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

France rejects backdoor mandate

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 320 posts

Re: France rejects backdoor mandate

#191

Post by pca006132 »

Spivak wrote: post #141
csomar wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it feels like it often boils down to the politicians just not understanding enough to take rational decisions. That's a very gullible take and kind of apologetic for the politicians. If you are implementing a backdoor to crypto-systems, you probably know exactly what you are doing. That, and this has been re-surfacing time and again under different pretenses make this a deliberate attack on freedom of expression. T…

I'm sure some of them do but encryption is pretty unusual as a lock that police can't break. If a judge orders a search of your house and the incriminating evidence is in a safe they will break it open if you refuse to open it for them. Governments aren't exactly happy that for digital assets there's ready made mass-market systems where the response to any search warrant will be to pound sand. When law enforcement te…

The issue is that something like this will not affect the criminals, they can just use something with encryption.

Re: France rejects backdoor mandate

#192

Post by astrobe_ »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #27
aucisson_masque wrote: post #26

The backdoor mandate was part of an anti organized criminality law, Bruno Retailleau (interior minister) pretend criminals use encrypted chat to communicate and so backdoor is required to intercept their communications. makes sense to the average non tech people. The sad truth however is that it wouldn't even solve the issue, criminals will always be able to use encrypted communications: there are open source softwar…

Wouldn't law enforcement just use Pegasus style zero-days to spy on the their targets? So why all the hubbub about making backdoors that become vulnerabilities for nefarious users too? Like why bother convicting Signal to create a backdoor for you, when you can put your nations geniuses to find some RCE bugs in Qualcomm or Apple modems or SoCs, and spy on them that way? This way nobody's the wiser.

I think the interior minister pushes for the easier solution. What you talk about is most likely illegal currently (and law enforcement usually cannot do illegal stuff unless explicitly permitted by law and a supervised by a judge) and requires highly qualified staff. Hooking an AI to a backdoor is just easier and cheaper.

Re: France rejects backdoor mandate

#193

Post by aucisson_masque »

letsownmeansofp wrote: post #78
aucisson_masque wrote: post #26

The backdoor mandate was part of an anti organized criminality law, Bruno Retailleau (interior minister) pretend criminals use encrypted chat to communicate and so backdoor is required to intercept their communications. makes sense to the average non tech people. The sad truth however is that it wouldn't even solve the issue, criminals will always be able to use encrypted communications: there are open source softwar…

the conversations seem to stay focus on e2ee good or bad; it’s important to question - is this the correct focus? Drugs should not be illegal in the first place; decriminalising them is known to have good results, (look at Portugal) it weakens organised crime and black markets, less costs for the justice system, less health issues and less need for public health money to be spent on dealing with resulting issues, the…

> Drugs should not be illegal in the first place; decriminalising them is known to have good results, (look at Portugal)

I have no knowledge on the impact of that policy. On the other hand bruno Retailleau said at National Assembly that this kind of policy doesn’t work. What happens is that there are expensive legal drug and cheaper illegal drug that organized criminals provide.

Hence there are more drug user but barely less income for drug cartel.

He gave for instance the tobacco example. It’s legal in France yet it’s so expensive that black market has never flourished so much.

Without knowing much about that subject, I must admit it makes sense.

Re: France rejects backdoor mandate

#194

Post by nickslaughter02 »

orwin wrote: post #101
nickslaughter02 wrote: post #32

France has rejected this backdoor but keep in mind that France is still in favor of chat control (mandatory on device scanning of your communication). There's now a majority among EU countries and the proposal is expected to pass. The next meeting is April 8th.

France government is a minority government. The proposal their finance/interior minister do to the council of Europe is a minority opinion in France.

Does that make a difference? The proposal has France's vote.

Re: France rejects backdoor mandate

#195

Post by regularjack »

csomar wrote: post #133
palata wrote: post #3

Just like for other big challenges like biodiversity and climate change, it feels like it often boils down to the politicians just not understanding enough to take rational decisions. Of course they can't all have a PhD in cryptography, but they should also not have no clue at all. Over an over again, politicians are asking for backdoors. To me it just proves that they don't understand the very basic of how encryptio…

> it feels like it often boils down to the politicians just not understanding enough to take rational decisions. That's a very gullible take and kind of apologetic for the politicians. If you are implementing a backdoor to crypto-systems, you probably know exactly what you are doing. That, and this has been re-surfacing time and again under different pretenses make this a deliberate attack on freedom of expression. T…

That is a very cynical take.

