Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

France rejects backdoor mandate

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 320 posts

Re: France rejects backdoor mandate

#241

Post by tw04 »

palata wrote: post #3

Just like for other big challenges like biodiversity and climate change, it feels like it often boils down to the politicians just not understanding enough to take rational decisions. Of course they can't all have a PhD in cryptography, but they should also not have no clue at all. Over an over again, politicians are asking for backdoors. To me it just proves that they don't understand the very basic of how encryptio…

> given that the US have become hostile to Europe

That’s more than a bit of an overstatement. One faction in the US government has started being less loyal to Europe. Most Americans consider Europe to still be our closest allies and friends.

Furthermore the US businesses are not stupid and have shown they will stand up to government pressure around data sovereignty. Anything less will drive both US and global customers back to on-prem infrastructure.

https://www.reuters.com/article/legal/microsoft-sues-us-gove...

Re: France rejects backdoor mandate

#242

Post by immibis »

upofadown wrote: post #226
precommunicator wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PGP/GPG by default have no perfect forward secrecy though. In Signal you can check the certificates checksums in conversation settings, to compare them e.g. when physically present to the other device. There are other solutions that use Signal protocol or that have PFS that are decentralized. And you can build your own, it's open source at the end. Signal stated already that they would sooner exit certain markets tha…

If you keep your messages around in some form then that effectively defeats forward secrecy. In any case where the attacker can get your secret encryption key material, they will be able to get any messages you still have access to. Most people want to keep their old messages around. So for messaging, forward secrecy is of little practical value. If you do keep your messages around, then PGP's encrypt once[1] scheme…

There's a form of deniable authentication where you have the ability to forge the signatures of messages once you receive them, so you could alter them on your device.

It's irrelevant, though, because no chat app actually has this feature, so no criminal does it. And the cops don't go by the encrypted bits, anyway - they go by what it says on your screen, or their screen. (Which does mean that if you hack into your own app's database and forge messages, you can convincingly incriminate people, yes) Research into deniability protocols is cool research, but with no relevance to the real world of cops vs robbers.

Re: France rejects backdoor mandate

#243

Post by dfawcus »

Chat Control may well give them a second bite at the cherry, if it get through.

It keeps getting resurrected with slight variations, and if passed, then they'd be obliged to implement some form of back door.

So I guess all one can say is that the war continues, just one battle has been won.

Re: France rejects backdoor mandate

#244

Post by AshamedCaptain »

whatshisface wrote: post #57
AshamedCaptain wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet the immense majority of the population accept & use messaging platforms operated by "not France" where the operator would be able to obtain everyone's key with a couple clicks. (Yes, this includes Apple's).

That makes sense because it has been brought about as a consequence of consumer preference. It wouldn't make sense for it to have been required by the government.

Unfortunately, last time I heard, consumers actually dictate what the government cares about.

Re: France rejects backdoor mandate

#245

Post by barbecue_sauce »

fransje26 wrote: post #229
artursapek wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love the combination of them naming this evil bill "Child Sexual Abuse Regulation Proposal" to make it sound like an obviously good idea, and them asking to be exempt from it. So are you implying you are abusing children?

[flagged]

You'll leave a link to a blatantly disreputable tabloid news blog?

Re: France rejects backdoor mandate

#246

Post by contravariant »

nickslaughter02 wrote: post #32

France has rejected this backdoor but keep in mind that France is still in favor of chat control (mandatory on device scanning of your communication). There's now a majority among EU countries and the proposal is expected to pass. The next meeting is April 8th.

Ugh, no wonder they don't mind missing this one. Chat control is far more pervasive than what amounts to a digital wiretap.

Re: France rejects backdoor mandate

#247

Post by kgwxd »

latexr wrote: post #120
palata wrote: post #3

Just like for other big challenges like biodiversity and climate change, it feels like it often boils down to the politicians just not understanding enough to take rational decisions. Of course they can't all have a PhD in cryptography, but they should also not have no clue at all. Over an over again, politicians are asking for backdoors. To me it just proves that they don't understand the very basic of how encryptio…

> To me it just proves that they don't understand the very basic of how encryption works. Hanlon’s razor isn’t always true, sometimes it really is malice. Considering EU ministers want to exempt themselves from Chat Control, that suggests to me they do understand enough of the basics. https://european-pirateparty.eu/chatcontrol-eu-ministers-wan...

It’s far more often malice than stupidity, when talking about overreach of power. I absolutely hate Hanlon’s Razor, it’s how we got here.

Re: France rejects backdoor mandate

#248

Post by sitkack »

hkt wrote: post #173
sitkack wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course they can't all have a PhD in cryptography We could be seeing the effect of France's top notch level of mathematical attainment in how their politicians are behaving. Education lifts all boats.

On the other hand, people can believe experts without being experts. Perhaps the French parliamentarians just listen better.

Not trying to debate club you here, but it could also be that higher educational attainment creates parliamentarians that can listen.

Re: France rejects backdoor mandate

#249

Post by moffkalast »

artursapek wrote: post #214
latexr wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To me it just proves that they don't understand the very basic of how encryption works. Hanlon’s razor isn’t always true, sometimes it really is malice. Considering EU ministers want to exempt themselves from Chat Control, that suggests to me they do understand enough of the basics. https://european-pirateparty.eu/chatcontrol-eu-ministers-wan...

I love the combination of them naming this evil bill "Child Sexual Abuse Regulation Proposal" to make it sound like an obviously good idea, and them asking to be exempt from it. So are you implying you are abusing children?

Using their own bullshit excuses against them, that might actually cause their heads to explode. Of course the rebuttal will be something something national security yadda yadda.

Re: France rejects backdoor mandate

#250

Post by throwaway2037 »

tiltowait wrote: post #108
Nextgrid wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "war" on drugs is what brings all of the violence and crime associated with drugs, not the drugs themselves. But it finances the police industrial complex and so many people would lose out (or be forced to focus on actual crimes rather than people consensually trading plants or chemicals) that it will never happen.

> The "war" on drugs is what brings all of the violence and crime associated with drugs, not the drugs themselves. Some of it, certainly, but I doubt it's all. Violence committed by druggies trying to scrape up enough for their next hit would still happen.

    > Violence committed by druggies trying to scrape up enough for their next hit would still happen.
Portugal (mostly) decriminalised possession and use of all illegal drugs in 2001. (Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal) This should be an ideal country for study. Do you know if violence from drug users declined after this change in Portugal?
Post reply on HN