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

441–450 of 534 posts

Re: Stop the proposal on mass surveillance of the EU

#441

Post by poorlyknit »

anfogoat wrote: post #390
zirgs wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No modern government will pass a law that grants its citizens more privacy. GDPR was passed not that long ago.

> GDPR was passed not that long ago. Sorry, I should have been more careful. It's a citizen versus a consumer thing; GDPR is about the latter and does not give you any real privacy gains in regards to your government except in areas where your relationship is business like. Some Menial Low-Stakes Agency is required to handle your email and address details appropriately, sure, but meanwhile Europol was still able to m…

GDPR actually specifically regulates citizen-government interactions as well (article 2), with special exceptions for law enforcement (article 2.2.d).

You could of course argue that authorities can still make up any kind of law enforcement related reason to exclude you anyways :)

Edit: My point is sorta that the exceptions are a whitelist not a blacklist.

Re: Stop the proposal on mass surveillance of the EU

#442

Post by dns_snek »

intrasight wrote: post #396
dns_snek wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

State of the art encryption has become so widespread and well known that anyone with the tiniest interest in privacy can download one of the hundreds of open source E2EE messaging platforms to use for their criminal activities. This line of thinking has always struck me as extremely odd - as soon as current, presumably E2EE, methods of communication are tapped into for intelligence and law enforcement purposes, crimi…

borrowing from gun reasoning, if encryption is made a crime, then only criminals will use encryption.

That goes way beyond the scope of legislation in question. Suggesting that something akin to the great firewall of china could be deployed in the EU is unrealistic - having said that, it sure feels surreal when expression and support of these authoritarian ideas by EU representatives doesn't lead to immediate political suicide.

Re: Stop the proposal on mass surveillance of the EU

#443

Post by danielscrubs »

mjburgess wrote: post #316
O__________O wrote: post #179

Strangest thing to me about the topic is that it’s obvious vast percentage of citizens within democracies wish they lived in an authoritarian country, yet choose to live in a democracy and use the liberties they’re provided to actively destabilize and destroy it. To me this is the largest issue, not a given topic that results from it. Yes, I am aware current authoritarian countries wage propaganda campaigns, but in m…

Nationalism is such an ubiquitous and powerful ideology, we don't realise that pretty much everyone today is an extreme nationalist. Before "nations" people didnt regard borders, states, etc. as they do today. "citizenship" of a "nation" is a relatively recent phenomenon. Most today think it's a good-and-fitting thing to defend "one's country". And this impulse is vastly more powerful than defending "democracy". Who…

You are fighting for who has the “monopoly of violence”, which is the most natural thing ever, that we have those cliques as big as they are might not be though.

Re: Stop the proposal on mass surveillance of the EU

#444

Post by llanowarelves »

skrebbel wrote: post #266
r3trohack3r wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fundamental issue to me is that society still wants to protect against pedophiles or drug dealers or whatever other group more than protect privacy. Speaking from a U.S. perspective here. A pedophile with a cameraphone is terrible. But law enforcement without the 4th amendment is worse. A racist with a social media account is terrible. But a president without the 1st amendment is worse. There are people who do…

I had to look this up, so here's my attempt at translation for non-Americans: > A pedophile with a cameraphone is terrible. But law enforcement that can search and seize property at will is worse. > A racist with a social media account is terrible. But a president that can deny people their freedom of expression & assembly is worse. I agree. (ps. offtopic meta remark, the American enthusiasm for remembering laws by n…

They are more than just a law, they are part of the constitution (much harder to change).

And the reason why the first 10 (the Bill of Rights) and some others are learned by all schoolchildren is because the rights delineated within directly address many dire problems Americans had suffered as British colonies (and why there was a war, so is said), and so the reasons why America was formed by its founders in the first place. Part of the mythology and moral license.

Re: Stop the proposal on mass surveillance of the EU

#445

Post by Gigachad »

kragen wrote: post #72
huslage wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I follow how let's encrypt is included on this list. They are very transparent.

let's encrypt made a huge improvement on the status quo, but now that 95% of the web depends on them, they're an obvious central point of vulnerability for censors and spy agencies

As far as I know. LE does not get access to the sites private key so they can not intercept traffic using their certificates. And if LE tried to replace certificates with fake ones, it would be spotted through certificate transparency like normal.

