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

ChatControl: EU wants to scan all private messages, even in encrypted apps

metalhearf.fr

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 656 posts

Re: ChatControl: EU wants to scan all private messages, even in encrypted apps

#581

Post by Bender »

palata wrote: post #580
Bender wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is some kind of poor encryption. In fact it is exactly zero encryption both technically and legally. By using encoding I would not be breaking the law at all assuming encryption itself is actually outlawed . Encryption is mathematical obfuscation. This is only useful for text to/from the server of course. Local storage is still being scanned which means one still have to use a device that does not have local sca…

> In fact it is exactly zero encryption both technically and legally. I am not a lawyer (are you?), but technically you're wrong. "In cryptography, encryption (more specifically, encoding) is the process of transforming information in a way that, ideally, only authorized parties can decode." A caesar cipher is encryption. I don't see why chaining encodings wouldn't be. Technically and legally.

That's for lawyers and judges to work out. I will not concern myself with it.

Here is a legal definition: [1]

Making text or code unreadable to secure it for transmission or transport. Both the sender, the encryptor, and the receiver, the decryptor, have the means to translate text or code from source language to unreadable, undecipherable gibberish and back. The devices used have a key that is unique to the sender and receiver.

They used the word key. Our court case will have to decide if chained commands are legally equivalent to a "key". It's not even clear to me that is the universal legal definition. Time and grey wigs will tell. If they decide chained commands are a key that could have an interesting precedence on cases involving protecting users data, banking, military secrets, etc...

[1] - https://thelawdictionary.org/encryption/

Re: ChatControl: EU wants to scan all private messages, even in encrypted apps

#582

Post by palata »

Bender wrote: post #574
luxcem wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you really want to use encryption under a state where it's forbidden and communication are monitored you rather want to hide your encrypted messages inside cat pictures and tiktok videos. Because blatant obfuscation might trigger warning and draw attention. In the end it's not about making encryption technically impossible but illegal, and if you use it you'll be prosecuted.

Me personally, I will use chained encoding because technically and legally that is not encryption. I am fine with drawing attention. If my adversaries wish to spend a gazillian mega-bucks to try to win the arms race of decoding my chained encoding to see my mid-wit comments and pictures of a moose then I am doing a good job. When they change the laws to prevent encoding then we move on to another technique. There are…

Respectfully, you completely miss the point. You personally, you will still be able to use proper encryption.

It's mainstream platforms who won't be. Those platforms will be mandated to scan their own communications.

There is absolutely no reason to do this weird encoding stuff. Nobody says that it is illegal to encrypt stuff properly.

Re: ChatControl: EU wants to scan all private messages, even in encrypted apps

#583

Post by Bender »

palata wrote: post #582
Bender wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Me personally, I will use chained encoding because technically and legally that is not encryption. I am fine with drawing attention. If my adversaries wish to spend a gazillian mega-bucks to try to win the arms race of decoding my chained encoding to see my mid-wit comments and pictures of a moose then I am doing a good job. When they change the laws to prevent encoding then we move on to another technique. There are…

Respectfully, you completely miss the point. You personally, you will still be able to use proper encryption. It's mainstream platforms who won't be. Those platforms will be mandated to scan their own communications. There is absolutely no reason to do this weird encoding stuff. Nobody says that it is illegal to encrypt stuff properly.

Well in that case I will use my silly chained encoding and their fuzzy scans of files on the mainstream platforms will have to figure out what to do with it.

For what it's worth I myself do not use these platforms. I just want to get people thinking about mitigating options. I use my own self hosted forums, chat servers, sftp servers, chan servers, voice chat servers and so on. Even then it can be useful to obfuscate text and files in the event someone is using a fondle-slab. I try to discourage fondle slabs.

Re: ChatControl: EU wants to scan all private messages, even in encrypted apps

#584

Post by AlexandrB »

1718627440 wrote: post #528
AlexandrB wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oral violence is an oxymoron. It's dangerous to conflate words and violence because then words quickly become a justification for violence.

