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

Stop the proposal on mass surveillance of the EU

mullvad.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 534 posts

Re: Stop the proposal on mass surveillance of the EU

#51

Post by kragen »

msm_ wrote: post #24
can16358p wrote: post #10

We certainly need decentralized systems that cannot be controlled by EU, US, or any government/entity. Privacy is a human right. We probably all know that they will show reasons like "fighting terrorism", "preventing national threats" or "hunting down child pornography" etc, whereas the real motivation is to control people's freedom of speech and communication even though they will 100% deny it. Anyone who is really…

> We certainly need decentralized systems that cannot be controlled by EU, US, or any government/entity. I agree in principle, but controlled != regulated. It's (technologically) relatively easy to create a private, censorship-resistant distributed system, but if it's illegal people just won't use it. It's a human problem, not a tech problem.

here in argentina uber was very illegal for several years and people used the fuck out of it

in the usa heroin and meth are super illegal and people are using the fuck out of them

many 80s pc video games only survive in a playable form because of a very illegal system of organized copyright infringement that removed copy protection mechanisms; people used the fuck out of that too

in the usa gay sex was super illegal until, in many locations, 20 years ago. guess what gay people did

"if it's illegal people just won't use it" is clearly not correct; i think it's what dave chappelle would describe as an extremely white thought

the problem is if the design of the system provides law enforcement a bottleneck they can use for leverage against righteous lawbreakers

Re: Stop the proposal on mass surveillance of the EU

#52

Post by kragen »

raxxorraxor wrote: post #2

The best way to deal with this is non-compliance and there need to be technical solutions to deny such attempts. One major factor that works against users is central authentication. Schemes like oauth2 might bring convenience and security in many cases, but will endanger net freedom overall. Google just added age restriction on blogger. Result is that you need to provide Google with ID information to access some cont…

> One major factor that works against users is central authentication. Schemes like oauth2

also dns and the tls ca system, even including let's encrypt

Re: Stop the proposal on mass surveillance of the EU

#53

Post by mach1ne »

ethbr0 wrote: post #41
can16358p wrote: post #10

We certainly need decentralized systems that cannot be controlled by EU, US, or any government/entity. Privacy is a human right. We probably all know that they will show reasons like "fighting terrorism", "preventing national threats" or "hunting down child pornography" etc, whereas the real motivation is to control people's freedom of speech and communication even though they will 100% deny it. Anyone who is really…

> We probably all know that they will show reasons [...], whereas the real motivation is to control people's freedom of speech and communication even though they will 100% deny it. I don't think this is how it works, absent an already existent police state. In democracies, it really is pushed for {good reasons}. Once built, it's then used by law enforcement, because it exists and gets the job done. Pretending there's…

Even though something has a benevolent rationalization, it doesn’t mean the true motives are benevolent. It doesn’t need any New World Order conspiracy either. People in ruling positions often enjoy power, and they may be clueless as to how this desire is affecting their decisionmaking.

Re: Stop the proposal on mass surveillance of the EU

#54

Post by guy98238710 »

bpfrh wrote: post #47
guy98238710 wrote: post #42

The very purpose of privacy is to break laws. Privacy is the space where laws do not apply. I don't remember where I heard it, but I really like this definition of privacy. It's a defense against bad laws and there are quite a few of those, including child porn and child abuse laws that actually lead to prosecution of adolescents (sending nudes to each other) and loss of access to medical information for kids (anyone…

No privacy can also be that you vote for measure x but nobody knows that but you, e.g. you can have an opinion/hobby without anyone knowing about it but you and people you trust.

Indeed, privacy protects from social pressure in addition to protecting you from the government. In any case, it's intended for things other people do not approve of.

Re: Stop the proposal on mass surveillance of the EU

#55

Post by oauea »

ethbr0 wrote: post #41
can16358p wrote: post #10

We certainly need decentralized systems that cannot be controlled by EU, US, or any government/entity. Privacy is a human right. We probably all know that they will show reasons like "fighting terrorism", "preventing national threats" or "hunting down child pornography" etc, whereas the real motivation is to control people's freedom of speech and communication even though they will 100% deny it. Anyone who is really…

> We probably all know that they will show reasons [...], whereas the real motivation is to control people's freedom of speech and communication even though they will 100% deny it. I don't think this is how it works, absent an already existent police state. In democracies, it really is pushed for {good reasons}. Once built, it's then used by law enforcement, because it exists and gets the job done. Pretending there's…

The reason is, and always has been, to enable lazy police work. They won't have to do their jobs if facebook will just tell them who the criminals are.

