21–30 of 59 posts
This doesn't seem like it "allows" a backdoor; it seems like it requires one. (IANAL, etc etc.) So much for the EU's vaunted privacy rights...
edit: I would appreciate an explanation how my comment about an article talking about trojan horses on the victims' computer with a title about backdoors is wrong instead of mindless downvotes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't think there is any precedent for impenetrable private communication legally or culturally. What about discussions between conspirators in the privacy of their own home? Should the government be allowed to mandate that telescreens be installed in everyone's homes, with the promise that they would only listen in when they have a secret warrant to do so?
isn't that already the status quo? Most governments I'm aware of have the right to engage in surveillance of individual homes, albeit with strong requirements. But all guarantees you have right now that no intelligence is bugging your home is the promise (and legal protection) that they don't do it arbitrarily.
Laws against E2E encryption effectively mean that it is illegal to use a communications technology that is hard for the government to interfere with, even if you are not using it to break any (other) law, which seems like a change from the status quo.
Note that this is not about backdoor requirements or abilities, but about QuellenTKÜ (english: source telecommunications surveillance), which involves getting a trojan onto end devices, either through hacking, like using a bought 0-day, or by breaking into houses of suspects. It already exists as a part of law enforcement in various German states. The proposed regulation is to allow this for a bunch of additional fed…
So this is something like planting a microphone into your house so they can hear your conversations (with a warrant)? That doesn't really sound too bad, it's targeted and you have to go through the proper channels to get authorization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't think there is any precedent for impenetrable private communication legally or culturally. What about discussions between conspirators in the privacy of their own home? Should the government be allowed to mandate that telescreens be installed in everyone's homes, with the promise that they would only listen in when they have a secret warrant to do so?
isn't that already the status quo? Most governments I'm aware of have the right to engage in surveillance of individual homes, albeit with strong requirements. But all guarantees you have right now that no intelligence is bugging your home is the promise (and legal protection) that they don't do it arbitrarily.
The law effectively mandates that for every lock there should be a master key owned by police. Even in physical world it works poorly (see the joke under the name of Travel Sentry Approved locks) and in digital world it will be even worse, due to the near zero cost of using such backdoor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So this is something like planting a microphone into your house so they can hear your conversations (with a warrant)? That doesn't really sound too bad, it's targeted and you have to go through the proper channels to get authorization.
Coming from the country that had the Stasi, no. It's very bad. The Stasi was so smart, they knew it wasn't threatening you with violence that made you complicit, it's blackmail and threats to your loved ones or ruining your career. Also absurd types of guilt trips that make you feel obligated to comply with the objective of the state for other people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So this is something like planting a microphone into your house so they can hear your conversations (with a warrant)? That doesn't really sound too bad, it's targeted and you have to go through the proper channels to get authorization.
Coming from the country that had the Stasi, no. It's very bad. The Stasi was so smart, they knew it wasn't threatening you with violence that made you complicit, it's blackmail and threats to your loved ones or ruining your career. Also absurd types of guilt trips that make you feel obligated to comply with the objective of the state for other people.
Something you'll find prevalent with some dissidents today. Many of them return "willingly" when presented with the alternatives.
>Die Nachrichtendienste sollten in digitalen Bereich dieselben Möglichkeiten bekommen, die sie im analogen bereits haben translated: "Intelligence agencies ought to have the same capacities in the digital sphere that they have in the analog world." Going to be an unpopular opinion here but i agree with this. I don't think there is any precedent for impenetrable private communication legally or culturally. Capacity to…