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

61–70 of 240 posts

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

#61

Post by chrisco255 »

shmerl wrote: post #8

May be encryption can be declared as a right to privacy and then this issue will be gone for good.

At least in the U.S., it's already covered:

1A: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

4A: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

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

#62

Post by fleventynine »

alphanullmeric wrote: post #37
fleventynine wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm confused, are you suggesting that malnourished kids should pay for their own lunch (or for that matter, education?). There are some services we have to collectively pay for to live in a stable society.

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

#63

Post by blitz_skull »

jameshart wrote: post #52
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…

> There exists an entire subject in political science dealing with how to increase compliance with the schemes of regulators (see Nudge Theory). It’s a very cynical view of the potential for human government that believes there is no way that the democratic will of the people affects what goals ‘regulators’ pursue. Consider the possibility perhaps that the point of government is to overcome the prisoner’s dilemma and…

I read this as “The government’s role is to nudge people into what the government determines is better than the people’s natural inclination.”

Did I understand that correctly? If I did, I don’t think anyone would disagree… in theory. The problem is there’s no standard way to measure and certainly no agreement on what that collective equilibrium should be.

Until we figure that out—no thanks. I’ll take my naturally not-as-optimized freedom without the government’s input.

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

#64

Post by jruohonen »

jmclnx wrote: post #9
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…

Power I guess, only because they can. But if you communicate by Cell Phone (txt, email...), encryption can be stopped by law only because they are closed systems. But I tend to believe Cell Phones already come with a backdoor, so laws do not really matter for those. If using gpg via email on an Open System (Linux, BSDs), good luck stopping that.

Same I here: I don't really mind because I've never assumed smartphones to be secure. But maybe I have been wrong because they do seem to have problems in decryption of things like Signal or even the Meta's stuff. As for serious transnational crime, I really doubt whether these proposals will make any difference. After EncroChat, serious criminals have probably gone back to pencil and paper and whispering.

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

#65

Post by codedokode »

CrampusDestrus wrote: post #18

I have no problem with the police hacking into devices. They have the right to use bugs and find exploits just like they have the right to pick a safe of force a door. But backdoors and unacceptable, that's like mandating that every house have microphones in every room connected to the police center

What about banning end-to-end encryption while allowing client-server encryption like HTTPS?

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

#66

Post by hulitu »

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…

If China (as the US claims ) does it, why not the US ? They don't want to lose the lead in this field. /s

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

#67

Post by codedokode »

chrisco255 wrote: post #61
shmerl wrote: post #8

May be encryption can be declared as a right to privacy and then this issue will be gone for good.

At least in the U.S., it's already covered: 1A: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." 4A: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be sea…

What about banning end-to-end encryption while keeping client-server encryption (like Telegram or Apple does)? If people are not allowed to transfer money anonymously, why allow them communicate anonymously?

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

#68

Post by fleventynine »

WaitWaitWha wrote: post #59
fleventynine wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Income tax is the problem. I wish governments solely relied on property taxes and user fees for funding, even if they had to increase them a lot to make up for the loss of income tax revenue.

Agree that income tax is a problem, but do not agree with your solution using property tax. I believe consumption tax is a better approach, in my opinion. Consumption tax is immediate, indiscriminate at the time we spend the money, while property tax tends to be applied at various times throughout the life of the property.

Consumption taxes have a lot of the same privacy-invading problems that income taxes do. To enforce them, the government has to have the ability to audit the financial records of at least one of the parties in a transaction.

If there are consumption taxes, they should only be for the raw materials and energy (as part of mineral rights).

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

#69

Post by RobotToaster »

dekken_ wrote: post #47
ugurnot wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Don't forget about > "The Engineering of Consent" is an essay by Edward Bernays first published in 1947,

"Inventing Reality" by Michael Parenti is another book on the subject.

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

#70

Post by dmbche »

alphanullmeric wrote: post #20
fleventynine wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Income tax is the problem. I wish governments solely relied on property taxes and user fees for funding, even if they had to increase them a lot to make up for the loss of income tax revenue.

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.

Could you clarify who the pay-your-fair-share people are? Not a jab, I'm just unclear on what you mean.
Post reply on HN