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

201–210 of 240 posts

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

#201

Post by genewitch »

mrguyorama wrote: post #151
redblacktree wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, the Patriot Act passed under a Republican House and Presidency. Where there was opposition, it came from Democrats in the House.[0] [0]: https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml

I wouldn't however consider that enough evidence to say Democrats "opposed" the Patriot Act. They aren't "Both sides the same", but on this issue, Democrat politicians largely buy into the law enforcement POV that "bad people" are doing things and there must be an easy way to stop them, instead of making cops do actual work to solve crimes.

When was the last time you saw a cobbler?

Law Enforcement can't just be out wasting that shoe leather anymore.

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

#203

Post by yafbum »

edrxty wrote: post #133
yafbum wrote: post #96

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 t…

There's nothing inherently wrong with anarchy, but there are plenty of things inherently wrong with totalitarianism. I really don't care how many pedophiles we catch if we continue to expand the definition of pedophiles to "everyone we don't like". Similarly, I don't care how many terrorists we catch if we motivate everyone to become a "terrorist" in the process.

False dichotomy. Every restriction on freedom does not have to be reduced to totalitarianist encroachment.

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

#204

Post by yafbum »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #162
yafbum wrote: post #96

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 t…

The situation where governments can’t (bulk) intercept communications describes basically our entire history, with as small weird exception towards the end. Prior to the invention of the postal service, most communications were verbal and privacy was (relatively) easy to ensure. Even up until very recently, communications interception required some extraordinary action like placing a durable wiretap on a line and lis…

For bulk interception, it's true that a certain technical capacity is there that didn't use to be there. But targeted taps and intercepts, though expensive, used to be more straightforward in terms of process.

> Prior to the invention of the postal service, most communications were verbal and privacy was (relatively) easy to ensure.

? Messenger service seems about as old as the written word.

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

#205

Post by yafbum »

mardifoufs wrote: post #178
yafbum wrote: post #96

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 t…

>freedom exists only to the extent that there is a government enforcing boundaries on freedom to prevent it from turning into anarchy No, it doesn't. Which is trivial to prove, considering we have had widely available encryption for two decades now with no anarchy or encryption fueled societal collapse in sight. Actually, countries without backdoor laws are some of the most prosperous and safe places on earth. And ev…

>>freedom exists only to the extent that there is a government enforcing boundaries on freedom to prevent it from turning into anarchy >No, it doesn't. Which is trivial to prove, considering we have had widely available encryption for two decades now with no anarchy or encryption fueled societal collapse in sight.

Hold on. I'm not arguing that encryption causes anarchy. I'm just making a general point about the idea that effective freedom requires a government to intervene to restrict freedoms, in at least _some_ matters. For example most people would agree that prisons are necessary to keep compulsively violent people from harming others. That doesn't mean everyone should be locked up at the government's whim. The question for encryption is, is there _a_ limit to what the government should allow.

> Actually, countries without backdoor laws are some of the most prosperous and safe places on earth.

Not sure about either the correlation or the causation. I'm not sure what countries you have in mind, but just to share two examples: - China seems to be increasingly safe and prosperous and has backdoors. (And it's totalitarian, but I'm just going by the safety and prosperity characteristics that you mention.) - In the US, Signal was featured prominently as the communication medium of choice for people convicted of a seditious conspiracy case. Only thanks to human infiltration was the government able to obtain these communications. I think it's reasonable to expect the government to have the ability to legally intercept the communications of people planning violent regime overthrow.

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

#206

Post by andromeduck »

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…

Anti gun politicians are also known to make personal exceptions.

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

#207

Post by cornconb »

2h wrote: post #187
noelsusman wrote: post #142

>As we have stated in the past, there is no effective way to weaken encryption for some use cases such as law enforcement while keeping it strong for others. I've never been fully satisfied by this assertion. Apple has the ability to push whatever code it wants to whatever device it wants. They can make a version of iOS that bypasses encryption and restrict it to only run on devices identified by a warrant. They coul…

great idea. while we are at it, we should also require that the police have a key to your house and vehicle, as well as your debit card pin number and, email password, and bank password. its necessary security, so you agree with this correct?

They already have the capability to remotely access most modern vehicles, this is built in to cars manufactured in the past few years, along with telemetry that tracks everywhere you drive.

Access to bank account details and emails is also routine in police investigations. And they can simply smash your door in if they need access to your house.

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

#208

Post by marcosdumay »

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.

> What these politicians do not seem to underestand is that those law may turn against them at a later point in time.

They have a belief that they will be The Law up to the end of their lives. One very well grounded on reality.

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

#209

Post by midoridensha »

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.

That's the very definition of "leader". It's exactly what leaders are supposed to do: "lead". They're supposed to have a vision, and get other people to follow them to achieve that vision.

What you're advocating for is a "manager" or an "administrator", not a "leader".

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

#210

Post by midoridensha »

fwungy wrote: post #141
2-718-281-828 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 o…

Historically once people recognize the media is not trustworthy they discount it. You see this in the former USSR countries. People don't take the media seriously like they do in the west.

>You see this in the former USSR countries. People don't take the media seriously like they do in the west.

They certainly do in Russia. People there (esp. older people) absolutely believe all the propaganda that's fed to them about the war in Ukraine by Russian state-owned media.

Post reply on HN