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

The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats

netzpolitik.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 443 posts

Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats

#151

Post by rndgermandude »

pelasaco wrote: post #57
ho_schi wrote: post #3

The commission does not seek to break encryption Okay. Encryption is not only important to protect private communication, but would also help perpetrators/criminals No. It is there to protect us from perpetrators, criminals and all the people which think they are on the good side. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Authoritarian regimes on our planet always thought they were the "good guys". Encryption i…

> The mothers and fathers of the German Grundgesetz (~ constitution) learned that the hard way. > https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_10.html Weren't we Germans calling out Poland, because they decided that national law can take precedence over EU law? So I guess our GG < EU Law.

No

Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats

#152

Post by davidro80 »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #111
mantas wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Silly fear of communism/socialism? :) Why would we be afraid of the thing that messed up with us for 50 years? :) It's funny when Westerners who have no practical experience talk down to us how we should throw away our practical experience...

[flagged]

No post body was provided.

Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats

#153

Post by mayoi »

7373737373 wrote: post #96
gloppers wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes that sounds fine to me. We have specially trained police in this category of crimes, for good reason. I trust them to investigate fairly and proportionately. If we cast aside the hyperbole and look at the actual details of what is being proposed in this regulation, it's clear they're taking a decent and reasonable approach here.

And you think that the potential capture of a few criminals outweighs the violation of privacy of communications of 450 million humans? You'd be okay with forcing this onto people who don't want this, and the majority who won't even know that this is happening?

Yes, he'd be okay with it, he has nothing to hide after all, not even the fact that his phone got stolen and was used to send bomb threats to 30 nearest hospitals, then destroyed, in the area where he lives with court ruling that he's guilty + getting extra time for destroying all evidence. Literally NOONE would ever do such a thing, it's not like criminals already communicate using stolen devices and even buy things using stolen credit cards. There's simply NO WAY.

Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats

#154

Post by ben_w »

ho_schi wrote: post #3

The commission does not seek to break encryption Okay. Encryption is not only important to protect private communication, but would also help perpetrators/criminals No. It is there to protect us from perpetrators, criminals and all the people which think they are on the good side. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Authoritarian regimes on our planet always thought they were the "good guys". Encryption i…

> > Encryption is not only important to protect private communication, but would also help perpetrators/criminals

> No.

Without going into whatever context the original quote has: doch — encryption does both. There is no technology so pure it only helps the "good guys", from fire to firearms[0] there are things we can't possibly survive without, and yet criminals can use them for crimes.

I don't know the best way to handle this with crypto, mainly because the problem is much deeper than the crypto itself: even if absolutely everyone without exception or equivocation agrees everyone gets unbreakable cryptography, it is getting ever easier to just spy directly — laser microphones on drones, using software to repurpose a WiFi antenna as a wall-penetrating radar, IR cameras, using AI for gaze detection and 3D scene reconstruction to figure out who (or what) you were looking at when you blushed — that's all coming to a blackmailer near you. (Caveat: fake images and potentially at some point 3D bioprinted fake bodies will make the evidence invalid in courts of law, but that's a whole different discussion).

The only thing I can even think to suggest is a radical liberalisation of almost every law and punishment such that we can as a society survive when everyone's crimes, misdemeanours, and administrative infractions/regulatory offences are cataloged and dealt with in real time.

The only thing I am sure of is that the future can't look anything like the examples from history — while it might be much better or much worse, it won't be even close to the same.

[0] I don't mean in the American 2nd amendment sense though, I mean an army with no firearms will loose to one that has them.

Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats

#155

Post by denton-scratch »

dathinab wrote: post #44
charlieyu1 wrote: post #13

Anything that violates privacy to such an extent shouldn’t be legal.

It isn't. It is equivalent to an automatized search of all peoples conversations all the time, just because it's automatized and done local on the phone doesn't make it not a search. Which means it's pretty much unconstitutional. It's also probably not very useful as when it is people knowingly committing crime with YT access will know about it and will know how to work around it. And outside of cases of people which…

> Which means it's pretty much unconstitutional.

In the USA, I guess. But this is an EU proposal; the EU doesn't have a constitution.

Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats

#156

Post by rjzzleep »

Xylakant wrote: post #133
jeofken wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever seen a poll of a European country where people wanted more immigration (from the 3rd world)?

The claim is wild because the german constitution does not encourage immigration. It contains paragraphs that prohibit discrimination. It guarantees asylum for people that are prosecuted in their home country for political views [1]. There's also a paragraph that widens the definition of "German citizen" in the GG to those that were german citizens in 1937 or who lost their german citizenship due to the nazis. After…

You're being disingenuous. And given on your follow-up you're actually misrepresenting what I say, which is wilfully malicious behaviour in a discussion. German politicians have repeatedly called for a reform of article 16a of the GG. The paragraph is about the right of asylum. And yes, during what they call the "migration crisis" article 16a clearly supported the case for mass migration to Germany.

https://www.merkur.de/politik/asylrecht-oettinger-will-grund...

Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats

#157

Post by jaywalk »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #85
ho_schi wrote: post #3

The commission does not seek to break encryption Okay. Encryption is not only important to protect private communication, but would also help perpetrators/criminals No. It is there to protect us from perpetrators, criminals and all the people which think they are on the good side. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Authoritarian regimes on our planet always thought they were the "good guys". Encryption i…

> The mothers and fathers of the German Grundgesetz (~ constitution) learned that the hard way repetita iuvant: secrecy is not privacy. encryption makes conversation private but not totally secret, WhatsApp knows if I write to the person named "dentist" on my address book only when the phone number connected to "wife" is out of town. Or if I dial the number of a tow truck service at 4 am after my phone has been for h…

> It's not like the CIA that breaks your SSL certs and wiretaps on your communications without asking anyone if they can or cannot.

It's absolutely hilarious that you believe America is the only country that does this.

Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats

#158

Post by Xylakant »

rjzzleep wrote: post #142
Xylakant wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All the recent war involvements of Germany are inherently against the German constitution You'll have to back that up a little. Which wars? Which involvement is considered unconstitutional? Because a lot of those have been tested in the constitutional court and found to be covered by the constitution - see the courts judgement from 1994 https://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv090286.html# "BVerfGE 90, 286 (286)1. Die Erm…

I mean you can justify all you want, and there is various critiques on how the Verfassungsgericht has become an instrument of politics where the top assignments are now based on party affiliation. But regardless of what you think of it's decision and what you think of it's decisions, Artikel 2 of the GG says this: > Art 2 > (1) Jeder hat das Recht auf die freie Entfaltung seiner Persönlichkeit, soweit er nicht die Re…

_these rights may only be interfered with on the basis of a law_. There is a law that covers it, just as there is a law that covers all the restrictions to freedom when you commit a crime. Killing in self defense is not a violation of the constitution. That's outlandish.

Killing in a war is not in violation of the constitution. The GG itself establishes an army used for territorial defense. Article 24(2) covers the case of integrating that army into a defense and security pact (NATO, EU army, UN) and from that derives the right to deploy german soldiers in NATO and UN missions. And if they have to kill on those missions, they are _not in violation of the GG Article 2_

Edit: When reading the GG, you also need to take into account that there are many fundamental rights that are in contradiction to each other. These need to be balanced out, there's no single right that always trumps the others. Take the case of an armed robbery: My right to my property (which is codified in Art 14) is opposed to the right of the robbers physical integrity (or even life). It would be outlandish to resolve this as "the robbers right to not be hurt trumps my constitutional right" and indeed, there is the Notwehrparagraph (StGB § 32 Notwehr https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__32.html) which codifies your right to self defense with whatever means necessary to stop the attack. (The boundaries of what's necessary are murky and difficult to generalize, but let's leave that aside here)

Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats

#159

Post by jaywalk »

mayoi wrote: post #81
ho_schi wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before I miss it. Here are the "good guys" at work (paywall): https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/21/technology/google-surveil... We can see "AI" at work. And even if a human checks it you are doomed, because you don't fit in the business plan. Therefore never upload private data on a strangers computer. The cloud is by definition a strangers computer! It is nice that you can find your lost phone with their website but y…

> Does someone have recommendations for US based E-Mail providers which are reliable and "not free"? Buy a refurbished server rack and mount it anywhere in US, install and configure email software with everything else that you need. > The situation changes somewhat if you pay with money for service instead with data Yeah, now company is profiting not only from your data, but from your bank account aswell, that's the…

> > Does someone have recommendations for US based E-Mail providers which are reliable and "not free"?

> Buy a refurbished server rack and mount it anywhere in US

Not anywhere. You won't get very far trying to host an email server on a residential Internet connection.

Re: The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats

#160

Post by rjzzleep »

FpUser wrote: post #140
mercy_dude wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am as sympathetic to the Germans who dont want racial diversity and as anti globalist as it gets. But here is the counter argument. Europe (if you don’t take the Slavs and the albenians into account) has a negative birth rate. There is no way to sustain current standard of living without immigration. The politicians in Bundestag who control the EU knows that. And if there is one thing that they are afraid of is to…

>"but because of a local population that has mostly no interest in family formation" I am in Canada so do not know what the trends are in Europe but I can clearly see that having kids here is quickly becoming a financial burden many people can not afford. Part of it because people want higher living standard while the other is our fucking politicians creating such conditions.

Taiwan has a completely different demographic and a negative birth rate and no real immigration "problem" and to me it is clear that the negative birth rate is indeed more related to the cost of living crisis than it is to other factors that people like to attribute it to. Their salaries have stagnated for 30 years, while cost of living has skyrotted for anyone but expats. In relation to the income Taipei is one of the most expensive cities in the world. Who wants children if you have to live in a room in your parents flat(at 35) because you can't afford to live on your own.

And yes, while Germany and other European countries have great benefits for child rearing, regardless of that a lot of Germans are actually struggling being able to afford living in the cities. Everyone here, myself included probably makes a lot more than an average worker in Germany.

Post reply on HN