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

91–100 of 240 posts

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

#91

Post by dsign »

Here is the plan of our elected representatives:

- Erode what resistance to total surveillance remains.

- Practice total surveillance.

Here is my plan to oppose that plan:

- Rekindle Orwell's 1984 as a full literary/movie/video-game genre, where awful things happen to people when the government or an associated non-knocking variant of the Spanish Inquisition shows up because somebody committed wrong-think.

I'm a little afraid that if we don't succeed in bringing this problem to the general's public attention via their binging habits, as a sort of social vaccine, we will end up with the disease.

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

#92

Post by indymike »

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…

> What is wrong with these people? How can anyone, let alone an educated, well-traveled leader, be so obtuse about the implications (and for that matter, the realism) of any such scheme?

Never underestimate the appeal of making one's job easier.

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

#93

Post by chris123 »

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…

Would be great if it's was that simple, but for every person who wakes up, two younglings replace him. It's a cycle from birth to "education" to wokester to actually opportunity your eyes. Welcome to the real world, Neo.

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

#94

Post by chrisco255 »

codedokode wrote: post #67
chrisco255 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

People are allowed to transfer money anonymously, vis-a-vis cash. Banks belonging to the Federal Reserve system are of course subject to a number of arbitrary regulations that are certainly debatable, but also not outside the realm of ordinary government regulation of interstate/international commerce.

Wholesale banning of anonymous money transfers would also, in my opinion, be a violation of 1st and 4th amendments. But banning encrypted speech & communication altogether (or compelling an open-access backdoor) is clearly a violation of 1st & 4th amendment.

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

#95

Post by 13415 »

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…

I've had similar criticisms to nudging, that it's basically just the same as advertising exploiting human biases, and that it's not really conducive to insight and a better political culture. It is kind of paternalistic. However, most real-world applications of nudging I've seen were uncontroversially beneficial. As a typical example, markings on roads can be spaced and designed in ways that make drivers slow down in danger zones, thereby reducing accidents. I've been to a number of talks about nudging over the years and know people working in that area, and have never seen an example where the term was used for "shaping public opinions", let alone shaping political opinions.

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

#96

Post by yafbum »

Contrarian opinion ahead. We live in a very unique period of history - a bubble really - in which governments are not able to intercept certain communications or decrypt certain records, even with the full force of the law behind them.

While I recognize and appreciate, on a personal level, the freedom that this provides me, freedom exists only to the extent that there is a government enforcing boundaries on freedom to prevent it from turning into anarchy. I'm afraid it's not going to be hard, over the years, to find enough pedophiles and terrorists to make a compellingly popular case for more regulation of encryption.

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

#97

Post by 2-718-281-828 »

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.

I mean that's what "leader" means at the end of the day. Of course, though, leader isn't the only way to refer to politicians. In German leader translates literally to Führer ... which isn't really used since the ultimate demise of Herr Schickelgruber. We also use "Repräsentant" whose English counterpart is obvious. Also some people believe that politicians are supposed to know what's going on and what to do - even me - question is where a line is crossed.

> But in the long-run, people will become more familiar with these tactics, such that they will become less effective

I doubt that given those tactics have been continuously applied since ever.

> e.g. waning trust in the media

yes, but the result is simply new media channels and outlets which are supposedly more trustworthy. those abusive politicians we are talking about here will play those media entities like an instrument and simply switch where ever they expect to get the most attention.

> They are burning through the cultural & social capital which sustain these institutions (like the MSM or academia), and don't realize that once it runs out, they will no longer have these levers and buttons at their disposal.

They won't need those levers and button anymore. Abusive power hungry politicians belong to an elite whose end game is a totalitarian state for them to parasitize. At that point everybody has to believe or at least shut up ... or men will come and take them away.

> At that point, the only way to increase compliance is with force.

Exactly.

> And once you go down that road, it becomes extremely clear to those wielding that force, just how precarious their situation is (e.g. Maduro assassination attempts).

One can argue that most totalitarian states end badly but that can take a while. Criminals also do criminal things despite bleak prospects. One might argue they are statistically stupid for being criminal just to have a good time for a while. But that's just your sane point of view. For people who _are_ of criminal mindset (and I consider politicians with totalitarian inclination effectively to that group) really enjoy their life style.

> That is how totalitarianism takes root, fear of the people.

This and fear of the goverment.

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

#98

Post by lockhouse »

8n4vidtmkvmk wrote: post #39
hulitu wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

This is where you’re wrong. Inconvenient rules don’t apply to them. They can engage in insider training and enrich themselves. They can disarm the public while they are protected by armed security. They will lay our secrets bare while maintaining theirs.

They will use national security as an excuse to keep their encryption while taking ours away.

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

#99

Post by davidjones332 »

mrburnssama wrote: post #48
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…

We saw a master class of this during the last 3 years of the "pandemic". I find it frightening how western liberal countries are becoming more and more like China, possibly in an attempt to beat them.

Not quite, communism is both china and american woke morality. The same force is shaping and controlling both china and usa.

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

#100

Post by CircleSpokes »

codedokode wrote: post #67
chrisco255 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> If people are not allowed to transfer money anonymously, why allow them communicate anonymously?

You can do that in the US though with cash. There might be some transactions that you can't do in physical cash but that is more of a practical/convince limitation and not a legal one.

Post reply on HN