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

Fight Chat Control

fightchatcontrol.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 528 posts

Re: Fight Chat Control

#301

Post by stephen_g »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #288
Krssst wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Covid authoritarian policies were hugely successful and supported by mainstream people by and large. They were temporary and saved lives. Keyword here is temporary. Of course COVID denialists are angry at it but they won in the USA now so we'll be happy getting more deaths and disabilities now that they are removing our ability to vaccinate ourselves.

Being temporary and being authoritarian are entirely orthogonal. In general I would imagine that cultures willing to accept temporary authoritarianism for the "right reasons" are more prone to falling to dictators.

It's a silly hypothetical though - the argument that some emergency measures during an international pandemic emergency are authoritarianism would only make sense if we were all still subject to the measures (like stay at home orders).

The problem for your argument is that the temporary emergency measures turned out to actually be temporary. Authoritarian regimes use emergencies (often fake ones) to entrench long-term change, this was a real emergency that had a temporary response...

Re: Fight Chat Control

#302

Post by palata »

brikym wrote: post #214
isoprophlex wrote: post #2

God fucking damn it not again This is, what, the fifth time in ten years they try to pass shit like this?

What do they gain? The only reason I can think of it's that it's deep state control. If there was a conspiracy like that would they be acting much differently?

> The only reason I can think of it's that it's deep state control.

Then you lack imagination :-). Let me give one example: "I am a fundamentally good guy, and I want to protect the people. If I was given access to all the communications of everybody, it would be easier for me to do my job and to improve the security for everybody".

Of course, (as you know) this is flawed, be it just because you can't guarantee that a surveillance system will only ever be used by fundamentally good guys in the eyes of their people. Or said differently, if you create a backdoor for the good guys, you also create a backdoor for the bad guys.

But it's easy to be well-intentioned and not understand that it's impossible to build cryptography only for the good guys. No need to invent a deep state when the simplest explanation is "the people who believe it are uninformed".

Re: Fight Chat Control

#303

Post by vaylian »

alphazard wrote: post #199
vaylian wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real solution is to stop the law while it is still being negotiated.

If the law was passed, would there still be things you could do to insulate yourself from the effects of the law? If so, that is the real solution, because it works in all cases.

> would there still be things you could do to insulate yourself from the effects of the law?

Encrypt your data locally before it is uploaded to a service that scans your private communication. This is most likely how the child abusers will do it too. And therefore the law will be ineffective at fighting sharing of child abuse material on the internet.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#304

Post by palata »

coldblues wrote: post #212
ymir_e wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely wouldn’t break the encryption itself. I think the way it could work is to send a letter to each of the messaging apps saying that they are now legally required to use the EU’s encryption keys and make the messages available to the EU. Then they would make it so that the apps that don’t comply are not available in the app stores by pressuring google and apple respectively. I think this is the reason why for…

Telegram is not E2EE because it's easier and faster to sync and transmit messages between millions of people. The scale of Telegram groups and channels is massive. Telegram, for a long time, has not complied with law enforcement requests and has made it hard for authorities to get data because of their architecture. You still have Secret Chats for E2EE messaging as an option.

Not sure what your point is. Telegram is not an example when it comes to privacy. Anyone who has access to the server has access to pretty much everything. Nothing can tell you that governments (or bad actors) are not already reading your Telegram messages.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#305

Post by palata »

shark1 wrote: post #67

It's impressive how governments never quit trying to implement this harmful idea.

Because people keep believing that there must be a technical solution that will improve security without causing harm. They are just uninformed, IMO.

Just like governments pretty much don't do anything about climate change and the mass extinction that is currently happening, even though they may well end up killing most people on Earth. If they understood how bad it is, they would act. But they don't.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#306

Post by latentsea »

Disposal8433 wrote: post #9

I'm French and every idiot supports it, even the so-called left. There is nothing I can do except donate money every month to GrapheneOS ( https://grapheneos.org/donate ). Democracy is dead for me.

They will eventually come for GrapheneOS too in some way shape or form. Be it regulating hardware attestation being required to use devices, so that only government approved operating systems can be used, or imposing jailtime for possessing devices with capabilities such as GrapheneOS.

It will be a sad day when that comes.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#307

Post by elric »

lucideer wrote: post #60

A little context here since this website is highly misleading: - EU Council holds more power in Europe than EU Parliament - EU Council is pushing this regulation - this website misrepresents the positions of most members of EU Parliament - it shows "Supports" despite most of them being "Unknown" Overall, while people should be encouraged to contact their MEPs, I suspect many are already very informed on this & strong…

IMO this kind of pedantry detracts from the message. We know that the EC is pushing it, but the EC does not represent the people, that's the job of MEPs. Thus a list of MEPs from countries, colour coded by whether or not the country is known to support the position. And optionally a marker for their personal opinion if known.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#308

Post by latentsea »

Aeolun wrote: post #299
r33b33 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah, Japan

They don’t really need to surveil their citizens. The indoctrination starts from kindergarden :)

Either that or they can't. They did after all have a minister for cybersecurity that had never used a computer.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46222026

Post reply on HN