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

101–110 of 240 posts

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

#101

Post by ulnarkressty »

totetsu wrote: post #44
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

I was thinking about this today. Like we watch a moive about cold war times and see the gmen or the stasi doing some unbelievable intrusive surveillance and think wow what times they would have been to live in, and at the same time my every movement for the past 10 years when I had a cellphone in my pocket is in a database somewhere and I barely think about it.

Or, we watch a movie like 24 where the protagonist is asking his agency buddies to hack random computers while straight up torturing people to get information - and we cheer for him.

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

#102

Post by AniseAbyss »

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.

[dead]

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

#104

Post by hayst4ck »

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…

> but in shaping our interests.

The more educated you are, the more you realize people don't know that much. If everyone could see the consequences of their beliefs and actions, governments wouldn't need to exist. Public education/shaping interests can be a good thing.

Shaping someone's opinion of sugary food or smoking cigarettes, or the negative effects of various drugs or any other number of things can be good. Informing the public of foreign adversaries fomenting and supporting fascism via bot networks promoting hatred and division is a national security issue. Good faith information from places of intellectual authority is positive for society.

The problem is not the government shaping interests, the problem is who is the government shaping interests for.

In a democracy supposedly the government acts on behalf of the people, but we do not live in a democracy, the west is largely plutocratic. Governments represent billionaires (not literally billionaires, but the wealthy). That's why our government promotes socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Because the government works on behalf of those with money.

This is not a casual statement. This is the product of our voting system. Before anyone gets to vote on any candidates, candidates must fund raise to win a primary. Before any person votes on candidates, money votes on candidates. So our government is responsive to money, because money votes first.

So it is not the government shaping interests, but the government using force on behalf of the wealthy that is problematic.

All political roads lead to a central problem: The rich are too rich and therefore cannot be bound by law and are able to coerce the government to act on their behalf.

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

#105

Post by Spivak »

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.

> as currently perpetrated in the large by Apple, and spun even by people here as a worthwhile tradeoff for "security"

See this misses the more nuanced point. I bet my last cent that everyone who doesn't want Apple's ability to meaningfully control their platform eroded would change their tune immediately if we had a regulatory environment that had any teeth whatsoever when it comes to policing malicious software.

People are currently backed into a corner where the only not incompetent regulatory body for software is Apple right now. I would love for iOS to be completely open but maligned actors who would use that against my interests need to be stopped and Apple being closed doesn't get in the way all that much.

* You must be able to cancel subscriptions in one click with no human interaction and users must be able to choose an immediate cancel for a pro-rated refund even if they paid "yearly."

* You must allow opt-out of all tracking and data collection without providing any disincentive for doing so.

* All free trails must not require a CC and can only be continued after explicitly done so by the user.

* Delete the concept of implied consent. By existing you consent to.. fuck off.

* Establish a legal definition of dark pattern and make them illegal and reportable by users for a cut of the fine.

* You must be allowed to purchase a completely ad free experience.

* You cannot sell OS features like notifications or running in the background.

* All digital goods must be able to be returned within x days of purchase.

My wishlist could go on.

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

#106

Post by mrguyorama »

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/

If you think Republicans are against eroding privacy I have a bridge to sell you.

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

#108

Post by rnk »

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…

In the US, there's not a right to privacy, or at best it's complicated. At least federalists or conservatives endlessly argue that doesn't exist, for reasons that I don't understand. If we had a right to privacy in the US, it probably wouldn't protect criminal communications, and the potential of illegal behavior is used as the justification for all kinds of quasi illegal investigations.

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

#109

Post by AlecSchueler »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #88
AlecSchueler wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am not sure the difference is as real as it seems No-one specifically voted for the patriot act, no one was elected on promices of passing it, yet it became law. In Britain they are considering a law to ban drivers under 25 from carrying any children in the car. Noone has ever voted for this. https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/company-car-tax-and-legisla...

Isn't that because we're manufacturing consent?

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

#110

Post by pmarreck »

totetsu wrote: post #44
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

I was thinking about this today. Like we watch a moive about cold war times and see the gmen or the stasi doing some unbelievable intrusive surveillance and think wow what times they would have been to live in, and at the same time my every movement for the past 10 years when I had a cellphone in my pocket is in a database somewhere and I barely think about it.

"The Lives of Others" is a great movie about this. Apparently they used authentic early-80's-era spying gear in that movie.
Post reply on HN