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

71–80 of 240 posts

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

#71

Post by kevviiinn »

codedokode wrote: post #60
jmclnx wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is no need to ban encryption in client-server protocols like HTTPS. Just require that servers logs all session keys for future lawful access.

That's a great way to have a central point of failure for bad actors to target

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

#72

Post by rektide »

Animats wrote: post #29

This is worth taking up with the congressional committees looking for overreach by the Biden Administration. Fill out this form, to start. [1] https://oversight.house.gov/whistle/

Nice of the White House to set up such a convenient reporting system.

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

#73

Post by layer8 »

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

This is problematic if, as is often the case, it leads to keeping vulnerabilities undisclosed, so that they can continue to exploit them. This gives bad actors more opportunity to find and exploit the same vulnerabilities, and it gives security companies that find vulnerabilities the incentive to sell their services to the police and to government agencies instead of informing the software manufacturer.

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

#74

Post by ClumsyPilot »

blitz_skull wrote: post #63
jameshart wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Your point of view falls apart when crime enters the picture.

Criminal law is just another form of regulation. Somehow we decided that taking cocaine is a crime. And that pedophiles are criminals. And then government tries to ensure compliance with criminal law.

People generally agree that it is fit and proper for government to act, through education and other means, to ensure most people aren't criminals.

You might say: "well criminal law is different - but is it?

Someone spent 8 years in jail for sending lobster in an incorrect container. Not a live lobster, a dead one.

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

#75

Post by pintxo »

blitz_skull wrote: post #63
jameshart wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Guess the problem is, there is a whole other group of parties how are manipulating us to act towards their interests. And I would say it’s clear that they are winning (see for example obesity, opioids).

So I don’t think we should handle this as a yes no question.

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

#76

Post by fleventynine »

scythe wrote: post #58
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.

A major argument for income tax is that it's naturally countercyclical, which means that governments tax more when incomes are high and less when they are low. The 'progressive' — concave upwards — income tax is even more so. Per Keynesian theory, countercyclical fiscal policy acts to stabilize the economy, and the US has been more stable since the tax base shifted from property tax and tariffs towards income taxes.…

> It might be possible for a land tax or property tax to be countercyclical, but this would likely depend on the centralized adjustment of valuations, since there is not so far any automatic technique for valuing real property other than immediately after a sale.

Yeah, this is a problem that would need to be solved.

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

#77

Post by alphanullmeric »

fleventynine wrote: post #62
alphanullmeric wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’m suggesting that someone not willing to pay their own fair share should not pretend others are not willing to pay theirs.

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

#78

Post by Kim_Bruning »

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

1984 was a warning, not a manual!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescreen

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

#79

Post by ClumsyPilot »

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.

> computers will be replaced with appliances that can only run government-sanctioned, closed-source software

this is lacking imagination

Most items around us will be smart withing 10 years.

There are coffe machines that stop working without internet, dishwashers and washing machines that have wifi. You cant buy a TV and a Car without internet connectivity. Mac OS won't run an executable withour connecting to an apple server.

All of them phone home.

The government just needs to tap into the datastores assembled by these companies. Datastores in centralised datacenters, which are large regulated installations.

They don't need to do any extra work. The police doesnt need to raid every house.

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

#80

Post by AlecSchueler »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #74
blitz_skull wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your point of view falls apart when crime enters the picture. Criminal law is just another form of regulation. Somehow we decided that taking cocaine is a crime. And that pedophiles are criminals. And then government tries to ensure compliance with criminal law. People generally agree that it is fit and proper for government to act, through education and other means, to ensure most people aren't criminals. You might…

I think the difference is criminal law seeks compliance with the laws as they are, but this manufacturing of consent seeks compliance on bills when the elecorate may well note vote in their favour otherwise. Does that make sense? In one case they do what the public has told them and in the other they're telling the public what to do. As public servants the first should be acceptable but the latter now.
Post reply on HN