421–430 of 780 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You were told a lie. USA has been doing it as long as the second war started and never stopped. And they consider strong encryption a weapon. Are you familiar with the Zimmermann case?
The Zimmerman telegram was from WWI and was intercepted by the British, not the Americans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Zimmermann#Arms_Export_Co...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That is true, but you will be able to vote for a party in power to reverse it. Not possible in case of EU. Explain this logic to me please.
These things come from EC. Your vote does not influence incoming legislation. Only way to achieve something is lobbying and you'd have to find huge sums to have EC members even consider talking to you. They can make a lot of money from controlling the communication of citizens and you cannot vote them out, so what's the alternative?
Confusingly, there's also the European Council. You vote out your representative in there by voting out your your head of government (president, premier, taoiseach etc.), because again, it's literally the same person.
And if you're talking about the commission, which seems to have little to do with this, you vote them out by voting in different heads of government (again) to nominate different commissioners/a different president, and/or different members of the European parliament to not confirm them.
Good lord. As a Scot, when the UK voted to leave the EU, I lamented the fact that the EU has always seemed more liberal, more sensible on privacy and human rights than the UK's home secretaries invariably are. It felt like the EU helped keep our politicians in check, keep them from doing anything too insane. If the liberal EU is taking a stance like this, what hope is there?!
The EU, or rather bodies in the EU, have at other times suggested making encryption mandatory. So don't fret.
This is madness. Oh, of course, it's much easier to put a wrench into some gears to show that you are actually working at "solving the terrorism problem" than shaving the yaks, but that machine is actually important for other things. We live in a dangerous world. We cannot control everything. I don't mind a slight risk of terrorist attack on myself or my family (caveat lector: I am young), if that means greater freed…
No, West Europe used to be really safe. Then it changed because of unrestricted immigration policies. East Europe countries are still pretty safe with no terrorism.
Either my data is safe from rogue agents and rogue governments or it is not. If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will use it.
The EU can make as many logical conclusions it wants to, but reality will come back and bite their law enforcement offices that their criminals won't stop using unbreakable encryption.
The difference between theory and practice is greater in practice than it is in theory.
I see this as follows: 1. Terrorism and trafficking of children will win the moral high ground. 2. App stores will be forced locale by locale to conform to these policies. 3. Most people will not notice or care. 4. This will be used by N-Eyes and totalitarian governments to quash dissent. 5. Meanwhile the tech crowd will create alternate app distribution mechanisms allowing those who care to communicate securely. 6.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>We live in a dangerous world. No we don't, but that's what the Politicians try to implement in our brains.
It's easy for people to lose sight of this with all the bad news we're seeing in 2020, but the present is the safest time in history when zoomed out to a scale of decades. The decline in violence since the 1900s to today is essentially global and scales from bar fights to wars.
1. Encrypt message. 2. Break message into 16-bit chunks. 3. Add 0x0F00 to each chunk. Result: you have a message written in Tibetan. What could be more innocent than that? Wait. Does this proposal address unintelligible communication?
Basically a ban on foreign languages...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If WhatsApp breaks E2E in Europe every other country will jump on the bandwagon.
WhatsApp is hardly safe from prying eyes anyway. Sure, there's always-on E2E encryption that is really well designed. However, WhatsApp constantly prompts every user to back up to the cloud, which is much less well secured. Thus, it's pretty trivial for the authorities to get to it there, I'm sure they can get into iCloud and Google Drive if they want to. It only takes one person in the conversation to have this opti…
This isn’t part of the threat model we are discussing here.
If the government can break encryption, so can hackers. If hackers can break your encryption, and my records are being held in it, then your competition will eat your lunch as I move my records to their services. Either my data is safe from rogue agents and rogue governments or it is not. If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will use it. The EU can make as many logical conclusions it wants to, but reality will com…
All that being said, obviously countries outside of the EU will continue to allow cryptography. So, unless they create a "great firewall" sensible people (including sensible criminals) will just move elswhere, possibly weakening the EU's presence in the Internet as a whole (which seems like a bad move to me).