Why? How do you define violence? Harming people? Insults and false accusations can have much greater harm to a life then a broken leg. > violence because then words quickly become a justification for violence When you don't have a way to fight back and make something stop, without resorting to physical aggression, then your only way is to punch back. When the legal system allows you to fight back, then you can walk a…

Insults cannot have greater harm than just about any physical injury. False accusations already have a legal recourse, as they're defamation.

Have you had a broken leg? When you're young it's an alright thing to deal with, when you're older it can be life altering (it might hurt forever or alter your gait). However most spontaneous violence doesn't result in broken legs but rather hits to the head which can very quickly end up at CTEs or other brain trauma.

In an equal society, you really don't want actual violence to be on the same spectrum as speech of any kind. One problem is that ~50% of the population has a massive natural advantage in the realm of actual violence. Would a husband beating his wife because of "violent words" she inflicted on him be ok under the "speech is violence" rubric?

Re: ChatControl: EU wants to scan all private messages, even in encrypted apps

#586

Post by gambiting »

8fingerlouie wrote: post #560
gambiting wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way? Most EU countries are for it, so of course they are going to implement it. Nothing to do with sovereignty.

except for some countries, the right to privacy is also written in the constitution, which would require changing said constitution, which is probably a lot harder than just implementing a law. I can't say what it takes in every country, but in Denmark the procedure is as follows : - The proposed change must pass a vote in parliament. - There must then be an election to parliament. - The new parliament must also vote…

Sounds like Danes have nothing to worry about then.

Re: ChatControl: EU wants to scan all private messages, even in encrypted apps

#587

Post by gambiting »

snapcaster wrote: post #522
gambiting wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which of course never happened, as each member country retains full sovereignty in every possible way you can think of, which is actually fully enshrined in the way EU works.

Except for regulations on commerce, control of their currency and a removal of democratic elections for leaders right?

>>regulations on commerce

Which ones exactly, and please be specific.

>>control of their currency

I mean, no one was forced to take the euro? The countries that did it agreed to it at their own state level first. And there are many countries that have agreed to it initially and then changed their minds and didn't do it. Yeah sounds like loss of sovereignty to me.

>>a removal of democratic elections for leaders

I'm sorry I think I must have been sleeping in the last 30 years - when did that happen, exactly?

Re: ChatControl: EU wants to scan all private messages, even in encrypted apps

#588

Post by preisschild »

danielscrubs wrote: post #512
ohman876 wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If this gets pushed through, you will gradually lose control of your government A little bit off-topic but so called president of the EU is not elected, nor are the figures in so called EU commission :)

Brexit was an awful thing, BUT it will increase democracy for both parties. EU needs to be made more democratic or we need to severely limit its power, as its original intent, because the current show is just a farce.

The "current show" is just because member states don't want to give up responsibilities to the EU, hence why we have the Commission. In a more federal EU the parliament would have more power.

Re: ChatControl: EU wants to scan all private messages, even in encrypted apps

#589

Post by victorbjorklund »

DeusExMachina wrote: post #554
victorbjorklund wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EU commission president isn’t directly elected, but neither is the US. President. Voter choose electors who then pick the US president. In EU: voters elect national parties that form groups in the Parliament, which then elects the Commission President.

The two are not comparable. In the US, the presidential candidate is known in advance and people vote mostly for the candidate they want, even if indirectly. In the EU, no party runs with a candidate for the commission. Those are decided only after the election and are often people that would have lost a party votes if they were known in advance.

So they are both elected indirectly but US president candidates are more well known for a longer time. Got it.

Re: ChatControl: EU wants to scan all private messages, even in encrypted apps

#590

Post by Levitz »

palata wrote: post #417
Levitz wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because there was an expectation of privacy. That expectation is no longer there.

Privacy from who? Law enforcement has been leveraging that forever. But ChatControl won't prevent the encryption for anyone who is not the receiver of the reports. And the receiver is the equivalent of "law enforcement", right?

>Privacy from who? Law enforcement has been leveraging that forever.

Not without legal proceedings. The population would have been absolutely outraged if the government just decided to read all of their mail one random day in the 90s.

There's a reason the whole idea was supposed to be a conspiracy theory, the population literally didn't believe something like that could happen.

Post reply on HN