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

Statement on EU-US Cooperation on Turning Public Opinion Against Encryption

globalencryption.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 240 posts

Re: Statement on EU-US Cooperation on Turning Public Opinion Against Encryption

#31

Post by hulitu »

fatcat500 wrote: post #19

Interesting how our leaders see their role not as representing our interests, but in shaping our interests. There exists an entire subject in political science dealing with how to increase compliance with the schemes of regulators (see Nudge Theory). The mistake they make is a classic short-run vs. long-run miscalculation. In the short-run, you can get away with these kinds of tactics to increase compliance. For exam…

> Interesting how our leaders see their role not as representing our interests, but in shaping our interests.

Someone called it "Manufacturing consent". I think this name describes it pretty good.

What these politicians do not seem to underestand is that those law may turn against them at a later point in time.

Re: Statement on EU-US Cooperation on Turning Public Opinion Against Encryption

#32

Post by stametseater »

kibwen wrote: post #26

The logical conclusion to the war on general purpose computing (as currently perpetrated in the large by Apple, and spun even by people here as a worthwhile tradeoff for "security") is that computers will be replaced with appliances that can only run government-sanctioned, closed-source software. That is the only way these laws could be enforced.

Even if "normal computers" are left free, anti-encryption legislation could be enormously effective at the level of the general population even if it only manages to twist the arm of Apple, Google and force them to remove such software from their appstores.

"Bad guys" could still use encryption of course, but the government would gain the ability to easily surveil most people, which is what they're really after.

Re: Statement on EU-US Cooperation on Turning Public Opinion Against Encryption

#33

Post by jruohonen »

hulitu wrote: post #31
fatcat500 wrote: post #19

Interesting how our leaders see their role not as representing our interests, but in shaping our interests. There exists an entire subject in political science dealing with how to increase compliance with the schemes of regulators (see Nudge Theory). The mistake they make is a classic short-run vs. long-run miscalculation. In the short-run, you can get away with these kinds of tactics to increase compliance. For exam…

> Interesting how our leaders see their role not as representing our interests, but in shaping our interests. Someone called it "Manufacturing consent". I think this name describes it pretty good. What these politicians do not seem to underestand is that those law may turn against them at a later point in time.

Securitization is a common one too.

Re: Statement on EU-US Cooperation on Turning Public Opinion Against Encryption

#34

Post by nickstinemates »

hulitu wrote: post #31
fatcat500 wrote: post #19

Interesting how our leaders see their role not as representing our interests, but in shaping our interests. There exists an entire subject in political science dealing with how to increase compliance with the schemes of regulators (see Nudge Theory). The mistake they make is a classic short-run vs. long-run miscalculation. In the short-run, you can get away with these kinds of tactics to increase compliance. For exam…

> Interesting how our leaders see their role not as representing our interests, but in shaping our interests. Someone called it "Manufacturing consent". I think this name describes it pretty good. What these politicians do not seem to underestand is that those law may turn against them at a later point in time.

Today it is their problem. Tomorrow it's someone else's. That's basically how the US has been operating for at least my lifetime.

Re: Statement on EU-US Cooperation on Turning Public Opinion Against Encryption

#36

Post by layer8 »

jMyles wrote: post #2

> ...at the EU-US Senior Officials Meeting on Justice and Home Affairs, held in Stockholm on 16 and 17 March, the minutes of which are now available. The delegations “… concurred on the need to mirror privacy by design with lawful access by design…,” apparent code language for mandating the undermining or removal of strong encryption practices. What is wrong with these people? How can anyone, let alone an educated, w…

I believe it’s difficult for nontechnical people to fully grasp the consequences of having so-called backdoors in the digital realm. It’s different from the physical world, where something like a master key or the possibility of forceful entry isn’t unreasonable. They probably think it must necessarily be possible to have something equivalent for electronic communication.

Re: Statement on EU-US Cooperation on Turning Public Opinion Against Encryption

#37

Post by alphanullmeric »

fleventynine wrote: post #28
alphanullmeric wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that would mean the “pay your fair share” people would actually have to pay their fair share, which they will never support. We all know that the fair share is a percentage of someone else’s income you feel entitled to and not a fee proportional to the amount of state services you use.

You wouldn't necessarily need to shut down social programs. Rich people and their companies own lots of property, spectrum, water rights, intellectual property, etc, and the funding from these taxes can still be used to fund a social safety net. As a bonus, if property taxes (or better yet, land value taxes) were 5x what they are, we probably would fix the housing crisis as all the property hoarders unload their unde…

Nobody said anything about shutting down social programs, you can still have those without forcing people that don’t use them to pay for it. Like I said, pay your fair share. The USPS for the most part is an example of a government service that operates only off of voluntary funding from its users.

Re: Statement on EU-US Cooperation on Turning Public Opinion Against Encryption

#38

Post by Zak »

kingkawn wrote: post #10
jMyles wrote: post #2

> ...at the EU-US Senior Officials Meeting on Justice and Home Affairs, held in Stockholm on 16 and 17 March, the minutes of which are now available. The delegations “… concurred on the need to mirror privacy by design with lawful access by design…,” apparent code language for mandating the undermining or removal of strong encryption practices. What is wrong with these people? How can anyone, let alone an educated, w…

In part because they have full access to the classified info about the threats that are being disrupted regularly

If they're trying to influence public opinion and there really are a bunch of successes from surveillance programs that can be defeated with consumer-grade encryption, they could find ways to declassify statistics.

I suppose there's the concern that a statement like "we prosecuted 2387 child molesters based on surveillance of unencrypted chat" would cause future offenders to stop using unencrypted chat, but I think that's a red herring. Any reasonably clever criminal would not be sending felonious content unencrypted today.

Re: Statement on EU-US Cooperation on Turning Public Opinion Against Encryption

#39

Post by 8n4vidtmkvmk »

hulitu wrote: post #31
fatcat500 wrote: post #19

Interesting how our leaders see their role not as representing our interests, but in shaping our interests. There exists an entire subject in political science dealing with how to increase compliance with the schemes of regulators (see Nudge Theory). The mistake they make is a classic short-run vs. long-run miscalculation. In the short-run, you can get away with these kinds of tactics to increase compliance. For exam…

> Interesting how our leaders see their role not as representing our interests, but in shaping our interests. Someone called it "Manufacturing consent". I think this name describes it pretty good. What these politicians do not seem to underestand is that those law may turn against them at a later point in time.

or instantly. politicians are people and I'm pretty sure they use phones. if a backdoor is added it will almost instantly be used against them I'm sure. even well meaning apps are hacked.

Re: Statement on EU-US Cooperation on Turning Public Opinion Against Encryption

#40

Post by ugurnot »

hulitu wrote: post #31
fatcat500 wrote: post #19

Interesting how our leaders see their role not as representing our interests, but in shaping our interests. There exists an entire subject in political science dealing with how to increase compliance with the schemes of regulators (see Nudge Theory). The mistake they make is a classic short-run vs. long-run miscalculation. In the short-run, you can get away with these kinds of tactics to increase compliance. For exam…

> Interesting how our leaders see their role not as representing our interests, but in shaping our interests. Someone called it "Manufacturing consent". I think this name describes it pretty good. What these politicians do not seem to underestand is that those law may turn against them at a later point in time.

"Manifacturing Consent" is a book written by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. They discuss the propaganda model of communication in much broader sense.
Post reply on HN