Re: France rejects backdoor mandate

#196

Post by aucisson_masque »

outside2344 wrote: post #80
Braxton1980 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> French want less criminals and immigrants in the street. Whatever it takes. What about using the probability that a specific race or religion will commit crimes then target those people with aggressive tactics. As for the public they could make those people feel unwelcomed through constant harassment in the hopes they leave the country. Thus reducing the crime rate by any means. ---- I checked the murder rate and i…

In France, like a lot of other countries, they are blaming everything on the immigrants. Crime? Immigrants are doing it. Retirement age? Immigrants are spending the money. These things are not backed up by data, but just like the US, or Nazi Germany, nobody cares, simply easier to choose an easy "solution" and blame immigrants.

> In 2019, 82% of the people implicated by the police and the gendarmerie declared themselves French and 18% foreigners, while they represent 93% and 7% of the population in France respectively.

https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/5763585?sommaire=576363...

Re: France rejects backdoor mandate

#197

Post by ojl »

apples_oranges wrote: post #183
graemep wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its just become harder to stick European heads in the sand. Is government agencies to. In the UK the NHS uses AWS, courts use Teams.... IT security is just ignored - its only recently that it occurred to the govt to remove Chinese cameras from sensitive sites. European militaries are heavily dependent on the US too and have a lot of equipment that is reliant on US supplies or can only be used in line with agreements…

Plus apparently there are things that only USA can currently do, awacs radar support and other recon I think

I believe there are several non-US awacs systems out there, although the American ones are probably the most common.

Re: France rejects backdoor mandate

#198

Post by nickslaughter02 »

thomassmith65 wrote: post #61

If the general public is given a choice between super secret internet messaging, or the current status quo, they will go for the latter. This is because the former hampers law enforcement's ability to track down criminals and terrorists. And the better informed non-techies are about the tech, the more they will support backdoors. No large service will survive providing E2EE. In the near future, there is bound to be s…

"If the general public is given a choice between super secret internet messaging, or the current status quo, they will go for the latter. This is because the former hampers law enforcement's ability to track down criminals and terrorists."

I don't know where you live but that's not my experience thankfully. Why? Because the opinion is (including mine) that the vast majority of crimes should not be crimes at all (in this case all drugs should be freely available for adults to buy) and terrorist acts will happen whether you spy on citizens or not anyway.

Re: France rejects backdoor mandate

#199

Post by pembrook »

palata wrote: post #3

Just like for other big challenges like biodiversity and climate change, it feels like it often boils down to the politicians just not understanding enough to take rational decisions. Of course they can't all have a PhD in cryptography, but they should also not have no clue at all. Over an over again, politicians are asking for backdoors. To me it just proves that they don't understand the very basic of how encryptio…

> it is already a problem that most companies use US services, given that the US have become hostile to Europe.

Risking a potential flame war here but I think it’s important to cool down hysterical rhetoric whenever it’s pushed.

The US has not become hostile to Europe, and it’s quite silly to say this in contrast to, say, a certain country next door that is currently invading a European country.

The US is in the midst of a many decades “pivot to Asia.” This is not hostility, but growing indifference.

Re: France rejects backdoor mandate

#200

Post by whatevertrevor »

realusername wrote: post #137
Cyph0n wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever floats your boat. But claiming that France is the pinnacle of maintaining individual freedoms contradicts with a nanny state that polices religious expression. You can’t have it both ways.

Keeping religion out of the state is a good thing, the previous statu quo in France before that used to be that the Christians were policing everybody. We can see now in the US how not having this concept is creating a lot of social issues with Cristian fundamentalists running the state.

There's a significant difference between separating the state's concerns from religious dogma, and restricting an individual's ability to dress in accordance with their belief system. I have wondered if jeans would be banned in France if one made a religion with only wearing jeans in public as its dogma.

And before I get any questions about it, I say this as a lifelong atheist.

Post reply on HN