Re: Stop the proposal on mass surveillance of the EU

#446

Post by cscurmudgeon »

O__________O wrote: post #418
cscurmudgeon wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if we don’t limit to significant global powers and look at all countries on earth?

For starters, have you reviewed this Wikipedia page: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy As for my specific response, the existence of a non-global power example to me is irrelevant, since it’s unlikely to change the course of humanity. If you have an example, specific counter point, request for clarification, etc — happy to attempt to respond. This comment by me within this thread might also expand on the to…

1. I have seen that page multiple times. For starters, what does it have to do with plutocracy? Do you know there are different forms of democracy? What does a direct democracy have to do with plutocracy? You seem to conflate true democracy with direct democracy.

You can have a true democracy that is indirect and not plutocratic. You can assert otherwise but nothing in the definitions contradict that.

2. We seem to be going back and forth. But it seems you don't have any country that matches your original definition

3. > As for my specific response, the existence of a non-global power example to me is irrelevant, since it’s unlikely to change the course of humanity. If you have an example, specific counter point, request for clarification, etc — happy to attempt to respond.

This is another strange shift in the thread. I am *not* asking for a non-global power that will impact the course of humanity. My simple original request was just a single power that fits your *original* definition of true democracy (not the modified one you suddenly have presented here).

It is not irrelevant as a true democratic non-global power can become a huge power (thanks to true democracy^TM).

Re: Stop the proposal on mass surveillance of the EU

#447

Post by Gigachad »

Rekksu wrote: post #281
skrebbel wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to look this up, so here's my attempt at translation for non-Americans: > A pedophile with a cameraphone is terrible. But law enforcement that can search and seize property at will is worse. > A racist with a social media account is terrible. But a president that can deny people their freedom of expression & assembly is worse. I agree. (ps. offtopic meta remark, the American enthusiasm for remembering laws by n…

that's only specifically the first 10 amendments, which are generally referred to as the bill of rights as they were added to the constitution when it was ratified and cover most basic freedoms so they're taught in school other rights-granting amendments are the post civil war ones which are slightly less well known but also covered in school

Nah I often see people talking about stuff like prop expecting everyone to know what that refers to.

Re: Stop the proposal on mass surveillance of the EU

#448

Post by kragen »

Gigachad wrote: post #445
kragen wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

let's encrypt made a huge improvement on the status quo, but now that 95% of the web depends on them, they're an obvious central point of vulnerability for censors and spy agencies

As far as I know. LE does not get access to the sites private key so they can not intercept traffic using their certificates. And if LE tried to replace certificates with fake ones, it would be spotted through certificate transparency like normal.

right, but as i explained downthread, those aren't the attacks i'm talking about

Re: Stop the proposal on mass surveillance of the EU

#449

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

danuker wrote: post #330
kragen wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Or Cloudflare which is a MitMaaS

Similarly, open resolvers, e.g., "public DNS service" from Google, Cloudflare, Cisco (OpenDNS), Quad9, etc. or DNS provided by an ISP. A remote DNS cache is, IMO, a "MiTM". It can censor among other things. Quad9, for example, is doing this right now.

Even so-called "encrypted DNS" such as DNSCrypt or more recently DoH only applies to the path between the client and the cache, not the cache and the authoritative server. In the same way that the path between a client and Cloudflare and the path between Cloudflare and the origin server are separated by CF as a "MiTM".

NB. It's possible to exclude the remote DNS cache and have encrypted DNS between client and authoritative server, the software exists, even for DNSCrypt, but it never caught on. I have often thought about starting a registry that requires registrants to offer encrypted authoritative DNS.

Re: Stop the proposal on mass surveillance of the EU

#450

Post by stephen_g »

kwanbix wrote: post #82
oauea wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So, if everything is encrypted, how do you expect the police to catch ped0philes, for example?

Actual criminals don’t only communicate with just other criminals. They actually have to get out and do crime… So police can catch them the way they always did, when things were organised by talking together in private when nobody else could listen to them.
Post reply on HN