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

The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

mastodon.online

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 300 posts

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#121

Post by vanviegen »

roenxi wrote: post #84
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SCOTUS will simply say that since the constitution didn't explicitly state that electronic data and communications was protected, then it isn't. Even if it did explicitly say that this information is protected, SCOTUS would just make up a new interpretation that would allow surveillance anyway. Same as they made up presidential immunity, even though all men being subject to the law was pretty explicit purpose of the…

> all men being subject to the law was pretty explicit purpose of the founding of america. I mean, they had a whole revolution about it. I don't think it is a feasible claim. Revolutionaries, by definition it seems to me, believe some men and the enacting of their principles are above the law. A revolutionary is someone who illegally revolts against the current law. And formally recognising presidential immunity isn'…

I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect the law to distinguish between official acts taken in an honest attempt to benefit the nation, and those taken to corruptly and brazenly benefit oneself.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#122

Post by SamDc73 »

Zealotux wrote: post #57

In the ancient Greek colony of Locri, any who proposed a new law would do so with a rope around their neck, if the law was voted down, they would get hanged. Food for thought.

U.S. lawmaking has a built-in ratchet effect: passing new laws is politically easier than repealing old ones.

An easy way to solve this is all laws should have an expiration date by default.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#123

Post by alwa »

Uvix wrote: post #111
goda90 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People need to do a better job of voting out people who push such laws.

Election cycles are unfortunately too long for that to work. Would need to reduce office terms to 2-3 months for "vote them out" to be viable.

Then again, some governing actually does need to get done. That’s not much time to do anything that requires patient coordination and thorough consideration—especially anything of any complexity—even when people broadly agree that it needs to happen.

It’s also not much time to implement or reflect on anything: in the 2-3 month term, the new highway means construction noise and road closures, even if a year from now everyone might be glad to have a speedier commute.

It seems like, when the elected representatives are disposable like that, the power to mold policy devolves to the permanent political classes instead: lobbyists, policy shops, people whose paycheck comes from purses other than the public one…

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#124

Post by HNisCIS »

idle_zealot wrote: post #95
BlackjackCF wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These should be enshrined into law... and there needs to be some sort of rule to prevent lawmakers from trying to ram through laws with the same spirit without some sort of cool down period. The fact that lawmakers have tried to push the same crap multiple times in the last 4 years despite a ton of opposition and resistance is ridiculous.

> there needs to be some sort of rule to prevent lawmakers from trying to ram through laws with the same spirit without some sort of cool down period This doesn't make any sense as policy. It's often the case that the first crack at a law has oversights that come to light and cause it to fail. Then a reworked version that takes those issues into consideration is brought forward and passes. That's the process function…

Seconding "dismiss with prejudice", it's a concept in US legal proceedings to keep a prosecutor from continuing to pursue a case and it would make a lot of sense in the context of the EU. It seems like it's a common problem given the organizational structure, it seems like a very key missing mechanism.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#125

Post by HNisCIS »

zdragnar wrote: post #89
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SCOTUS will simply say that since the constitution didn't explicitly state that electronic data and communications was protected, then it isn't. Even if it did explicitly say that this information is protected, SCOTUS would just make up a new interpretation that would allow surveillance anyway. Same as they made up presidential immunity, even though all men being subject to the law was pretty explicit purpose of the…

Text, phone calls and emails which are not encrypted are the equivalent of a postcard. They don't need to seize the effects, only observe them. Encrypting, end to end, would be the equivalent of posting a letter. The contents are concealed and thus are protected.

Time to wiretap all of Congress and then have a bot post it all to mastodon...

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#126

Post by vanviegen »

Xelbair wrote: post #58
hdgvhicv wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU leadership is the leaders of the 27 sovereign countries Now you can argue there is a democratic deficit in those countries, sure.

There's democratic deficit in the whole system as this issue wasn't part of most internal election campaigns, effectively circumventing democratic process, due to lack of input from citizens themselves. EU severely lacks checks and balances if it tries to be something more than trade union.

Are you suggesting the existence democracies that only ever implement policies that were a significantly theme during elections?

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#127

Post by HNisCIS »

SamDc73 wrote: post #122
Zealotux wrote: post #57

In the ancient Greek colony of Locri, any who proposed a new law would do so with a rope around their neck, if the law was voted down, they would get hanged. Food for thought.

U.S. lawmaking has a built-in ratchet effect: passing new laws is politically easier than repealing old ones. An easy way to solve this is all laws should have an expiration date by default.

Well, Congress renewed the Patriot act so I don't have a lot of faith. Personally I'm starting to think that all of Congress, including aides, should get cycled out all at once periodically so that their internal culture of hating the masses gets broken.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#128

Post by HNisCIS »

charcircuit wrote: post #72
newdee wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which VPN provider doesn’t have their addresses flagged? I know a few offer “residential” IP addresses (for quite the premium), but as I understand it, these are a bit of a grey area and are also usually shared, so usually just a matter of time until they’re banned or flagged as proxy/shared/anonymiser.

The financial incentives for VPNs as they get bigger cause them to both put as many subscribers on the same IP as possible and to share IPs over the entire subscriber base. It's possible for a VPN to sacrifice profit to avoid being detected as easily.

Tbh between that and cgnat I'm kinda hoping that the entire ipv4 space gets sufficiently tainted that sites stop blocking by ip

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#129

Post by amarcheschi »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #120
amarcheschi wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Measures such going dark and similar ones are wholly supported - and pushed - by police forces around europe, not by politicians. I do agree that the politician should grow a spine and trust computer scientists for one, since they're the ones making laws after all

> I do agree that the politician should grow a spine and trust computer scientists for one Trust the computer scientists on how to prevent crime? Uh, well that's certainly creative.

No, trust the computer scientists on what can easily be circumvented by criminals while still allowing third parties to scan private conversations. But I do suspect a bit that this is only an intended side effect

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#130

Post by SamDc73 »

HNisCIS wrote: post #127
SamDc73 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

U.S. lawmaking has a built-in ratchet effect: passing new laws is politically easier than repealing old ones. An easy way to solve this is all laws should have an expiration date by default.

Well, Congress renewed the Patriot act so I don't have a lot of faith. Personally I'm starting to think that all of Congress, including aides, should get cycled out all at once periodically so that their internal culture of hating the masses gets broken.

Fair point. The USA PATRIOT Act shouldn’t have existed in the first place. But one of its most controversial parts (Section 215) did expire in 2020 (it was barely going to make it, though).

But you’re right overall: most of the Act’s powers were repeatedly renewed or re-created under other laws.

Sunset clauses aren’t a silver bullet, but they do occasionally stop or slow things that would otherwise become permanent.

Post reply on HN