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

181–190 of 780 posts

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#181

Post by cblconfederate »

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…

If only the Declaration was legally binding...

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#182

Post by romanoderoma »

jsiepkes wrote: post #14
tripue wrote: post #2

strange, they choose signal to communicate https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/24/21150918/european-commiss...

These things usually boil down to: You must not do as I do, you must do what I tell you to.

Disclaimer: I've made - very minor - contributions to the 2017 proposal to enforce mandatory E2E encryption (as a technical consultant, I have no political role of any kind)

How does that follow?

I am as free as anybody else in the EU to use any chat software I want.

This is just a proposal and ha no value in itself until it is approved and ratified by the single parliaments in the EU countries.

EU is not some tirannic state, or some hegemonic super power where when the president loses the elections they refuse to leave.

It's a very complex political institution, that works through official channels.

the proposal is public, there will be a discussion, years of debates, they did not hide it under the carpet, it's in the open so that anyone is aware of what it entails and can react by supporting it or opposing to it.

Nothing to be scared about.

And if the citizen of Europe through their elected members of the EU parliament will approve it, so be it.

It's the democratic process at work.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#183

Post by alkonaut »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #177
alkonaut wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

Not sure I follow. The struggle politicians are in isn't to eavesdrop on everyone. The fact that this is possible is an unwelcome side effect. The struggle is to not lose the same ability (targeted eavesdropping after court orders) when people switch to e2e from phone calls.

If cell phones had e2e encryptoions so the normal court-order landline eavesdropping disappeared from law enforcements' toolboxes - there is zero chance they would ever have been allowed in the hands of the public.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#184

Post by boccko »

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…

When they have a court warrant, it's not arbitrary. I think some rights were given to the people to combat government tyranny (right to bear arms for example), but combating government tyranny is just not feasible anymore, due to a set of factors, like our inability to organize behind a common cause. Anyway, the choice here is reserving our ability to overthrow an unjust system, or giving the government the rights to catch those who might want to unjustly overthrow it.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#185

Post by [deleted] »

jjd33 wrote: post #10
yogthos wrote: post #5

I was told that this only happens in authoritarian regimes like China. Turns out that while everybody was talking about China exact same things were happening here in the West. It's as if the whole focus on China was specifically designed to distract people from what's happening in their own countries.

The US has been on Saudi and North Korea level for a while now

[deleted]

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#186

Post by Kim_Bruning »

alkonaut wrote: post #135
scrollaway wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, if you put it that way, assumption of innocence is also a scary concept; being the police and having to let someone you know is a murderer or terrorist go because you can't prove what they did is routinely touted as a genuinely terrifying prospect in plenty of TV shows. Privacy is a human right in Europe. I don't think it's a pipe dream to give encryption some good PR, especially when it powers the internet,…

We expect privacy in "unencrypted" phone calls, but seem happy that law enforcement can eavesdrop on 4G when they have to. Not sure how much more privacy people expect. If you explain to people how much privacy they give up just clicking a random facebook questionnaire - they nod and then still do. Privacy and integrity is important but it will never match e.g. "terrorism" or "safety" on the list of important issues…

That's why you explain that it's about personal and organizational safety. The ability to lock doors.

Make sure the terrorists can't find and research targets.

Make sure child molesters can't get at your kids.

Make sure bank robbers can't get at banks.

Make sure organized crime can't spy on the police and thwart police actions. Etc etc.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24569484

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#187

Post by nullsense »

I dunno... I feel like I should just give up on encryption and privacy and say what the hell, so long as you're able to thwart the terror attacks that are coming thats probably a better outcome than any notion of privacy at this point.

It's a sad world we live in.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#188

Post by _trampeltier »

So they have to make an key for the EU. Then the US will do the same, also make an key for the US too. And China and India would like to have the key too. Then every other country will ask for the same.

At this point you can drop encryption anyway, because 1000 eyes will read every message. Just WTF, and everybody said 2020 can't become more worse.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#189

Post by [deleted] »

tom_mellior wrote: post #55
Daniel_sk wrote: post #8

I don't have a nice name for people in EU parliament that write these things, they don't really understand what encryption is. It's not a technology. You can't ban encryption. Terrorists can just use unencrypted chat and either use their own encryption or they can use predefined words and sentences that actually have a totally different meaning.

This is not from the Parliament. This is from the Council of Ministers. All shitty ideas in the EU come from there or from the Commission. These bodies are not elected and have very little, and very indirect, democratic legitimation.

[deleted]

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#190

Post by dalu »

toxik wrote: post #160
dalu wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you let fear be your guide you would never even leave the house. Don't do bad things and there won't be terrorists. Attack other countries, incite wars and you'll have them. It's simple. Don't be a douche and no one will slap your face.

That seems like such a gross oversimplification I don’t even know where to start. There will always be those in society who want to do harm for one reason or another, utopia does not exist. These people are what we call criminals.

Most criminals are criminals because of the circumstances. Circumstances can be improved but they'd rather spend 5.5 billion (the one after the million) € on Eurofighters than make away with poverty.

We could go back and forth and it would change nothing at all because no one from the EC will see it and as an EU citizen I can't change the resolution, because the EP can't do anything about it.

And just because there are "criminals" doesn't mean that I have to live behind steel bars in my house and let every letter be seen by some policeman before I read it. We're also not talking about criminals, we're talking about some guy who's country was attacked, maybe his family killed. Who knows what his motives were? I don't. US, EU, Russia, Turkey all waged a proxy war in Syria. If not for that war maybe he would not had done what he did. If not for 9/11 there would be no ISIS.

Why does the US have to plunder other countries? Instigate wars in other countries? If anything we should send to refugees to the US because they're to blame for it all.

Post reply on HN