Live data from Hacker News

Chat Control Must Be Stopped – Now

threema.ch

71–80 of 341 posts

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped – Now

#71
post #26
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost nothing is. Local politicians fail upwards to the EU (at least in Germany) or some private job, if they fail at all. Most of the time, you can do what you want, and the voters don’t care.

"and the voters don’t care." Then why did so many vote extremist anti EU? There just has been EU election in germany and the nationalist gained a lot. And none of the big parties otherwise said a clear no to that, so what could I do, except vote a small party against that, but too small to really do something? Voters care. But they see often no point in voting anymore.

> Then why did so many vote extremist anti EU?

Like the parties (again, here in Germany, don’t know enough about other countries) that manage to be even more corrupt? That actually supports my point. The biggest winners here were the anti-EU-pro-Russia AfD and the pro-EU CDU both with the biggest corruption scandals in recent years, and the CDU is even the party that sent the horror that is EU commission president von der Leyen.

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped – Now

#72

Can someone explain to me why, over time, democratic states tend to drift into mass surveillance ? Is it beacuse a lot of people feel unsafe or is it because the people supposed to ensure our security see it as the "easiest" or most effective way to do their job? Is there so much benefit to having a fuctioning mass surveilance apparatus, and if yes, who benefits of it if not the people for whom these rules for in the…

"But the pedos" is a guaranteed way to lure voters.

Besides, there is a laaaarge amount of influential, rich and well connected people like Ashton Kutcher/Thorn willing to profit off of it. They're selling out our freedoms for personal gain.

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped – Now

#73

Can someone explain to me why, over time, democratic states tend to drift into mass surveillance ? Is it beacuse a lot of people feel unsafe or is it because the people supposed to ensure our security see it as the "easiest" or most effective way to do their job? Is there so much benefit to having a fuctioning mass surveilance apparatus, and if yes, who benefits of it if not the people for whom these rules for in the…

> democratic states

Democracy is a spectrum and it comes in many flavors.

For example nobody voted for von der Leyen, the French voted against the EU referendum in 2005 but the government still went with it, there hasn't been any referendum in France since

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped – Now

#75
post #68

It should be possible to have a private chat without spying. However I have an unpopular opinion, interested to hear what others might think: We should eliminate anonymity online. If you go on the internet everything you do should be tied back to your name. This can be done using device attestation. Everyone gets a private key tied to their name/address. This is compatible with free speech. In fact it promotes free s…

[deleted]

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped – Now

#76
post #68

It should be possible to have a private chat without spying. However I have an unpopular opinion, interested to hear what others might think: We should eliminate anonymity online. If you go on the internet everything you do should be tied back to your name. This can be done using device attestation. Everyone gets a private key tied to their name/address. This is compatible with free speech. In fact it promotes free s…

> We should eliminate anonymity online.

Unless you're careful and quite tech literate this is already the case

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped – Now

#77
post #68

It should be possible to have a private chat without spying. However I have an unpopular opinion, interested to hear what others might think: We should eliminate anonymity online. If you go on the internet everything you do should be tied back to your name. This can be done using device attestation. Everyone gets a private key tied to their name/address. This is compatible with free speech. In fact it promotes free s…

It sounds like a solid idea (bot rejection anyone), but I wonder if governments would use it to quarantine users instead. Would I have to pay a bi-yearly fee to maintain and reissue my online passport?

All in all I would be willing to be quarantined if that meant the bots would suddenly die.

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped – Now

#78

Can someone explain to me why, over time, democratic states tend to drift into mass surveillance ? Is it beacuse a lot of people feel unsafe or is it because the people supposed to ensure our security see it as the "easiest" or most effective way to do their job? Is there so much benefit to having a fuctioning mass surveilance apparatus, and if yes, who benefits of it if not the people for whom these rules for in the…

It is not about democracy, it is about bullshit jobs in IT sector. Too many useds are fooled with proprietary software.

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped – Now

#79
post #68

It should be possible to have a private chat without spying. However I have an unpopular opinion, interested to hear what others might think: We should eliminate anonymity online. If you go on the internet everything you do should be tied back to your name. This can be done using device attestation. Everyone gets a private key tied to their name/address. This is compatible with free speech. In fact it promotes free s…

> This would also reduce the need for govt monitoring because any chat online could be "turned in" by an informer and then any criminals identified.

This is where you completely break your premise, this is Stasi levels of informing, asking for the population to spy on each other. It's not healthy to society when you feel that any other person you interact with might be informing on you to the State, you leave a very wide avenue open for misuse when the State changes its rulings on what's considered criminal.

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped – Now

#80
post #68

It should be possible to have a private chat without spying. However I have an unpopular opinion, interested to hear what others might think: We should eliminate anonymity online. If you go on the internet everything you do should be tied back to your name. This can be done using device attestation. Everyone gets a private key tied to their name/address. This is compatible with free speech. In fact it promotes free s…

I think it's worth debating the idea, exploring what it would look like. But I think there's a lot of hidden complexity there.

1. Who is allowed to detect, process or store your identity? For what purposes?

2. What about "right to forget"? Does the data need to be destroyed after a certain period?

3. Who manufacturers and sells these private keys? What happens if I lose mine, or it gets stolen?

4. How does this work internationally? Can a key from China access a system in the US?

Post reply on HN