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

Statement on EU-US Cooperation on Turning Public Opinion Against Encryption

globalencryption.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 240 posts

Re: Statement on EU-US Cooperation on Turning Public Opinion Against Encryption

#41

Post by flotzam »

pa7x1 wrote: post #15
jMyles wrote: post #2

> ...at the EU-US Senior Officials Meeting on Justice and Home Affairs, held in Stockholm on 16 and 17 March, the minutes of which are now available. The delegations “… concurred on the need to mirror privacy by design with lawful access by design…,” apparent code language for mandating the undermining or removal of strong encryption practices. What is wrong with these people? How can anyone, let alone an educated, w…

Well, if you were to ask in this very same forum if the trade-offs of private and permissionless communication, as granted by cryptography, should apply to money. You would get a much different answer. So either a large part of HN has already been co-opted by this public campaign, or is uneducated/obtuse, or is able to trace a very different set of weights for what you can do with your expression but not your money.

The disconnect is wild. Spending magic money online can already feel like instant messaging, e.g. Zcash with its encrypted memo field for text messages is basically as if Bitmessage had an optional monetary payload

Re: Statement on EU-US Cooperation on Turning Public Opinion Against Encryption

#42

Post by wmf »

exabrial wrote: post #11

I've come to the conclusion that Taxes are incompatible with Encryption and Free Speech. If we're ever going to progress as a civilization, something other than ancient and frankly barbaric practice Taxes has to designed and implemented. Every justification for usage or backdoor encryption is eventually rooted in monitoring financial transactions, or preserving the means in which a state can collect them. The "War on…

I don't think prohibitions on child porn and drugs have anything to do with taxes.

Re: Statement on EU-US Cooperation on Turning Public Opinion Against Encryption

#43

Post by neo_matrix »

hulitu wrote: post #31
fatcat500 wrote: post #19

Interesting how our leaders see their role not as representing our interests, but in shaping our interests. There exists an entire subject in political science dealing with how to increase compliance with the schemes of regulators (see Nudge Theory). The mistake they make is a classic short-run vs. long-run miscalculation. In the short-run, you can get away with these kinds of tactics to increase compliance. For exam…

> Interesting how our leaders see their role not as representing our interests, but in shaping our interests. Someone called it "Manufacturing consent". I think this name describes it pretty good. What these politicians do not seem to underestand is that those law may turn against them at a later point in time.

The term "Manufacturing consent" was coined by Noam Chomsky, American philosopher.

Re: Statement on EU-US Cooperation on Turning Public Opinion Against Encryption

#44

Post by totetsu »

CrampusDestrus wrote: post #18

I have no problem with the police hacking into devices. They have the right to use bugs and find exploits just like they have the right to pick a safe of force a door. But backdoors and unacceptable, that's like mandating that every house have microphones in every room connected to the police center

I was thinking about this today. Like we watch a moive about cold war times and see the gmen or the stasi doing some unbelievable intrusive surveillance and think wow what times they would have been to live in, and at the same time my every movement for the past 10 years when I had a cellphone in my pocket is in a database somewhere and I barely think about it.

Re: Statement on EU-US Cooperation on Turning Public Opinion Against Encryption

#45

Post by jruohonen »

scotty79 wrote: post #23
newZWhoDis wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re malicious. It’s not that they don’t understand, or that some well worded essay will ever give them their “aha” moment. They want power over you, and this is just another means to that end.

It's not even power over you. It's mostly power over their political opponents. You can read up on how Polish government used their access to Pegassus.

The PEGA committee reports are "hilarious" reading. The "best" situation seems to have been in Greece where ordinary politicians have spied other ordinary politicians and ordinary civil servants other ordinary civil servants. Must be fun to work in such a state apparatus.

Re: Statement on EU-US Cooperation on Turning Public Opinion Against Encryption

#46

Post by carimura »

fatcat500 wrote: post #19

Interesting how our leaders see their role not as representing our interests, but in shaping our interests. There exists an entire subject in political science dealing with how to increase compliance with the schemes of regulators (see Nudge Theory). The mistake they make is a classic short-run vs. long-run miscalculation. In the short-run, you can get away with these kinds of tactics to increase compliance. For exam…

Martin Gurri in The Revolt of the Public had a pretty good explanation of this. Leaders used to be the gatekeepers of information, and thus maintained control. Now the Internet has lifted the curtain and opened the floodgates of information, causing a loss of control, thus pushing many leaders to double down on attempts at controlling the narrative. When control gets too strong, we see revolts.

Re: Statement on EU-US Cooperation on Turning Public Opinion Against Encryption

#47

Post by dekken_ »

ugurnot wrote: post #40
hulitu wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Interesting how our leaders see their role not as representing our interests, but in shaping our interests. Someone called it "Manufacturing consent". I think this name describes it pretty good. What these politicians do not seem to underestand is that those law may turn against them at a later point in time.

"Manifacturing Consent" is a book written by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. They discuss the propaganda model of communication in much broader sense.

Don't forget about

> "The Engineering of Consent" is an essay by Edward Bernays first published in 1947,

Re: Statement on EU-US Cooperation on Turning Public Opinion Against Encryption

#48

Post by mrburnssama »

fatcat500 wrote: post #19

Interesting how our leaders see their role not as representing our interests, but in shaping our interests. There exists an entire subject in political science dealing with how to increase compliance with the schemes of regulators (see Nudge Theory). The mistake they make is a classic short-run vs. long-run miscalculation. In the short-run, you can get away with these kinds of tactics to increase compliance. For exam…

We saw a master class of this during the last 3 years of the "pandemic".

I find it frightening how western liberal countries are becoming more and more like China, possibly in an attempt to beat them.

Re: Statement on EU-US Cooperation on Turning Public Opinion Against Encryption

#49

Post by alphanullmeric »

wmf wrote: post #42
exabrial wrote: post #11

I've come to the conclusion that Taxes are incompatible with Encryption and Free Speech. If we're ever going to progress as a civilization, something other than ancient and frankly barbaric practice Taxes has to designed and implemented. Every justification for usage or backdoor encryption is eventually rooted in monitoring financial transactions, or preserving the means in which a state can collect them. The "War on…

I don't think prohibitions on child porn and drugs have anything to do with taxes.

A law prohibiting child porn would make child porn illegal, not monitor my transactions and prevent encryption. That’s called the redistribution of consequences.

Re: Statement on EU-US Cooperation on Turning Public Opinion Against Encryption

#50

Post by Arnt »

fatcat500 wrote: post #19

Interesting how our leaders see their role not as representing our interests, but in shaping our interests. There exists an entire subject in political science dealing with how to increase compliance with the schemes of regulators (see Nudge Theory). The mistake they make is a classic short-run vs. long-run miscalculation. In the short-run, you can get away with these kinds of tactics to increase compliance. For exam…

Well, our leaders serve two goals: The voters' will and the fairness of the law.

Nothing requires to vox populi of some issue to agree with its own opinion of five minutes ago, or its own current opinion in a similar issue. Your opinion as voter can be as fickle as it pleases you. The law requires fairness, though, and our leaders are the unfortunates whose job it is to tell the voters about the longer-term principles and try to shape people's opinions. To make them less fickle and more principled.

Now, which principle? I don't mind if a particular politician or party tries to shape voters' opinions around the principles in that politician's or party's program.

Post reply on HN