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

EU Commission doesn't understand what's written in its own chat control bill

mullvad.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 219 posts

Re: EU Commission doesn't understand what's written in its own chat control bill

#111

Post by hunter2_ »

randyrand wrote: post #95

> Above all, she continues to claim that it’s possible to scan end-to-end encrypted communication without breaking the encryption. This is trivially possible. 1. send an end to end encrypted message to the recipient 2. also send an end to end encrypted copy of the message to the government. I’m not agreeing with it. But you can clearly send end to end encrypted messages to multiple parties without fundamentally break…

Are you saying that sending and scanning are the same? I think we need to define "scan" (or "sniff" or whatever other metaphors are used here) as more than just receiving a copy that's still encrypted. What definition is there, which is distinct from "decrypt"?

You can often determine the source, the destination, the amount of data over time, etc. but those are hardly sufficient to suspect wrongdoing unless there's also other overwhelming evidence already.

Re: EU Commission doesn't understand what's written in its own chat control bill

#112

Post by Aeolun »

seba_dos1 wrote: post #67
TremendousJudge wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can trust your Linux box with your self-compiled kernel Can you? If we're going this far, you can't trust the compiler either.

At some arbitrary point you just decide that the risk is small enough for you to be comfortable with it.

And that comes when you self compile your kernel? Seems like an odd point to stop.

Like, the chances of someone sneaking something terrible into an open source kernel seem lower than of any of the hardware coming out of China to be poisoned.

Re: EU Commission doesn't understand what's written in its own chat control bill

#113

Post by transcriptase »

908B64B197 wrote: post #70
dahwolf wrote: post #65

Software is flexible which seems to result in our human rights being equally flexible. Imagine the police regularly raiding your apartment without announcement. The post office opening all your mail. Storage box companies searching your unit. You wouldn't be OK with that. You're innocent until proven guilty and a search requires a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing and an approved warrant. Private communication is pr…

Lots of places don't have strong constitutional protections, for anything. Not that long ago, the government in Canada started freezing citizen's bank accounts on suspicions they donated small amounts to a certain peaceful organization organizing protests the government didn't like. They just decided to suspend the constitution (because that's a thing over there?). But what's interesting to see is people from Europe…

Careful, if any HN folk reside in Ottawa they’ll be all over you implying that honking horns is psychological torture and that everything is the fault of the RCMP and Provincial government for not shutting down protests first.

Re: EU Commission doesn't understand what's written in its own chat control bill

#115

Post by throwawaylinux »

mananaysiempre wrote: post #84
seydor wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I 'm actually shocked that people are OK with that. People in countries that have had dictatorships recently probably remember that. Snitches everywhere, the police raiding houses again and again for no reason, with no recourse and people were just accepting it.

As a Russian student studying in Paris, it was a terrifying realization that the mayor can, apparently, prohibit any and all mass protests by simply issuing a decree, no higher authority needed. (This was in 2018 IIRC.) This is apparently part of the anti-terrorist law or something? I dunno, and nobody seemed to care except for the participants of the protests that were happening at the time. Compared to the constant…

> As a Russian student studying in Paris, it was a terrifying realization that the mayor can, apparently, prohibit any and all mass protests by simply issuing a decree, no higher authority needed. (This was in 2018 IIRC.) This is apparently part of the anti-terrorist law or something? I dunno, and nobody seemed to care except for the participants of the protests that were happening at the time.

That's because the governments actively work to and encourage the fracturing of their population and cultures and the breakdown of trust in society. If you hate or fear your neighbor, you will be okay with the state trampling their rights.

Re: EU Commission doesn't understand what's written in its own chat control bill

#116

Post by KirillPanov »

gizmo wrote: post #63
jll29 wrote: post #50

Don't believe vendors' lies about "end-to-end" encryption. If caught red handed, they will always say it depends on how you define where both "ends" begin. Do not trust a cloud service that you have not developed and deployed yourself. You may trust untrusted hardware with your encrypted content, but only if you have given it your content pre-encrypted by yourself, not trusted a third party to encrypt it on your beha…

Do you trust your bios? Your usb stack? Your network card firmware? I get the desire to control the entire chain, but nowadays you’re surrounded by cameras and microphones 24/7, every smart device is a surveillance sleeper agent waiting for the magic word. Certificate chains are the least of your worries.

> Do you trust your bios? Your usb stack? Your network card firmware?

Sure, because I have the complete source code for all three of those things:

https://www.raptorcs.com/TALOSII/

Re: EU Commission doesn't understand what's written in its own chat control bill

#117

Post by KirillPanov »

fsflover wrote: post #82
gizmo wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you trust your bios? Your usb stack? Your network card firmware? I get the desire to control the entire chain, but nowadays you’re surrounded by cameras and microphones 24/7, every smart device is a surveillance sleeper agent waiting for the magic word. Certificate chains are the least of your worries.

> Do you trust your bios? Yes, it's Coreboot with disabled and neutralized Intel ME. > Your usb stack? No, it's isolated in a dedicated, hardware-virtualized VM on Qubes OS. > Your network card firmware? Same as above. And it's FLOSS. > surrounded by cameras and microphones For those, I have hardware kill switches. On the phone, too.

> disabled and neutralized Intel ME

Pinky swear.

Re: EU Commission doesn't understand what's written in its own chat control bill

#118

Post by cyc116 »

KirillPanov wrote: post #116
gizmo wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you trust your bios? Your usb stack? Your network card firmware? I get the desire to control the entire chain, but nowadays you’re surrounded by cameras and microphones 24/7, every smart device is a surveillance sleeper agent waiting for the magic word. Certificate chains are the least of your worries.

> Do you trust your bios? Your usb stack? Your network card firmware? Sure, because I have the complete source code for all three of those things: https://www.raptorcs.com/TALOSII/

But do you inspect all the source code?

Re: EU Commission doesn't understand what's written in its own chat control bill

#119

Post by rfrey »

mananaysiempre wrote: post #84
seydor wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I 'm actually shocked that people are OK with that. People in countries that have had dictatorships recently probably remember that. Snitches everywhere, the police raiding houses again and again for no reason, with no recourse and people were just accepting it.

As a Russian student studying in Paris, it was a terrifying realization that the mayor can, apparently, prohibit any and all mass protests by simply issuing a decree, no higher authority needed. (This was in 2018 IIRC.) This is apparently part of the anti-terrorist law or something? I dunno, and nobody seemed to care except for the participants of the protests that were happening at the time. Compared to the constant…

Am I misreading, or are you arguing that people are more free to protest in Russia than in Paris?
Post reply on HN