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

191–200 of 780 posts

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#191

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

intricatedetail wrote: post #124
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is true, but you will be able to vote for a party in power to reverse it. Not possible in case of EU. Explain this logic to me please.

These things come from EC. Your vote does not influence incoming legislation. Only way to achieve something is lobbying and you'd have to find huge sums to have EC members even consider talking to you. They can make a lot of money from controlling the communication of citizens and you cannot vote them out, so what's the alternative?

Legislation in most countries does not come from elected officials, it typically is drafted up by lawyers. That's not a good argument. With the commission a lot of what ends up on the proposals is lobbied by citizens and it's the MEP that vote on it before becoming law who are elected.

I vote liberal parties in my country and that has done jack shit to prevent shitty laws to be passed because the majority seems to be electing the types of people who absolutely adore surveillance.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#193

Post by JoshTriplett »

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…

> We expect privacy in "unencrypted" phone calls, but seem happy that law enforcement can eavesdrop on 4G when they have to.

Don't assume that "we" are happy about that. You might be; others are not.

Unbreakable encryption should be available to everyone, and straightforward for everyone to use, and used by default rather than only for "sensitive" information. Unbreakable encryption should be so widely used that the thought never even occurs to anyone to associate it with wrongdoing. Communication using unbreakable encryption should simply be "communication".

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#194

Post by posterboy »

closeparen wrote: post #147
garmaine wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not encrypted then.

Should we say that no building is really locked, since the fire department is alway able to force entry?

We are not talking about human habitats that are supposed to be transitable by design. We are talking about lockers within this habitat, that remain secure even if the house is burning, because you don't want thieves who arrive before the firedepartment to have access to your guns. It's a civil obligation.

"really locked" is using a wholy misused modifier. Neither are we talking about royal priviliges, nor the distinction to virtualized fantasy. The necessary capability of encryptian is effectivity. The effectivity of regular locks is indeed a matter of concern in the security industry to begin with, as lock picking sessions at Defcon make clear. But, if the fireman's axe shreds the frontdoor, at least there will be no denying that you have been literally hacked.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#195

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

nwellnhof wrote: post #134
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is true, but you will be able to vote for a party in power to reverse it. Not possible in case of EU. Explain this logic to me please.

While every EU member state has the right to veto important laws, there is no way to abolish a law unless all member states agree. So even if 90% of all Germans agree that a EU law should be abolished, they can't overrule tiny countries like Malta or Cyprus. This is a fundamental, undemocratic flaw that most politicians and supreme courts in Europe have yet to realize.

I think a lot of this depends on where your political position is, what is elected in your country and how the the EU is currently pointing. For instance for me as an Austrian citizen my country is significantly more leaning towards surveillance that I'm more worried about what we would be doing if we were not protected by the EU lawmaking process getting a lot more scrutiny and visibility.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#196

Post by dalu »

alkonaut wrote: post #68
OneGuy123 wrote: post #7

So to which EU politician do I send GDPR complaint to? The EU politicians have completely isolated themselves from the common folk through their bureaucratical system.

GDPR complaints are sent to your national Data Protection Agency (DPA). Unsure what the relation is to this article though.

Third parties eyeing and storing your private communication maybe?

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#197

Post by Kim_Bruning »

boccko wrote: post #184
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…

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…

The court warrant sounds like it's a good idea, and don't most other things work that way too? Actually End-to-end encryption isn't that different.

It so happens that there's no point in taking out a warrant against the man-in-the-middle, because he has no access to begin with.

You'll have to get a warrant against one of the ends.

What these proposals would end up doing is to force people to weaken protocols and start spying as a man-in-the-middle, just so that they can be targeted by a warrant.

This is just a little bit silly, I feel; and doesn't really help anyone. I don't think that authorities realize that that is what they're asking for. Usually when it gets explained to them, sooner or later they relent. And then a few years later someone replaces them, and it happens all over again.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#198

Post by AnthonyMouse »

alkonaut wrote: post #183
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 zer…

> The struggle is to not lose the same ability (targeted eavesdropping after court orders) when people switch to e2e from phone calls.

But they haven't. They can physically install a listening device at the location in the warrant and thereby record any conversations you make from there. That gives them the same capability they historically had with landlines.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#199

Post by cblconfederate »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #179

The EU has done a fantastic job painting themselves as defenders of human rights. Don’t fall for it. Democratic governments are representatives of the people and proposals like this only further entrench the political ruling class.

Apart from online personal information (which is still available to governments , so not private) they don't hold high free speech standards as the US does. I dont think there's a perception that EU is the pinnacle of human rights protections.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#200

Post by jjuhl »

raverbashing wrote: post #80
GhostVII wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can have wiretapping you don't have E2E encryption. So I think this would be a ban on E2E encryption, not on encryption in general of course but I think that should be self evident.

If you're not the subject of the wiretapping, your connection will continue to use E2E, it's not complicated. Yes, wiretapped connections are not E2E while they're being monitored, obviously

If your connection can be tapped it is not end-to-end encrypted, obviously. If it is possible for anyone to tap into your communication it is not encrypted (properly). What you are saying makes no sense. Either the channel is encrypted and safe from being listened in on or it is not. You cannot have both.
Post reply on HN