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

German government comes out against Chat Control

xcancel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 578 posts

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#11

Post by blurbleblurble »

ZeroConcerns wrote: post #3

OK, really hot take here: -ChatControl, as it is currently defined, is not going to happen, because it's absolutely stupid and would make impossible, amongst other things, online banking -Yet, there is a growing and legitimate demand for lawful interception of 'chat' services. I mean, "sure, your bank account got emptied, but we can't look into that because it happened via Signal" just isn't a good look -So, somethin…

Without confidential and private spaces, how in the world can relational trust be cultivated?

And how in the world can we have safety if relational trust is suffocated before it can even take root?

Please use your imagination! Those aren't the only options if we embrace trust as essential rather than looking at any need for it as a liability.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#12

Post by lukan »

ZeroConcerns wrote: post #3

OK, really hot take here: -ChatControl, as it is currently defined, is not going to happen, because it's absolutely stupid and would make impossible, amongst other things, online banking -Yet, there is a growing and legitimate demand for lawful interception of 'chat' services. I mean, "sure, your bank account got emptied, but we can't look into that because it happened via Signal" just isn't a good look -So, somethin…

" "sure, your bank account got emptied, but we can't look into that because it happened via Signal" just isn't a good look"

Do you want the police to regularily intercept and check your signal chats for fraud and crime so this does not happen, or what is the point here?

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#13

Post by mattnewton »

ZeroConcerns wrote: post #3

OK, really hot take here: -ChatControl, as it is currently defined, is not going to happen, because it's absolutely stupid and would make impossible, amongst other things, online banking -Yet, there is a growing and legitimate demand for lawful interception of 'chat' services. I mean, "sure, your bank account got emptied, but we can't look into that because it happened via Signal" just isn't a good look -So, somethin…

I am having a legitimately hard time wrapping my head around not being able to prosecute bank fraud because signal exists. Was it impossible before when criminals would talk in person instead over a recorded telephone?

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#14

Post by ZeroConcerns »

PickledJesus wrote: post #8
ZeroConcerns wrote: post #3

OK, really hot take here: -ChatControl, as it is currently defined, is not going to happen, because it's absolutely stupid and would make impossible, amongst other things, online banking -Yet, there is a growing and legitimate demand for lawful interception of 'chat' services. I mean, "sure, your bank account got emptied, but we can't look into that because it happened via Signal" just isn't a good look -So, somethin…

How do you propose it's implemented though? The two sides in this debate seem to be talking at cross purposes, which is why it goes round and round. A: "We need to do this, however it's done, it was possible before so it must be possible now" B: "You can't do this because of the implementation details (i.e. you can't break encryption without breaking it for everyone)" ad infinitum. Regardless of my own views on this,…

Lawful intercept laws exist, and they've been sort-of functional for ages.

Apps like Signal don't entirely fall within the scope of these, which is the cause of the current manic attempts to grab more powers.

My point is that these powers grabs should be resisted, and that new services should be brought into the fold of existing laws.

The prevailing opinion here seems to be that, instead, state hacking should be endorsed. Which, well...

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#15

Post by ZeroConcerns »

lukan wrote: post #12
ZeroConcerns wrote: post #3

OK, really hot take here: -ChatControl, as it is currently defined, is not going to happen, because it's absolutely stupid and would make impossible, amongst other things, online banking -Yet, there is a growing and legitimate demand for lawful interception of 'chat' services. I mean, "sure, your bank account got emptied, but we can't look into that because it happened via Signal" just isn't a good look -So, somethin…

" "sure, your bank account got emptied, but we can't look into that because it happened via Signal" just isn't a good look" Do you want the police to regularily intercept and check your signal chats for fraud and crime so this does not happen, or what is the point here?

> You want the police to regularily intercept and check your signal chats for fraud

No, that's not how lawful intercept laws work.