Re: Stop the proposal on mass surveillance of the EU

#56

Post by kragen »

guy98238710 wrote: post #42

The very purpose of privacy is to break laws. Privacy is the space where laws do not apply. I don't remember where I heard it, but I really like this definition of privacy. It's a defense against bad laws and there are quite a few of those, including child porn and child abuse laws that actually lead to prosecution of adolescents (sending nudes to each other) and loss of access to medical information for kids (anyone…

privacy is the space where coercion does not apply; law enforcement is necessarily coercive, but not all coercion is legal

not even all police coercion is legal; when the police disappeared tens of thousands of people here during the last dictatorship, the police were breaking the law, and in some cases the disappeared were not

also, privacy can protect people from repercussions from activities that are legal at one time but prohibited later, perhaps after a change of government, such as celebrating passover

Re: Stop the proposal on mass surveillance of the EU

#57

Post by xenonite »

dijit wrote: post #9
pskisf wrote: post #5

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. - Thomas Jefferson

Roughly translates to: I prefer liberty with danger to peace with servitude/slavery.

> "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem."

malo ... quam ... ⇒ I prefer ... to ...

Preferring what to what? This is why all other words are in accusative singular as simple enumeration:

periculosam ⇒ dangerousness

libertatem ⇒ freedom

quietam ⇒ quietness

servitutem ⇒ slavery

Hence I would take his statement as: "I prefer dangerousness and freedom to quietness and slavery."

Re: Stop the proposal on mass surveillance of the EU

#58

Post by ivan_gammel »

guy98238710 wrote: post #42

The very purpose of privacy is to break laws. Privacy is the space where laws do not apply. I don't remember where I heard it, but I really like this definition of privacy. It's a defense against bad laws and there are quite a few of those, including child porn and child abuse laws that actually lead to prosecution of adolescents (sending nudes to each other) and loss of access to medical information for kids (anyone…

No, that is wrong. It is the purpose of the laws to protect privacy, which is our right to protect ourselves by prevention of sharing sensitive information with bad actors. Our privacy means that others cannot exploit our weaknesses to get our money or to bully us. It means that rogue cop cannot blackmail us by exposing details of our private life to public. There are many scenarios when too much data landed in the wrong hands.

People may use privacy as an excuse to hide their crimes, but criminals are minority and lawful citizens will be exposed to criminals and police states if privacy shield no longer exists. As for child abuse, when we have to seek for evidence, the crime has already happened. Solving it is important, but what is more important than that? Prevention.

Re: Stop the proposal on mass surveillance of the EU

#59

Post by oauea »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #48
bartislartfast wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anyone who is really into something illegal will use something alternative anyway. I'm not for more surveillance, but this is the exact argument that people give against gun control

Unless you're a gunsmith, it's not really comparable. Anyone with a sufficiently-powerful desk calculator can use illegal encryption, but not everyone can procure an illegal firearm.

Don't call encryption illegal. That's letting them shape the narrative.

Re: Stop the proposal on mass surveillance of the EU

#60

Post by neysofu »

bartislartfast wrote: post #30
can16358p wrote: post #10

We certainly need decentralized systems that cannot be controlled by EU, US, or any government/entity. Privacy is a human right. We probably all know that they will show reasons like "fighting terrorism", "preventing national threats" or "hunting down child pornography" etc, whereas the real motivation is to control people's freedom of speech and communication even though they will 100% deny it. Anyone who is really…

> Anyone who is really into something illegal will use something alternative anyway. I'm not for more surveillance, but this is the exact argument that people give against gun control

If you pay enough attention, you will notice that the same argument is used to push many political agendas (for better or worse):

- "You can't ban encrypted messaging. Terrorists will always find a way to communicate."

- "You can't outlaw abortions, just safe ones. Women will always find a way."

- "You can't uniformly enforce gun control. Dedicated criminals will keep buying weapons on the black market."

- "You can't ban cryptocurrencies. Enthusiasts will still trade on P2P exchanges."

All of these are half truth, and half lie. Every policy introduces a certain amount of user friction, which is proven to discourage action. Some people will refrain from infringing the policy (e.g. using guns, performing abortions, using encrypted messaging apps), some others will comply. Percentages obviously vary depending on the specific policy, but it's never 0% nor 100% like "both" sides want you to believe.

Post reply on HN