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

EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

statewatch.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 780 posts

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#171

Post by names_are_hard »

TheRealPomax wrote: post #79
euthrow439 wrote: post #34

I'm in my early 40s. Up until I was ~35 I was very strongly against this, sort of like most you. Now I feel the EU in general (some member states a lot worse than others) has backed itself into a corner because of the utterly failed integration efforts, union-wide. I live in a EU nation that has seen a very high rise in violent (and sometimes frankly horrible) crime over the past decade. As a dad of a 1-year old daug…

You are of course aware that "having a law that says one more part of the already illegal activity is illegal" is going to do nothing to stop that illegal activity, right? All this does is criminalize the use of e2ee for everyone, which solves the whole "crime" problems for exactly no one. Your kids aren't any safer, but everyone who needs e2ee (journalists, activists, vulnerable/opressed groups) now needs to engage…

Just curious: do you also apply this argument to the the gun control debate in the United States?

In any case, it's quite possible that making something dangerous illegal does indeed stop some would-be bad guys. The truly committed criminals break the law and gain access to the contraband, while the casual/less intelligent criminal is stopped.

You have to make a call: is the reduction, but not complete elimination, of bad things worth the loss of value derived from allowing law-abiding people access to encryption/guns? That's a difficult question because its answer depends not just on how much bad will actually be prevented but the subjective value you personally place on the good these things provide.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#172

Post by Zak »

euthrow439 wrote: post #162
Zak wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's common that people become much more concerned about possible threats to physical safety after having children. That strikes me as reasonable, even if it leads someone to take a different side than I would in a freedom/safety question. With that out of the way, how do you propose stopping criminals from using encrypted chat? You can make it illegal, of course, but making it impossible for someone who doesn't care…

Well, one way: If you do make it illegal: 1. Police finds e.g. a 19 year criminal gang member doing something mildly illegal. 2. Police inspects their phone 3. Police finds illicit encrypted chat app 4. Criminal gang member refuses to cough up password 5. Criminal gang member gets sentenced and cannot hurt the public while they are contained.

I suspect you're underestimating the ability of criminals to obtain communication tools with sufficient plausible deniability to prevent detection by the local police after the first few prosecutions for that.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#174

Post by fredrickd »

dheera wrote: post #51
camgunz wrote: post #4

We need to establish the use of encryption as a basic human right. I'm so tired of this cropping up every couple years.

I wonder if we can make an encryption protocol that cryptographically securely encrypts an arbitrary English sentence into an English passage that sounds like it makes sense but is unrelated to the ciphertext.

lol it may be time for Base_Emoji encoding. Good luck proving that my sequence of laughing crying faces and cats is an encrypted message.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#175

Post by nytgop77 »

toxik wrote: post #131

My serious question is this: how do we stop terrorism and criminals when they have access to military grade encryption technology? It seems like there is a lot of ideological push for freedom, but as criminal activity moves to the virtual world, have we not created a problem for ourselves?

The same way you would stop terrorist group who only talk face to face with each other.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#176

Post by Kim_Bruning »

jariel wrote: post #64
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It pretty much is, section 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: > No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. I mean wearing my programmer goggles it doesn't state privacy AND correspondence but OR, but sti…

They key word is 'arbitrary'. The courts may not view the police, with a warrant, wanting to see your texts because they believe you're doing something illegal as a form of 'arbitrary' interference. This new proposal sounds nutty to me, but I think that our various constitutions provide for the possibility of government access to private stuff given legitimacy, proportionality etc.

That's what I believe they're thinking too. Except with encryption that's not one of the options, unfortunately.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#177

Post by AnthonyMouse »

alkonaut wrote: post #168
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It pretty much is, section 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: > No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. I mean wearing my programmer goggles it doesn't state privacy AND correspondence but OR, but sti…

It continues " There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law" [to ensure everyone's safety]. E2e encryption that is "safe from courts" isn't protected.

It isn't "safe from courts" because courts can allow them to bug your house and hack your phone using the unlock code their bug recorded you entering.

They can't do that to the entire public at once because it's not economical, but that's the point.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#178

Post by thaumasiotes »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #18
camgunz wrote: post #4

We need to establish the use of encryption as a basic human right. I'm so tired of this cropping up every couple years.

It pretty much is, section 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: > No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. I mean wearing my programmer goggles it doesn't state privacy AND correspondence but OR, but sti…

> I mean wearing my programmer goggles it doesn't state privacy AND correspondence but OR, but still.

But still what? The logic is perfectly correct; ~(a | b) = (~a & ~b)

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#180

Post by euthrow439 »

Zak wrote: post #172
euthrow439 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, one way: If you do make it illegal: 1. Police finds e.g. a 19 year criminal gang member doing something mildly illegal. 2. Police inspects their phone 3. Police finds illicit encrypted chat app 4. Criminal gang member refuses to cough up password 5. Criminal gang member gets sentenced and cannot hurt the public while they are contained.

I suspect you're underestimating the ability of criminals to obtain communication tools with sufficient plausible deniability to prevent detection by the local police after the first few prosecutions for that.

I suspect you overestimate the bespoke firmware-altering abilities of the average local criminal gang.
Post reply on HN