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

131–140 of 219 posts

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

#131

Post by jwalton »

tablespoon wrote: post #56
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…

> Don't trust old-school typewriters and the postal system either. Letters are routinely opened and typewriters can be matched. For example, the Stasi (secret police of the former GDR - German "Democratic" Republic) had an archive of type samples of all sold models of typewriters for re-identification of political pamphlets. That's theoretical. I highly doubt anyone extends that much effort to target typewriters anym…

> That's theoretical.

I would agree, but then I also would have agreed with this sentiment about much of what Snowden revealed. If you want to be paranoid, may as well go all in.

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

#132

Post by walkhour »

decremental wrote: post #58
walkhour wrote: post #49

Reminds me of the senator that asked Zuckerberg how do they make money [0], and Zuckerberg simply said they run ads. What a way to use your questioning time, with something that was a google search away. [0] https://youtu.be/n2H8wx1aBiQ

Often the point of seemingly obvious questions like that is to have the person on record making that statement and potentially what they might omit.

Maybe, but Zuckerberg smirks, also the guy behind him, and also the blond lady next to him.

It seems more likely to me that the Senator was out of his depth.

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

#133

Post by hgsgm »

mananaysiempre wrote: post #128
rfrey wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No, I’m not. What I’m saying is that as long as laws on protests are being followed in full (which in the case of Russia means we’re... somewhere in the late 90s, probably? early 00s at most), the authorities in Paris seem to have much wider latitude to stop people from protesting than would be allowed by the Russian constitution, and that latitude was exercised as recently as 2018. That doesn’t mean the French syste…

The core of the issue is that the law itself matters less than how the people with big guns behave -- they can choose not to enforce the law or they can break the law with impunity, so what matters is what the government / police actually do, and what they actually prevent people from doing.

Despite the "bans" on mass protests, the French still protest plenty.

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

#134

Post by hgsgm »

siquick wrote: post #110
mananaysiempre wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In Sydney you need to apply for a permit to stage a protest.

Citation needed.

Is that permit to "stage a protest" or a permit to block traffic and do otherwise illegal actions?

https://www.nswccl.org.au/right_to_protest

"Civil disobedience" has always entailed paying the consequences of lawvreaking to send a message.

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

#135

Post by hgsgm »

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…

> certain peaceful organization organizing protests the government didn't like.

When you go beyond defending behavior, to go out of your way to avoid saying what you are talking about, you discredit yourself.

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

#136

Post by hgsgm »

robopsychology wrote: post #89
gweinberg wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it does. It doesn't have a Constitution, but that's not the same thing as not having a constitution.

Okay to put it another way the constitution is uncodified and weak - parliament can change constitutional laws at a whim due to no separation of powers and no-one could sit down and write it out anyway. So it's a pretty weird constitution if you can call it that, and many legal scholars argue it isn't one. https://www.jstor.org/stable/764688

$51 is an expensive citation.

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

#137

Post by hgsgm »

labster wrote: post #129
MrPatan wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course not, "peaceful" is reserved for burning buildings and cars.

I remember the good old days when people could be against riots regardless of their politics without getting canceled. But those days are long gone. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I’m pro-BLM. I’m not a racist or anything.

I remember the good old days when you could be pro-riots and still agree that the behavior was illegal, because "burning the system down" was a position taken with honesty.

When US "peacekeepers" invade a foreign country, that's illegal too.

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

#138

Post by jjeaff »

tablespoon wrote: post #56
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…

> Don't trust old-school typewriters and the postal system either. Letters are routinely opened and typewriters can be matched. For example, the Stasi (secret police of the former GDR - German "Democratic" Republic) had an archive of type samples of all sold models of typewriters for re-identification of political pamphlets. That's theoretical. I highly doubt anyone extends that much effort to target typewriters anym…

Ya, kind of like the genius idea of getting a custom license plate with alternating L's and ones: l1l111l1

Might be hard to read or remember but it sure does stand out.

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

#139

Post by Barrin92 »

max51 wrote: post #44

This is so common (not just in the EU) that it makes me feel like it was done by design in a lot of cases. By creating these massive overcomplicated bills, they make sure only a handful of individuals are capable of reading them and the rest of us (including other politicians) will never read them and instead have to rely on faith. It feels to me like they want to give you the illusion that it's all open/public but a…

Legal documents aren't complicated because some cabal of evil lawyers has decided to make the text hard to understand for you, they're complicated because legal concepts require precision and specificity that ordinary language isn't able to express.

It's like calling code "programmerlese" and claim that programmers invented it so ordinary people don't understand software. The average adult reads with the comprehension of an 8th grader, if deception was the goal they'd hardly need to try that hard.

EU documents are complicated because more than two-dozen national governments and thousands of people work on these texts because they can't ever agree on anything without throwing in 500 exceptions for each country, it's that simple, there's no tinfoil conspiracy.

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

#140

Post by [deleted] »

labster wrote: post #129
MrPatan wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course not, "peaceful" is reserved for burning buildings and cars.

I remember the good old days when people could be against riots regardless of their politics without getting canceled. But those days are long gone. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I’m pro-BLM. I’m not a racist or anything.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN