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

German government comes out against Chat Control

xcancel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 578 posts

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#31

Post by ZeroConcerns »

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #21
ZeroConcerns wrote: post #3

OK, really hot take here: -ChatControl, as it is currently defined, is not going to happen, because it's absolutely stupid and would make impossible, amongst other things, online banking -Yet, there is a growing and legitimate demand for lawful interception of 'chat' services. I mean, "sure, your bank account got emptied, but we can't look into that because it happened via Signal" just isn't a good look -So, somethin…

> -Yet, there is a growing and legitimate demand for lawful interception of 'chat' services. I mean, "sure, your bank account got emptied, but we can't look into that because it happened via Signal" just isn't a good look Why on earth would mass intercept be necessary or even help in that? If you got scammed by someone, then you can contact the police and hand over your message history. Why would the cops be interest…

> Why on earth would mass intercept be necessary

Lawful interception is not "mass intercept."

It's the ability to surveil traffic from/to a clearly identified party, upon a judicial order for specific reason, for a limited time.

ChatControl, on the other hand, is mass interception. I'm against it. Most people in the EU are against it. But to prevent things like ChatControl coming up over and over again, a basic tool to combat Internet crime is required.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#34

Post by rstat1 »

ZeroConcerns wrote: post #17
mattnewton wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am having a legitimately hard time wrapping my head around not being able to prosecute bank fraud because signal exists. Was it impossible before when criminals would talk in person instead over a recorded telephone?

No? But lawful intercept laws were never about "criminals [talking] in person". There's a different set of laws for that...

And we all know those laws are never abused and are absolutely only used to target criminals.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#35

Post by sfdlkj3jk342a »

jMyles wrote: post #26

A simple way to end the discussion: No matter what the state says, or what legislatures pass what laws, we're going to continue to live out our right to general purpose computing, including sending only what we choose to send over the wire, and encrypting content as we see fit. Now let's talk about something else.

That works until the government and media successfully push the narrative to the public that anyone using encryption is supporting child molesters and terrorists.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#36

Post by qwopmaster »

ZeroConcerns wrote: post #14
PickledJesus wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you propose it's implemented though? The two sides in this debate seem to be talking at cross purposes, which is why it goes round and round. A: "We need to do this, however it's done, it was possible before so it must be possible now" B: "You can't do this because of the implementation details (i.e. you can't break encryption without breaking it for everyone)" ad infinitum. Regardless of my own views on this,…

Lawful intercept laws exist, and they've been sort-of functional for ages. Apps like Signal don't entirely fall within the scope of these, which is the cause of the current manic attempts to grab more powers. My point is that these powers grabs should be resisted, and that new services should be brought into the fold of existing laws. The prevailing opinion here seems to be that, instead, state hacking should be endo…

The prevailing opinion here seems to be that we’d really like for there to not be an omnipresent panopticon because protect the children or terrorists or, apparently, malware. If your imagination is particularly lacking on how this might be weaponized just remember that antifa is now designated as an terrorist organization in US, so you better not be a suspected member of it — as in, you best not have sent a buddy a message on signal about how those tiki torch carrying nazi larpers aren’t exactly great guys, or off to a black site you go for supporting terrorism.

If you want to prosecute people send physical goons, which are of limited quantity, rather than limitless, cheaper and better by the day pervasive surveillance of everybody and everything.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#37

Post by ZeroConcerns »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #23
ZeroConcerns wrote: post #3

OK, really hot take here: -ChatControl, as it is currently defined, is not going to happen, because it's absolutely stupid and would make impossible, amongst other things, online banking -Yet, there is a growing and legitimate demand for lawful interception of 'chat' services. I mean, "sure, your bank account got emptied, but we can't look into that because it happened via Signal" just isn't a good look -So, somethin…

A hot take: removing protections guaranteed by constitution should require modification of the constitution. There is already a "temporary" European regulation [1] that is in violation of the German constitution [2]. CSAR would be a further erosion of the legal foundation. Americans were happy when their federal laws that restrict marijuana use were simply ignored by executive fiat without proper processes, well, the…

> A hot take: removing protections guaranteed by constitution

Lawful intercept laws exist in most, if not all, EU countries.

It's just that super-national overlay services like Signal don't entirely fall within the framework of those.

So, there is now a choice: expand interception powers indefinitely (a.k.a. ChatControl, which, to make things crystal-clear, I'm 100% against), or bring new services into the fold of existing legislation.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#38

Post by Hikikomori »

ZeroConcerns wrote: post #15
lukan wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" "sure, your bank account got emptied, but we can't look into that because it happened via Signal" just isn't a good look" Do you want the police to regularily intercept and check your signal chats for fraud and crime so this does not happen, or what is the point here?

> You want the police to regularily intercept and check your signal chats for fraud No, that's not how lawful intercept laws work. I want police to be able to obtain a judicial order to intercept, for a limited time, in cleartext, the (Signal chats, or whatever other encrypted communications) of identified parties reasonably suspected to be involved with criminal activity. ChatControl is not that, and it's one of the…

Fail to see that it would even work. If the scam has happened how would lawful interception afterwards help? The criminal can just use burner accounts and the chat log exist on the scammed persons device.

Re: German government comes out against Chat Control

#39

Post by layer8 »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #23
ZeroConcerns wrote: post #3

OK, really hot take here: -ChatControl, as it is currently defined, is not going to happen, because it's absolutely stupid and would make impossible, amongst other things, online banking -Yet, there is a growing and legitimate demand for lawful interception of 'chat' services. I mean, "sure, your bank account got emptied, but we can't look into that because it happened via Signal" just isn't a good look -So, somethin…

A hot take: removing protections guaranteed by constitution should require modification of the constitution. There is already a "temporary" European regulation [1] that is in violation of the German constitution [2]. CSAR would be a further erosion of the legal foundation. Americans were happy when their federal laws that restrict marijuana use were simply ignored by executive fiat without proper processes, well, the…

> modification of the constitution

Don’t give them any ideas!

Post reply on HN