Live data from Hacker News

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

mullvad.net

181–190 of 219 posts

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

#181
post #149
post #36

The podcast episode in Svenska Dagbladet (which is otherwise a very good podcast) was infuriating because the opponent and the host did not catch on to her ridiculous statements about encryption. She really needs to meet a journalist that can cross-examine her statements about this. She got away too easy there.

I only read the blog summarizing the interviews, but I’m horrified that she can talk this much bs with such apparent confidence. I don’t know who she is and how she got to have this role, which she does not appear qualified to hold.

She is a Swedish politician from the Social Democratic party. One of the senior ones that served as minister in the cabinet for a number of years. Unfortunately, that does not mean she is competent

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

#182
post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The issue isn't with CURRENT government.

The issue is that with such huge loopholes, FUTURE one might exploit them on a bigger scale than what happens in Russia.

And being constantly vigilant and opposed to such laws, is what keeps the society sane and working.

The protest in France could be officially banned, but it wouldn't stop the protesters. Whereas current Russia would bring in the army to forcefully stop protests.

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

#183
Aside from the obvious impossibility of privacy-compatible searches, I'd like to focus on the authoritarian excuse du jour, child sexual abuse.

How prevalent is it really? How often are children actually abused, in comparison to images of the abuse being circulated? Is there really an increase in child abuse over the last couple of decades?

It seems to me that this angle is especially unpopular to talk about among privacy advocates because most people will wrongly think that it is defending child abuse. Thanks to the magic of internet forums, I don't have to care too much.

In my evaluation, actual child abuse is happening at record low rates in the western world due several factors. The first is the secularization of society, reducing the influence and number of (always male) priests over large amounts of children.

Second, practical access to separation and divorce is much easier to women with children than it used to be. Wives can better protect their children from an abusive father than they could a couple of decades ago.

Third, a side effect of the campaign to eliminate gender roles and discriminations against women in education and the workplace is that men teaching young children have basically gone extinct.

Fourth, the hysteria about the problem has led all men to distance themselves from children in general, in order to avoid even the slightest suspicion.

So considering all that, what's really happening? We can expect rates of pedophilia haven't changed much. It's there genetically, and will be for the foreseeable future. The conclusion should be obvious: pedophiles have shifted from a society where getting away with abuse was a realistic prospect to one where it is not. So they do the next best thing and use pornography instead.

Of course, the material is still being made and the abuse still happens. But we've gone from a situation where e.g. there was one child being abused by each pedophile to one where that ratio is maybe one child to ten or a hundred pedophiles (or vastly more depending on how much the material was shared).

Am I wrong?

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

#184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hey, post your street address online here. Me and some buddies will camp outside your house honking horns all night long for a month or two, all in completely harmless good fun as we all agree it’s simply free speech.

Did they honk horns at night? I seem to recall explicit calls to not do that.

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

#185

Aside from the obvious impossibility of privacy-compatible searches, I'd like to focus on the authoritarian excuse du jour, child sexual abuse. How prevalent is it really? How often are children actually abused, in comparison to images of the abuse being circulated? Is there really an increase in child abuse over the last couple of decades? It seems to me that this angle is especially unpopular to talk about among pr…

Your sheer, naked bias that only men abuse children and partners while women always protect them... while simultaneously questioning established narratives. Phew.

That takes a special kind of stupid.

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

#186
post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The issue isn't with CURRENT government. The issue is that with such huge loopholes, FUTURE one might exploit them on a bigger scale than what happens in Russia. And being constantly vigilant and opposed to such laws, is what keeps the society sane and working. The protest in France could be officially banned, but it wouldn't stop the protesters. Whereas current Russia would bring in the army to forcefully stop prote…

I did not said that current government is somehow better then other governments. I said that French system is superior regardless of government. Because it produces better outcome systematically over the years, even as this or that government don't want it to happen.

I am saying that looking toward Russia laws is bad place to take lessons from. The in book laws in Russian system mean literally nothing. Wagner is illegal in Russia too, actually. Post-socialist human right activists lost and failed.

> The protest in France could be officially banned, but it wouldn't stop the protesters. Whereas current Russia would bring in the army to forcefully stop protests.

First part yes. Latter part, actually, no. Russia don't bring army within Russia for that nor need to. They have cops and secret service for that and both have enough power. But the lack of democracy in Russia did not happened because the army would systematically suppress Russian protests. (It successfully suppressed Belarusian protests and made Chechnya into vasal state. But in Russia itself, it is not the threat of army that is preventing protests.)

The "affirmative notifications" is doing absolutely nothing for democracy in Russia.

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

#187
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

"You need to be able to increase the costs of getting caught" -- Edward Snowden

Deliberately inserted malware, laying in plain sight in source code, is an existential risk for a company with a reputation like IBM's. Of course, there isn't a 100% guarantee of it being noticed, but a 1% chance of that happening is enough for them to tell the spooks to fuck off.

Special Access Programs only work because God-mode coprocessors like the Intel ME ensure zero risk of blowback for the manufacturer. Force them to have skin in the game and they aren't pushovers anymore.

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

#188
I think they understand. I remember how in Russia they justified the blocking of sites and the transfer of encryption keys for messengers. I have deja vu. At first they were justified solely by the fight against pedophiles and terrorists. Then gradually the fight against pirates, then with misleading information, the fight for fair elections, and so on and so forth. Then they canceled the receipt of permits through the courts. Opposition blockades appeared without justification...

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

#189
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.

Yes, the people who lived under the Stasi remember it vividly

And vote AFD or even the neonazis.

Democracy is one bad week away from turning into a dictatorship. We've gotten complacent and forgot that fact. Democracy is not the natural state of society.

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

#190

> 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…

If message 1 is properly encrypted then I can put whatever I want in message 2 without the government knowing the contents of message 1.

Also, assuming message 1 and 2 contents are identical, if anyone steals the governments' private key the encryption of message 1 is moot.

Post reply on HN