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

191–200 of 240 posts

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

#191

Post by PeterisP »

vkou wrote: post #150
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.

> What these politicians do not seem to underestand is that those law may turn against them at a later point in time. Those laws are incredibly unlikely to be turned against elites and former elites, and if a situation[1] ever arose where they would be, a lack of these laws on the books would not save them. Populist uprisings are about the only things that elites are scared of, and these kinds of laws help prevent th…

On the other hand, technical capabilities are highly likely to be used against elites and former elites; there often are situations where a country's police or intelligence communities are opposed to some political parties, so if there are backdoors in everyone's (including politicians) communications, they should rightly fear that their phones will be abused by their political opponents.

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

#192

Post by vbezhenar »

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

You can open any door or safe. The question is about required time and noise. If you're not restricted by those factors, you'll open it.

That's not the same for software. It's pretty much trivial to write an encryption software which is basically unbreakable. Complex software has bugs, but sometimes simple software is enough.

That said, I don't see how backdoors would help here. Evil guys won't use vulnerable software.

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

#193

Post by musicale »

> We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are okay with that.

Dark pattern checklist:

√ Emotional manipulation

√ Implicit "consent" rather than opt-in

√ No opt out button

Right then. Great to know what they're advocating.

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

#195

Post by carimura »

jruohonen wrote: post #124
carimura wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Martin Gurri in The Revolt of the Public had a pretty good explanation of this. Leaders used to be the gatekeepers of information, and thus maintained control. Now the Internet has lifted the curtain and opened the floodgates of information, causing a loss of control, thus pushing many leaders to double down on attempts at controlling the narrative. When control gets too strong, we see revolts.

I too love Gurri, but I don't think this is at all what he is saying. The Internet and particularly the social media have certainly something to do with it, but to my understanding he is talking about the erosion of knowledge-creation and the collapse of "elites". (Note also that everyone in this forum probably belongs to the latter category in a way or another.) His takes correlate with those from political scientis…

In his own words:

> And the legitimacy of that model [traditional institutions] absolutely depends on having a semi-monopoly over information in every domain, which they had in the 20th century. There was no internet and there was a fairly limited number of information sources for the public. So our ruling institutions had authority because they had a very valuable commodity: information. [1]

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22301496/martin-gurri-the...

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

#196

Post by lockhouse »

vkou wrote: post #184
lockhouse wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ever notice how, say, pro-gun politicians tend to want guns to be everywhere except near them? As a class, they aren't interested in dealing with the consequences of their policies. I’ve also noticed that anti-gun politicians tend to have armed security teams with them. I’m not giving up my guns until they do.

You're assuming that your guns will protect you from random acts of gun violence, which they won't. It's why those politicians have security teams, as opposed to personal guns . What they are doing is completely rational in a country where it happens, frequently. Unlike their counterparts, they are actually trying to solve the problem, instead of hypocritically exacerbating it. If you're going to hold someone account…

> You're assuming that your guns will protect you from random acts of gun violence, which they won't.

You’re assuming gun control laws will protect you from random acts of gun violence, which they won’t. Criminals get their hands on guns they can’t legally possess every day. There are more than enough gun control laws on the books and most Americans aren’t voluntarily turning theirs in no matter what the law says.

You’re also making the false assumption that I only support the personal right to bear arms for self defense against criminals. I also support it to defend against tyranny, which to me is far more likely to be a threat than a random act of gun violence.

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

#197

Post by machina_ex_deus »

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…

Their role is neither representing nor shaping interests.

Their role is managing while being accountable. And doing said managing by the least amount of coercion and the maximal amount of convincing.

There's no such thing as "represent". It's a political dead end meant to draw votes and political power to those who are presented as "representing" the current social division magnified by the media, whether it's race, religion, or the usual liberal conservative division.

You're supposed to hold them accountable even and especially if it goes against your "representation" or interests. But so long as the majority are playing the "representation" politics meta game, there's no hope for accountability.

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

#198

Post by genewitch »

kevviiinn wrote: post #71
codedokode wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"But it's already illegal to steal data from someone else's computers!"

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

#199

Post by [deleted] »

rnk wrote: post #108
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…

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.

[deleted]

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

#200

Post by genewitch »

chrisco255 wrote: post #94
codedokode wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

it wouldn't be too terribly hard to make "cash" less anonymous, for instance, serial number scanners in cash registers - like banks have those safes that are computer controlled and pop out the exact bills and counts you request, just replace all cash registers with either cashless self checkout or those vault style dispensers and receivers. If every point-of-sale has the serial scanner, cash is now no longer anonymous. They'll know who got it, and if someone else gets it scanned then they know that there's a link between you and that person.

there's already enough cameras to capture every angle - including the ones at registers that clearly are there just to capture your face.

The only reason i can see for a cashless society is: someone is going to make shedloads of money on the microtransactions. Visa, MC, AmEx, JP Morgan, etc.

Post reply on HN