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

EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

statewatch.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 780 posts

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#511

Post by dredmorbius »

eru wrote: post #505
secabeen wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Aussie girl is in the NYT clip who basically made the song still lives in relative obscurity (you can find her on twitter, probably well paid, but still living without much fanfare), despite this song among others blowing up in the charts. The sad part is they don't even name her in the summary. She's "a 23-year old songwriter". The famous producers and vocalists get named, but she doesn't.

Some people might prefer lucrative obscurity?

Fame carries its own burdens.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#512

Post by vishnumohandas »

Is it just me or is the title a bit sensationalized?

For starters, the document is a declaration "ON" encryption, not "AGAINST" it.

Also the document clarifies the intent to work with the industry to come up with solutions that strike a "balance" and not to blanket ban E2EE protocols.

What the EU decides to do if/when they conclude that there are no viable solutions will be interesting.

IMO the heated comments on this thread that have assumed bad intent is (for now) unwarranted.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#513

Post by dmix »

eru wrote: post #505
secabeen wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Aussie girl is in the NYT clip who basically made the song still lives in relative obscurity (you can find her on twitter, probably well paid, but still living without much fanfare), despite this song among others blowing up in the charts. The sad part is they don't even name her in the summary. She's "a 23-year old songwriter". The famous producers and vocalists get named, but she doesn't.

Some people might prefer lucrative obscurity?

Fair point.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#514

Post by JumpCrisscross »

part1of2 wrote: post #484
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What about proposing encryption as an EU human right? Has that been attempted? Rights conflict. Every new right influences the others. It is easy to shorthand every problem to a human rights declaration. But just like the right to bear arms, that can have unintended consequences.

You did not define a conflict or the unintended consequence here

Every right reduces the clarity and scope of every other right. This creates grey areas for interpretation by the state.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#515

Post by dwd »

secabeen wrote: post #476
dmix wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN needs to come together to reward 'dang's hard work keeping HN to HN quality. I have this theory that with almost any great music groups there's usually one, sometimes two, great mind(s) working in the background, usually introverted, that really define the talent of the wider group (Brian Wilson, Quincy Jones, Phil Spector, etc are the rare few who got that recognition). NYT did a great exploration of how this cur…

> The Aussie girl is in the NYT clip who basically made the song still lives in relative obscurity (you can find her on twitter, probably well paid, but still living without much fanfare), despite this song among others blowing up in the charts. The sad part is they don't even name her in the summary. She's "a 23-year old songwriter". The famous producers and vocalists get named, but she doesn't.

Very much the next Sia who lived in public obscurity for many years but was well known and highly regarding in the business and independent music scene.

Sarah won multiple APRA awards for her work (the ones the Australian music industry cares about) so she'll likely stay in high demand.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#516

Post by KMag »

tempestn wrote: post #503
part1of2 wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You did not define a conflict or the unintended consequence here

The unwanted consequence of the US second amendment is that the US has one of the highest gun death rates in the developed world.

The U.S. certainly has a problem with gun violence, but I fear gun access is the proximal problem while our cultural relationship with violence and revenge is the root of the problem. (See also death penalty support, recent violent protests in Oregon and Washington, etc.) Note that the areas with very high rates of legal gun ownership aren't the hotspots of gun violence [0]. Switzerland and several other Eurpean countries have very high rates of gun ownership, but low rates of gun violence. Certainly, fixing a sick culture is more difficult than reducing gun access, but I think long-term, we need to figure out how to be a more peaceful and forgiving society, or much of the gun violence will just shift to (granted, much less efficient) knife violence. I think improving America's culture of violence and revenge will also pay mental health dividends. Sometimes you really need a crutch or a bandaid, but it's important not to mistake it for an end-goal solution.

Do any of you have any insights into ways individuals can ensure they at least leave the culture less violent than they found it?

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/22/us/gun-ownership-violence...

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#517

Post by tom_mellior »

iso947 wrote: post #291
tom_mellior wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not from the Parliament. This is from the Council of Ministers. All shitty ideas in the EU come from there or from the Commission. These bodies are not elected and have very little, and very indirect, democratic legitimation.

They aren’t directly elected, but the minister is from the government of each country, which is elected (at least as most understand the term) Parliament is directly elected

> They aren’t directly elected, but the minister is from the government of each country, which is elected (at least as most understand the term)

Many ministers are initially elected to posts in their national parliament and then promoted into a government job. But this is not a real requirement, and many aren't. And even those that we elected, we elected for national jobs, not for the EU, and I do think that that makes a difference. This is what I mean by indirect legitimation.

> Parliament is directly elected

Yes.

And that leaves the Commission, which is mostly former-ministers-who-need-a-job and are appointed based on negotiations between the governments.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#518

Post by anticensor »

feanaro wrote: post #292
josho wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe generalize that further, a right to privacy.

Perhaps, but see Article 8 which is cited in your sibling comment. It already contains a right to privacy. But the term privacy is not very rigid. It can be taken and interpreted in various ways. It's certainly a good thing to mention it, but encryption needs to be mentioned explicitly, spelled out even. There cannot be any room for interpretation: citizens have a right to encrypt their communication, end-to-end with…

What about this tech-agnostic version: citizens have a right to deprive the unrelated citizens from accessing their communications using any means. Note that this includes E2E encryption, whisper, face-to-face private conversation, rubberhose encryption, noise insertion and steganography all in one.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#519

Post by Madzen__ »

adrianpike wrote: post #500
supportlocal4h wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you missed my point. Lawn mowers didn't get more dangerous. The level of danger hasn't gotten worse in that one respect. The level of trust might have changed. The acceptance of risk might have changed. I don't think that keeping my kid away from the lawn mower in order to protect them makes their life overall better or even safer. Lawn mowers are dangerous. But that doesn't mean they should be banned. As you…

How many people are killed by lawnmowers on a yearly basis?

90 in America.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#520

Post by throwaway201103 »

supportlocal4h wrote: post #417
nix23 wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Pretty much everybody loses their life somehow. Yeah that's called life. >Today I don't let my kids ride in the back of pickup trucks, and I'm nervous about the lawn mower. That's because you already infected with fear. It's not your Children's fault that you don't trust them with a lawn mower..it's you and probably your society that is the problem. >Some dangers and some fears need to be met head on. Yes like wear…

Perhaps you missed my point. Lawn mowers didn't get more dangerous. The level of danger hasn't gotten worse in that one respect. The level of trust might have changed. The acceptance of risk might have changed. I don't think that keeping my kid away from the lawn mower in order to protect them makes their life overall better or even safer. Lawn mowers are dangerous. But that doesn't mean they should be banned. As you…

Lawn mowers are safer today than they were 30 years ago. Still potentially dangerous. You point out to the kid: never let your feet go under there. Never reach your hand in here. Maybe throw an apple in to illustrate the effect. They get the message.

All that said, 8 might be a little young. I think I was around 10 when I started cutting the grass, but I don't really remember.

Post reply on HN