61–70 of 656 posts
Out of interest, what happens in the case of say an open source chat app developed outside the EU. Let's add that the developers are anonymous too, like truecrypt. What power does this legislation have then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The accepted solution is to have a constitution that says otherwise. Which is a bit complicated here, as the EU has no real constitution and this 'law' (really a regulation) is a blatant violation of the constitutions of countries that did choose to establish secrecy of correspondence.
I've commented this elsewhere, but rights in the US are generally much more absolute than here in Europe. For example, in the EU you technically have the right to freedom of expression, but you can also be arrested if you say something that could offend someone. Similarly rights to privacy are often ignored whenever a justification can be made that it's appropriate to do so. I don't know about elsewhere in the world,…
You probably mean hate speech.
We have laws like that too in Canada. It is a good thing.
I wonder where platforms like slack would land in all of this, and how would they go about akeeping people from just using their own encryption e.g. pgp over unencrypted channels? Is public key cryptography too weak to matter?
Out of interest, what happens in the case of say an open source chat app developed outside the EU. Let's add that the developers are anonymous too, like truecrypt. What power does this legislation have then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are no solutions to that which wouldn't sound absurd. But if you could get past absurdity... Politicians should agree to to be executed if they lose an election. Only those willing to risk their lives should be allowed to legislate. This also gives the voters the option of punishing those who pass onerous laws at the next election. If you need extra zing, this would also apply to recall elections, so they could…
Yeah let's ensure only the craziest, most desperate for power type to be the regulators. Hitler knew if he had lost, he would have been executed. Didn't stop him from going war.
The GP's idea is very bad. Quite to the contrary, losing power should not come with disastrous personal consequences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i think making your argument on free speech grounds would be stronger
How so? My point is that US constitutional protections on firearm ownership have undeniably eroded. The presence of text on the page did not prevent this erosion. I'm using gun rights as an example of a situation in which text granting a right becomes irrelevant if people stop believing in the values behind the text. People do believe in freedom of speech in the US, thankfully, even if they've stopped defending gun r…
Historically, courts have maintained that legislation is pursued under "good faith". This was the justification for not overturning ACA on the grounds of it being an unconstitutional tax: the lawmakers didn't mean to make it an unapportioned tax, even though it effectively is, so it's okay yall. Washington St just did this with income taxes on capital gains in direct violation of their state constitution a year or two ago.
Where I live, you cannot open carry. That is a direct violation of 2A, but the courts have said it's okay baby because it's not an undue burden to pay a fee and waste a day of your life. Pure nonsense. Just change the constitution for goodness sake.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so? My point is that US constitutional protections on firearm ownership have undeniably eroded. The presence of text on the page did not prevent this erosion. I'm using gun rights as an example of a situation in which text granting a right becomes irrelevant if people stop believing in the values behind the text. People do believe in freedom of speech in the US, thankfully, even if they've stopped defending gun r…
when you are talking to a european audience, they tend to be in favor of gun control so they don't care about erosion of those rights (like the people in the US who also favor eroding them, wording of the rules be damned) HN is to a large extent a popularity contest, and people here are more in favor of free speech than guns. the US record on protecting free speech is very good.
You have accidentally properly identified the european problem and precisely the reason that chat control will pass: shortsightedness. If people only rise up to protect rights "they need", soon no rights will be left.
Is CSA really that widespread in Europe that everyone's chat messages have to be monitored? And if it is that widespread, shouldn't they try to address it socially to prevent CSA as much as possible rather than try to catch just the subset of tech-savvy abusers, that too after they've already committed CSA?
The ultimate goal is for computers to run only authorized programs and to license and monitor development tools like the Soviets monitored typewriters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good luck preventing people from loading up a web page that runs a pure JavaScript (or WebAssembly) implementation of common cryptography algorithms and lets people copy and paste each other encrypted messages.
Chat Control wants to require on-device scanning, so if this becomes common they can move to mandating scanning at the OS or browser level as well.