EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

Post by nix23 » Mon, Nov 09, 2020, 9:07 AM UTC

IanSanders wrote: post #561

MinusGix wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do. Even though the world has become safer and more prosperous it is still dangerous to our health and sanity. That doesn't mean we should avoid all risk. What you are more talking about is the Politicians overstate the chance of dangers and they do it on the most evocative of topics (ex: terrorism, CP, etc). A high danger we're in is from the potential for our governments to entrench their own powers and encourag…

Politicians are part of the danger. Judging from the history, greater danger than the dangers we are allegedly being saved from

Post by ben_w » Mon, Nov 09, 2020, 9:07 AM UTC

intricatedetail wrote: post #407

ben_w wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The governments of each country in the EU, elected democratically, are the people who choose the specific law-writers (council of ministers) who you are critical of for proposing this law in this story. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Organs_of_the_European_Un... To the extent that conspiracies of “deep state” or “lobbyist” are involved, the only reason the EU is different to the member states themselves is that i…

And in this case lawyers role is to implement what EC proposed and MEPs voted in. Elected governments are like management of McDonalds franchise. People can choose chair layout or where napkins are located.

Post by BlueTemplar » Mon, Nov 09, 2020, 9:11 AM UTC

floatboth wrote: post #444

m4rtink wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also wven if it does not exhilarated user data now , it's one update from doing that tomorrow . Quite possible even via a targeted update on some specific people "not in favor". If it was open source there is some chance a backdoor would be spotted (eq. by Linux distropackage msintainers), but not when a company is pushing obfuscated binary blobs preatty much directly to users.

Well, not directly, for most people that would be via Apple/Google stores. And of course these stores could have secret functionality for shipping targeted updates. But if it exists, this means that 1) none of the developers working on the store backend decided to leak info about it and 2) none of the targets have had an expert look at their device to find an unusual update that wasn't seen by anyone else. Over time,…

Post by emteycz » Mon, Nov 09, 2020, 9:14 AM UTC

scrollaway wrote: post #312

withinboredom wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You think people have a native understanding of encryption? It’s easy. Tell people they’re speaking English to one other person who also speaks English at a dinner table. No one else in the world speaks English. You can look and sound like you’re talking about how excellent the food is, but really you’re saying how terrible it is... and no one on earth will ever know, other than the one person who understands you.

This is not a good way to explain encryption to people. Explaining the concept of a "key" is essential to explain why this doesn't work. - In your example, the contents can be deduced from the "encrypted" data, without the key. Indeed, there is no key, but rather a complex dictionary transformation. - A "backdoor" is merely teaching GCHQ to speak English. Sounds perfectly reasonable in your example. I'd argue the exa…

Post by unioncitizen5 » Mon, Nov 09, 2020, 9:23 AM UTC