that you are forced to engage in ideological investments your Country may not be aligned with.

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

#406

Post by monkeynotes »

jokethrowaway wrote: post #395
monkeynotes wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Examples? And what about replacing all the good things the EU provided with homegrown initiatives?

What were the good things beside less hassles when travelling and some money thrown at universities? Genuine question.

Erm, free movement of goods and services, labour, capital. Access to the world's largest single market with no restrictions which by itself allows more UK businesses to thrive. Huge benefit to being able to choose from numerous places to live and work.

The UKs trade swagger is demonstrably worse without free access to the single market. Numerous academic studies have shown that long-term the UK will be worse off.

Trade is the big one.

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

#407

Post by Aeolun »

sofixa wrote: post #43
Aeolun wrote: post #30

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…

To modify that statement a little bit

> There is no point in denying the facts - that encryption and the ease of use of the Internet enable everyone to coordinate more easily.

Since it’s easier for everyone, it’s also easier for criminals. But we don’t have to deny it to everyone just because the subset of people called criminals benefit too.

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

#408

Post by ars »

em-bee wrote: post #391
easytiger wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You set up a camera to cover your front garden and if you happen to cover a portion of the street leading up to your property you are breaking the law. That's genuinely absurd. Keep in mind these apply to residential systems also. The rest of your quote is just as ridiculous. > There are no logs of video surveillance processing operations. It's a private system, why should there be. > There is no deletion of the pers…

if you happen to cover a portion of the street leading up to your property you are breaking the law in germany too. why is that absurd? you can monitor your own property, but don't record me when i am walking along the street please.

Recording the street is the most important part of recording for crime detection.

If someone knocks off the side mirror of my car by driving too close, I shouldn't be able to record that? I shouldn't be able to capture the license plate so I know who it is?

You do get that you are publicly visible when walking down the street, right?

People are visible in their gardens too, but I can at least understand making it illegal to record other private property, but the pubic street is reading it too far.

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

#409

Post by easytiger »

ars wrote: post #408
em-bee wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you happen to cover a portion of the street leading up to your property you are breaking the law in germany too. why is that absurd? you can monitor your own property, but don't record me when i am walking along the street please.

Recording the street is the most important part of recording for crime detection. If someone knocks off the side mirror of my car by driving too close, I shouldn't be able to record that? I shouldn't be able to capture the license plate so I know who it is? You do get that you are publicly visible when walking down the street, right? People are visible in their gardens too, but I can at least understand making it ill…

Or go live in Africa where people case the street before they come to rob/murder you. It's a big deterrent to have CCTV covering property perimeter

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

#410

Post by coldtea »

PurpleRamen wrote: post #176
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…

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.

>Similar, nobody is demanding a ban on encryption (anymore), what they want (now) is the balanced middle

There is no balanced middle with encryption. Things are either encrypted or their not.

"Encrypted but a third party has access" or "Encrypted, but with breakable encryption" is as good as non encrypted.

Post reply on HN