Statement on EU-US Cooperation on Turning Public Opinion Against Encryption • Hacker News Board

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

#221

Post by account42 » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 12:17 PM UTC

hayst4ck wrote: post #104

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. In…

The more educated you think you are, the more you look down on people and deny their ability to think for themselves.

Informing people of facts is different from shaping opinions - the former tries to give people what they need to make their own decisions while the latter starts out with a conclusion and seeks to make the general public arrive at it too. Manufacturing consent is as much about omitting information or outright preventing it from spreading as it is about providing information that would support your conclusion.

Sugary food, smoking cigarettes, and legal drugs are interesting examples here because there is a third party that benefits from them and is actually engaging in similar tactics to shape the public's consent. Perhaps the most obvious part of this is advertisement. Ideally the government would recognize this and severly limit how corporations can manipulate people.

I do agree with your point that the root cause of all of this is that the government is representing the people as you would expect from an ideal democracy.

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

#222

Post by account42 » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 12:54 PM UTC

musicale wrote: post #193

> 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.

It is pretty frightening how normalized this has become so that even organizations that should have the user's interests in mind won't even think before pulling this kind of shit.

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

#223

Post by account42 » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 1:20 PM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #169

pa7x1 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if you were to ask in this very same forum if the trade-offs of private and permissionless communication, as granted by cryptography, should apply to money. You would get a much different answer. So either a large part of HN has already been co-opted by this public campaign, or is uneducated/obtuse, or is able to trace a very different set of weights for what you can do with your expression but not your money.

You won't get a different answer from me at least. KYC/AML is just the financial version of global surveillance and should be fought just as vigorously. Maybe HN just hates cryptocurrencies.

> Maybe HN just hates cryptocurrencies.

Or more specifically, all the endless scams and grift that orbit around cryptocurrencies, the failure of cryptocurrencies to actually solve any problems of the existing financial system (because you need to inevitably bridge the two) as well as the negative externalities that cryptocurrencies have on the environment and hardware availability.

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

#224

Post by blitz_skull » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 1:47 PM UTC

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…

Eh, not really. Criminal law is by-and-large generally consented upon.

A vast majority of the population agrees that sexually violating a child is morally reprehensible and fit for a wide range of punishments. And that’s been a social standard for most of the world, for a REALLY long time.

I’m not sure about the number of people who agree or disagree with cocaine being illegal. But everyone knows it’s self-destructive behavior that can easily boil into destructive behavior for others. Therefore, most people I know understand why it’s illegal and agree with it.

So my original point still stands. It’s largely not-optimized, and largely consented upon on the large points that matter concerning violence and preservation of life. That doesn’t make it without flaws which, by nature makes it unoptimized.

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

#225

Post by leoh » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 2:02 PM UTC

masswerk wrote: post #35

leoh wrote: post #12

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad

Mind that we made one-time pads (like TAN sheets) pretty much a thing of the past, in favor of 2FA…

If one reads the linked Wikipedia entry, one would learn that OTP is the only uncrackable form of encryption. It’s not something a government can easily block nor decrypt regardless of technology.

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

#226

Post by matthewdgreen » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 2:49 PM UTC

yafbum wrote: post #204

matthewdgreen wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> But targeted taps and intercepts, though expensive, used to be more straightforward in terms of process.

Targeted taps and phone calls don't scale. Even police states that wanted to surveil their entire population could only directly monitor a small portion of the population at any time. These barriers no longer exist.

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

Widespread literacy is a 19th/20th century invention. The telephone and telegraph became popular for non-essential communications only in the 20th century. Asynchronous "store and forward" electronic communications became a primary channel for communications (as in, nearly everyone in your family uses it in place of phone calls and paper letters, or even private conversations) only in the 2000s.

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

#227

Post by 93po » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 3:24 PM UTC

ok_dad wrote: post #155

lovecg wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cool thing about technology is it works both ways. If backdoors are mandated it’s only a matter of time until all texts, location history, etc. etc. of those in power become public - we already learned that those people don’t have the strongest opsec to begin with. This will lead to a backlash and an equilibrium of sorts.

Those in power will be allowed to use encryption due to "state security" or something stupid like that. Only us plebeians will be forced to reveal our dirty laundry to the world.

something something email servers

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

#228

Post by masswerk » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 4:50 PM UTC

leoh wrote: post #225

masswerk wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mind that we made one-time pads (like TAN sheets) pretty much a thing of the past, in favor of 2FA…

If one reads the linked Wikipedia entry, one would learn that OTP is the only uncrackable form of encryption. It’s not something a government can easily block nor decrypt regardless of technology.

However, for whatever reasons, we have decided that OTPs (as in TANs) are insecure. (Hint: 2FA is much easier and less costly to administrate.)

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

#229

Post by vkou » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 5:43 PM UTC

lockhouse wrote: post #196

vkou wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Yo…

> You’re assuming gun control laws will protect you from random acts of gun violence, which they won’t.

"No way to prevent this", says only nation where this regularly happens.

> Criminals get their hands on guns they can’t legally possess every day.

They get their hands on guns because the country is flooded with them. Because people in states with next to no private sale restrictions sell guns to them. Because people aren't held liable for selling a gun without running a background check.

Not to mention all the gun violence performed by 'law-abiding gun owners'. (Who, after performing it, are, of course, labeled criminals.)

> There are more than enough gun control laws on the books

In some states. They get flooded by illegal guns from neighboring states, which have no such controls.

> 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.

Why is it, then, that the militias and their friends seem to roll out to defend tyranny, not oppose it? Why are the 2A advocates deafeningly silent on police killing POC in their homes/vehicles? Why does a cop thinking that 'He may have had a gun' a death sentence for the person they are apprehending? Why does this group intersect so much with the Jan 6 attempt to overthrow the results of an election?

I hear 'guns will protect us from tyrrany' a lot, but in practice, I see the opposite.

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

#230

Post by int_19h » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 6:27 PM UTC

yafbum wrote: post #213

int_19h wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what they say every time - "it's just to catch the REALLY bad guys, pinky promise". Then five years later we find out that it's routinely used for other things. And ten years later, when the law needs to be renewed or whatever, the same politicians who originally argued that it was a very narrowly tailored measure claim that it became such an important tool in law enforcement arsenal that sky would literally f…

Law enforcement gonna exploit outrage. Evidently so will encryption fans. Both are politicians, in the sense that matters of state powers are of interest to both; and thus both wield hyperbole: "down with terrorists" vs "down with Big Brother". Maybe let's not fall to 10-foot tall syndrome in either direction. Two things can be true: law enforcement is overstating terrorism and criminal dangers that it's facing, and…

I think most "encryption fans" understand quite well that the current sociopolitical zeitgeist is broadly authoritarian, and legal strong encryption will fall victim to that eventually. As will many other things - e.g. a Chinese-style social credit system with the "right" targets is also likely to get considerable popular support in the long run, and some Western countries have already experimented with similar ideas (e.g. asbo in UK).

So as far as I'm concerned, the political angle is mostly about dragging our feet to buy us more time to develop the anti-surveillance tech like encryption as far as possible in the open before it is heavily regulated.