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

171–180 of 219 posts

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

#171

Post by jq-r »

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.

You have to do the same in Croatia too. So no wonder nobody protests.

Hell, I had to apply for a same permit to organize a very small LAN party in one of the college's classrooms.

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

#172

Post by watwut »

mananaysiempre wrote: post #99
orwin wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It cannot. It can refuse an organized protest, and ask the prefect to deploy the police at particular location, but cannot prohibit protests. Actually, Paris' mayor is the mayor with the less executive power, as they don't have a municipal police. Paris prefect, on the other hand, is the most powerful prefect in France. But prefects in France have too much power. It would be fine if the legislative and judiciary bran…

The prefect was also involved at some point, I might well have mixed that up. The structure honestly seems quite convoluted from the outside, but the responsible party seemed to be a part of the executive. (I tried to check whether a tribunal of some sort belonged to the judiciary, because it looked like it didn’t, and gave up. No deep knowledge here, sorry.) > [The mayor] can refuse an organized protest [...], but c…

I would point out that Russian system failed entirely and totally when it comes to keeping it "free". Meanwhile, I see French having actual rather big protests all the time. Meanwhile, I see Russia actively exporting authoritarianism with full revert back to bad times.

I think that one big reason is that there is practical difference in the two systems ... and that practical difference is favoring the French system.

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

#173

Post by peoplefromibiza »

raverbashing wrote: post #167
peoplefromibiza wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> very few laws to completely shut down dissent except it would mean silencing millions of people, which is frankly more similar to the intro of a sci-fi novel than modern France. See what's happening in Israel, not even the omnipotent Netanyahu could go against the huge popular protests. > Von der Leyen refuses to show the private texts she exchanged with Pfizer' boss, That's the same right everyone has in Europe. N…

> first of all because E2E it's about secrecy, not privacy I think not even the people in EC in favour of this have such a bad argument as this one Privacy requires secrecy

> Privacy requires secrecy

No, it doesn't.

When I go to the urologist there is no secret about what's going to happen, but the doctor closes the door to respect my privacy.

When a woman gives birth, unauthorized people are not allowed to enter the room. Because "privacy".

When I take money from the ATM I do it in private, not in secrecy. Everyone knows I am taking money, but are required to not get too close.

Conflating the two arguments is either out of confusion or bad faith.

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

#174

Post by ranguna »

Aeolun wrote: post #126
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…

I think by the point you encrypt the plaintext twice the idea of end-to-end is broken.

Disclaimer: I do not agree with this EU proposal.

Why do you say that e2ee is broken if the plain text is encrypted more than once?

Isn't that what happens in group chats?

And if not, they could just make all chats group chats. You, your recipient and the government.

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

#175

Post by peoplefromibiza »

Aeolun wrote: post #123
peoplefromibiza wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> very few laws to completely shut down dissent except it would mean silencing millions of people, which is frankly more similar to the intro of a sci-fi novel than modern France. See what's happening in Israel, not even the omnipotent Netanyahu could go against the huge popular protests. > Von der Leyen refuses to show the private texts she exchanged with Pfizer' boss, That's the same right everyone has in Europe. N…

> privacy still exists without secrecy It can, but if the goal is to —in one fell swoop— remove both secrecy (encryption) and privacy (scanning of de—encrypted information) then clearly that isn’t true.

So basically the privacy is removed the moment privacy is removed (the scanning bit), not when secrecy is.

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

#176

Post by raverbashing »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #173
raverbashing wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> first of all because E2E it's about secrecy, not privacy I think not even the people in EC in favour of this have such a bad argument as this one Privacy requires secrecy

> Privacy requires secrecy No, it doesn't. When I go to the urologist there is no secret about what's going to happen, but the doctor closes the door to respect my privacy. When a woman gives birth, unauthorized people are not allowed to enter the room. Because "privacy". When I take money from the ATM I do it in private, not in secrecy. Everyone knows I am taking money, but are required to not get too close. Conflat…

> When I go to the urologist there is no secret about what's going to happen,

Yes there is.

What happens there is a secret, protected by medical secrecy. There are assumptions on what can happen, but it is still protected

And whatever you're assuming to happen might not necessarily happen there

Having exceptions where the information gets out "by itself" (in the case of pregnancy) do not make the acts that happen there any less secret.

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

#177

Post by peoplefromibiza »

raverbashing wrote: post #176
peoplefromibiza wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Privacy requires secrecy No, it doesn't. When I go to the urologist there is no secret about what's going to happen, but the doctor closes the door to respect my privacy. When a woman gives birth, unauthorized people are not allowed to enter the room. Because "privacy". When I take money from the ATM I do it in private, not in secrecy. Everyone knows I am taking money, but are required to not get too close. Conflat…

> When I go to the urologist there is no secret about what's going to happen, Yes there is. What happens there is a secret, protected by medical secrecy. There are assumptions on what can happen, but it is still protected And whatever you're assuming to happen might not necessarily happen there Having exceptions where the information gets out "by itself" (in the case of pregnancy) do not make the acts that happen the…

> What happens there is a secret, protected by medical secrecy

No, it isn't.

My father is (redaction: was) a doctor, there is no secret about it, medical records are not secret, they are public records kept forever in public medical archives.

They are private though, to access them you need an authorization and a reason (of course).

Unless it's dictated by the law that some medical records must be kept secret: one example is being HIV positive.

> And whatever you're assuming to happen might not necessarily happen there

You're actually on the right track, but still confuse the two terms.

So I'll make it easier for you: privacy is consensual secrecy is not.

That's the real difference.

You in fact have a “right to privacy” because other people must respect it, but not equivalent “right to secrecy”, you can be asked to reveal a secret by authorities, while they can't (shouldn't) violate your privacy.

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

#178

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#179

Post by reyqn »

ranguna wrote: post #174
Aeolun wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think by the point you encrypt the plaintext twice the idea of end-to-end is broken.

Disclaimer: I do not agree with this EU proposal. Why do you say that e2ee is broken if the plain text is encrypted more than once? Isn't that what happens in group chats? And if not, they could just make all chats group chats. You, your recipient and the government.

Maybe this would actually make people tick on how outrageous this is.

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

#180

Post by hugginn »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #147
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…

> Private communication is private and absolutely nobody else's business. It's a crime to open somebody's mail. I thought we were talking in the context of the EU? It's not a crime for them if the government is doing it (or asking for it). They don't have rights like that.

It's definitely illegal to open letters not addressed to you in Sweden. I'm not sure what makes you think we don't have rights like that. I think an issue here might be that a lot of jurisdictions have privacy laws specific to post, and the law system hasn't been able to keep up with the technological development.
Post reply on HN