I want police to be able to obtain a judicial order to intercept, for a limited time, in cleartext, the (Signal chats, or whatever other encrypted communications) of identified parties reasonably suspected to be involved with criminal activity.

ChatControl is not that, and it's one of the reasons it's a nonstarter.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#16

Post by DeepSeaTortoise »

ZeroConcerns wrote: post #3

OK, really hot take here: -ChatControl, as it is currently defined, is not going to happen, because it's absolutely stupid and would make impossible, amongst other things, online banking -Yet, there is a growing and legitimate demand for lawful interception of 'chat' services. I mean, "sure, your bank account got emptied, but we can't look into that because it happened via Signal" just isn't a good look -So, somethin…

Why would the malware industry benefit from digital message privacy?

If you're the victim, just hand over the relevant chats yourself. Otherwise, just follow the money. And if the attackers are sitting in a country whose banks you can't get to cooperate, intercepting chat messages from within that country won't do you any good either.

Also, if someone has malicious intent and is part of a criminal network, the people within that network would hardly feel burdened by all digital messages on all popular apps being listened in on by the government. These people will just use their own private applications. Making one is like 30min of work or starting at $50 on fiverr.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#17

Post by ZeroConcerns »

mattnewton wrote: post #13
ZeroConcerns wrote: post #3

OK, really hot take here: -ChatControl, as it is currently defined, is not going to happen, because it's absolutely stupid and would make impossible, amongst other things, online banking -Yet, there is a growing and legitimate demand for lawful interception of 'chat' services. I mean, "sure, your bank account got emptied, but we can't look into that because it happened via Signal" just isn't a good look -So, somethin…

I am having a legitimately hard time wrapping my head around not being able to prosecute bank fraud because signal exists. Was it impossible before when criminals would talk in person instead over a recorded telephone?

No? But lawful intercept laws were never about "criminals [talking] in person".

There's a different set of laws for that...

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#19

Post by ZeroConcerns »

DeepSeaTortoise wrote: post #16
ZeroConcerns wrote: post #3

OK, really hot take here: -ChatControl, as it is currently defined, is not going to happen, because it's absolutely stupid and would make impossible, amongst other things, online banking -Yet, there is a growing and legitimate demand for lawful interception of 'chat' services. I mean, "sure, your bank account got emptied, but we can't look into that because it happened via Signal" just isn't a good look -So, somethin…

Why would the malware industry benefit from digital message privacy? If you're the victim, just hand over the relevant chats yourself. Otherwise, just follow the money. And if the attackers are sitting in a country whose banks you can't get to cooperate, intercepting chat messages from within that country won't do you any good either. Also, if someone has malicious intent and is part of a criminal network, the people…

> Why would the malware industry benefit from digital message privacy?

Because if lawful interception of in-transit messages is not possible or permitted, hacking either the client or the server becomes the only option.

You may enjoy reading https://therecord.media/encrochat-police-arrest-6500-suspect.... Or just downvoting me. Or both.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#20

Post by lukan »

ZeroConcerns wrote: post #15
lukan wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" "sure, your bank account got emptied, but we can't look into that because it happened via Signal" just isn't a good look" Do you want the police to regularily intercept and check your signal chats for fraud and crime so this does not happen, or what is the point here?

> You want the police to regularily intercept and check your signal chats for fraud No, that's not how lawful intercept laws work. I want police to be able to obtain a judicial order to intercept, for a limited time, in cleartext, the (Signal chats, or whatever other encrypted communications) of identified parties reasonably suspected to be involved with criminal activity. ChatControl is not that, and it's one of the…

"I want police to be able to obtain a judicial order to intercept, for a limited time, in cleartext, the (Signal chats, or whatever other encrypted communications) of identified parties reasonably suspected to be involved with criminal activity."

They already have that in most (?) jurisdictions by now.

With a warrant, they can install a virus on the device that will then do targeted surveillance.

ChatControl is bad, because it is blanket surveillance of everyone without warrant.

Post reply on HN