The EU Commission accepts high error rates when checking chats • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by inkblotuniverse » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 12:14 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_69 wrote: post #173

Mordisquitos wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Assume for sake of argument that it were possible to develop an encryption regime which protected bona fide users, but did not protect criminals. That would be a good thing. [...] The real issue is that you can't separate the two from each other - weakening encryption for criminals means weakening it for everyone. Even if such a hypothetical encryption scheme was not intrinsically weaker, it still requires two very…

Here's the thing - both of those issues you've identified are broader societal issues that concern everyone, not just you. (2) in particular is suggesting, effectively, that you should be allowed to circumvent a law you disagree with. In other words, you should be allowed to communicate unlawfully if you don't agree the communication should be unlawful. That's just not how it works. As a society, your view is one of…

Whatever society decides is not necessarily good; it's your moral right to break laws you thjnk are sufficiently unjust. When germany goes fascist again, you can bet I'll be using encryption.

If you want people to respect the rule of law, you have to offer them a compromise.

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

#192

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 12:15 PM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #154

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…

[deleted]

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

#193

Post by tresqotheq » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 12:16 PM UTC

PurpleRamen wrote: post #176

coldtea wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. So? Cars also help the bad guys escape from robberies faster, but we don't seem to ban those... Not to mention knives... those can be deadly if som…

All those things are regulated, specifically to reduce chances for abusing them, but also to help in fetching criminals. Similar, nobody is demanding a ban on encryption (anymore), what they want (now) is the balanced middle, to allow justified access for "the good guys". Whether the balance is good or bad, we will see. But society is all about balancing the good and the bad.

> But society is all about balancing the good and the bad.

Yes, but the "bad" tends to become "good", as the members of the society becomes weaker and weaker.

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

#194

Post by inkblotuniverse » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 12:18 PM UTC

denton-scratch wrote: post #122

KevinOhHeaven wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're perhaps in a sociopolitical bubble if you find that claim wild. Even if you don't personally know anyone with this perspective, I would hope that it's logical, rational, and expected that a significant proportion of an indigenous population targeted for "diversification" would be opposed to the idea. (As a counter-anecdote, I don't personally know a single person in my social circle, in Australia, who is suppo…

> indigenous population targeted for "diversification" Oh, come on. That's QAnon conspiranoid bollocks. > I don't personally know a single person in my social circle, in Australia, who is supportive of racial diversity Racial diversity exists. Supporting it or opposing it isn't going to change that.

It exists in the world, and people in a region might agree they don't want too much there.

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

#195

Post by npteljes » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 12:19 PM UTC

gloppers wrote: post #24

That old adage " if you've nothing to hide, then you've nothing to fear " is oft berated in these sort of discussions, but it really does apply here. This regulation is for the purposes of criminal investigation into serious harms against children, not for spying on whatever innocuous messages you happen to be sharing with friends and family. The privacy fears are being way overblown for us ordinary people. Paedophil…

Criminals WILL have private ways - as long as it's mathematically feasible, which it is. All regulation only affects people other than those who wish to protect their conversations.

To illustrate why I think banning widespread privacy is bad, I'd like to quote the US' Miranda Warning. "Anything you say can be used against you in court." And to add: "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." Therefore - we shouldn't give the system all of the lines.

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

#196

Post by ajvs » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 12:19 PM UTC

PurpleRamen wrote: post #176

coldtea wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. So? Cars also help the bad guys escape from robberies faster, but we don't seem to ban those... Not to mention knives... those can be deadly if som…

All those things are regulated, specifically to reduce chances for abusing them, but also to help in fetching criminals. Similar, nobody is demanding a ban on encryption (anymore), what they want (now) is the balanced middle, to allow justified access for "the good guys". Whether the balance is good or bad, we will see. But society is all about balancing the good and the bad.

> what they want (now) is the balanced middle, to allow justified access for "the good guys".

Which can only be done through spyware installed universally if encryption isn't going to be broken. Because that certainly isn't ripe for abuse..

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

#197

Post by peoplefromibiza » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 12:20 PM UTC

Amezarak wrote: post #188

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's absolutely hilarious that you believe America is the only country that does this. where did I say it's the only one? But would you deny that its the one spending more on it and with the most advanced technologies to do it? I don't know many other "free" countries that spied the political leaders of allied Nations.

Every country spies on their nominal allies. That part is not unusual or unexpected and has a long historical tradition. You can find story after story on this. “Allies” are only allies for reasons of national interest, not because they are genuinely friends, whatever that would mean between countries. Of course, there’s still outrage when they get caught. Here, for example, is Germany being outraged that the US spie…

> Every country spies on their nominal allies.

no.

they have sources and intelligence officers share information, for various reasons, not excluding political beliefs.

but spying the way USA was doing it on Merkel (for example) is not common, at all.

It would also mean that American intelligence is more incompetent than French or Italian intelligence, never caught spying an ally, which cast some doubts on why CIA is so highly praised...

I really don't believe it's true.

And frankly "former intelligence officer says that" it's more information warfare than something newsworthy.

If we believed "former intelligence officers" flying saucers should be filling our skies.

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

#198

Post by npteljes » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 12:20 PM UTC

idrathernot wrote: post #175

What is to stop criminals from using any specific form of encryption (ie. math)? Meanwhile the average person who follows the law will be at a much greater risk of identity theft, ransom-ware, etc…

It will apply in the same way the unskippable anti-piracy segment on DVDs applied to pirates. In no way at all. Honest people who bought or rented legally, were subjected to the bullshit, while pirates enjoyed the superior unaltered movie experience.

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

#199

Post by Tainnor » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 12:22 PM UTC

The only "good" thing is that the current German government is very skeptical about this and two of the current governing parties (the Greens and the liberal party) have also long been opposed to more surveillance.

This was different with the previous government where the "law & order" mentality was much more entrenched, and which did nothing to prevent e.g. upload filters (despite promising to do so).

So I try to maintain some hope that at least Germany as a member state could tank this awful bill.

edit:

Here's the list of 61 questions that the German government sent to the EU concerning the bill (at the end of the article, in English): https://netzpolitik.org/2022/chatkontrolle-bundesregierung-l...

From a cursory reading, it reads to me like the diplomatic equivalent of "what you're proposing doesn't make any sense".

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

#200

Post by matwood » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 12:24 PM UTC

capableweb wrote: post #29

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…

I'm for E2E encryption wherever it's applicable, and for individuals having the ability to be fully anonymous online, but it's not useful to claim it doesn't have drawbacks as well. Yes, it's true that it might it harder to arrest criminals because of encryption, but the alternative that nothing can be 100% private is so much worse.

I think people on HN forget that the biggest problem with full E2EE is individuals losing access (similar issues with crypto). I believe this is one of the big reasons (not the only one) Apple hasn't added E2EE to everything yet. Permanently losing access to health data is different than losing access to decades of pictures.