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

621–630 of 780 posts

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#621

Post by Shingbogle »

feanaro wrote: post #589
londons_explore wrote: post #583

A middle ground in the encryption/privacy debate seems to be "the authorities can spy on what I do, but have to notify me first ". That could be implemented by having full e2e encryption as today, but requiring clients to hand over the keys when requested by a local governing authority. The client/app would then immediately show to the user "Local Authorities have viewed a copy of this message". Why isn't this middle…

I don't know why they are not proposing this instead (well, I do, because they'd prefer more power), but I do not find this proposal acceptable either. The fact that you might be able to see that a government read a message of yours offers little assurance that the government will not start abusing this power. After all, what possible recourse do we have after we start seeing these notifications on our messages? Cert…

But they already do that with warrants. As long as they have a warrant and aren't breaking encryption by putting in backdoors, they should have the ability to listen in on conversations.

That's how it is now without encryption.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#622

Post by dgmdoug »

I think the title here is overly inflammatory.

To suggest there is a 'fair right' to data behind encryption for goverment use, to my mind, somewhat misses the point of encryption and privacy in general. This is the point I believe we should be arguing.

Your representaiton of the article as a 'declaration against encryption' somewhat undermines this argument, and polarises it into an 'us vs them' debate.

For accuracy, this document is titled:

"Draft Council Declaration on Encryption - Security through encryption and security despite encryption"

Its pretty handwavy, overly general, and seems to call for some sort of 'back door' from the tech companies. Missing the point really, anybody wishing to use strong encryption for criminal purpoes can do so so with very few resources, and quite independently.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#623

Post by Krisando »

Veedrac wrote: post #493
Arathorn wrote: post #43

https://matrix.org/blog/2020/10/19/combating-abuse-in-matrix... is our attempt at Matrix to spell out what a catastrophic idea it is to backdoor end-to-end encryption (and to provide an alternative proposal in the form of using decentralised reputation to mitigate abuse. We're kicking decentralised reputation work off in earnest tomorrow, so watch this space to see how it goes). I guess we'll be weighing in on the EU…

While I know I'm just attracting downvotes, your points, in order: 1) a: It's really not that hard to think of ways to solve backdoor problems with a mix of technical and social approaches. For example, having shared keys burned onto silicon, making physical access mandatory, and split between both the law enforcement and the company, so that both parties must knowingly engage. b: Most software already practically ba…

> but about networks which are systematically and in actuality doing things like trafficking children for sexual abuse

The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation. --Adolf Hitler

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#624

Post by raxxorrax »

Arathorn wrote: post #43

https://matrix.org/blog/2020/10/19/combating-abuse-in-matrix... is our attempt at Matrix to spell out what a catastrophic idea it is to backdoor end-to-end encryption (and to provide an alternative proposal in the form of using decentralised reputation to mitigate abuse. We're kicking decentralised reputation work off in earnest tomorrow, so watch this space to see how it goes). I guess we'll be weighing in on the EU…

I don't like it because they advocate a social credit system as an alternative, but their criticism against back doors is on point.

I am in communities that don't use such tools and somehow there is no problem that would require any, but if that is the preference you have the option. I don't see further issues.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#625

Post by raxxorrax »

andor wrote: post #343
part1of2 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about proposing encryption as an EU human right? Has that been attempted?

I don't think that would help. Most rights are not absolute and can be restricted by other laws. For instance: * Freedom of movement is clearly restricted for people on a jail sentence. * We have secrecy of communication but also lawful interception.

We also have unlawful state interception as evidenced by leaks from Snowden and multiple others. I think states currently should not get any concessions from secure communication platforms.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#626

Post by kmlx »

enriquto wrote: post #592

Anti-encryption is a red herring. The real fight is against general purpose computing. If I control my CPU, then I can easily implement the Diffie-Hellman algorithm and communicate secretly with my friends around the world. Any ban against encryption is ineffective unless it attacks general purpose computing. We live in scary times!

i’m sure some politicians will understand this as:

“ok then let’s attack general purpose computing/your control of the cpu”

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#627

Post by jstanley »

lki876 wrote: post #564
supportlocal4h wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do live in a dangerous world. Pretty much everybody loses their life somehow. It's amazing to me that so many of my peers survived childhood. It is pretty stupid to try to jump a car on your bicycle without a landing ramp. Or play catch with lit M80s. And those weren't our dumbest ideas. When I was a kid every 8-year-old pushed a lawn mower around once a week. And rode in the back of a pickup truck. Today I don't…

> Pretty much everybody loses their life somehow. Everyone. Everyone dies. That includes you and me. The question is not if but how and what you do with the time you have.

So far only about 92% of people have died.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#628

Post by fakedang »

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #540
fakedang wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fun fact, almost all of that surveillance is operated by private players - pubs, shops, small stores, etc. The UK never had a Big Brother set up unlike some mainland cities. People keep bringing up this bullshit statistic without going deeper. And it's not like the police can barge in and demand video.

> UK never had a Big Brother set up I don't even know where to start.

I mean sure there is the GCHQ and all of its shenanigans, but none closely resembling a system where the police track your movements every single second via video feed.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#629

Post by Aerroon »

I expected nothing less from the EU. They say that strong encryption is important to our society. It is important for privacy. And then they go on explaining how they're going to undermine that encryption. I absolutely hate this double speak. They do it all the time in the EU.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#630

Post by enriquto »

kmlx wrote: post #626
enriquto wrote: post #592

Anti-encryption is a red herring. The real fight is against general purpose computing. If I control my CPU, then I can easily implement the Diffie-Hellman algorithm and communicate secretly with my friends around the world. Any ban against encryption is ineffective unless it attacks general purpose computing. We live in scary times!

i’m sure some politicians will understand this as: “ok then let’s attack general purpose computing/your control of the cpu”

Of course they already do. That's why I say it's scary. We live in Stallman's "The Right To Read" dystopia.
Post reply on HN