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

751–760 of 780 posts

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#751

Post by pmfgpmfg »

freeflight wrote: post #527
part1of2 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Privacy is already a UHR according to UDHR article 12 [0] The problem with applying this is that the violation of privacy is not arbitrary , from the draft: > Law enforcement and judicial authorities must be able to access data in a lawful and targeted manner So this is framed as an matter of lawful and targeted intercept, not blanket bulk access, like pretty much all of the mass surveillance creep. [0] https://www.u…

> Law enforcement and judicial authorities must be able to access data in a lawful and targeted manner

The EU can certainly state this but I don't see why it must necessarily be true. One thought experiment to consider is if future technologies can read our private thoughts. The question to ask is whether access to these thoughts is allowed "in a lawful and targeted manner" as well. I'm not convinced that is afforded them against our will.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#752

Post by romanoderoma »

ben_w wrote: post #733
romanoderoma wrote: post #732

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good answer, but hyronically in USA you have 6 chances in 100 thousands to be murdered, in NK it's 6 in a million. Looks like the chimpanzee cells are not safer after all.

What’s your source? Wikipedia puts their intentional homicide rates at 4.96 and 4.40 per 100k respectively.

Homicide rate in NK (4.4 / 100k)

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/intentional-homicides-per...

Homicide rates from firearms NK (0.11 / 100k)

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/homicide-rates-from-firea...

Homicide rate in USA (6.1 / 100k)

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/homicide-rate?tab=chart&s...

Homicide rates from firearms USA (4.63 / 100k)

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/homicide-rates-from-firea...

So USA is more dangerous than NK in general and the chances of getting shot and killed (quoting "Can you criticise the government without you and your family being shot?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25032711) are 42 times worse in USA than in NK.

It means that for every person shot and killed in NK there are 42 in USA.

I was wrong anyway, it's not 6 chances in 1 million but ~1 chance in a million to get shot and killed in NK.

Compare it now to some other western country, for example Italy, my country:

homicide rate: 0.7 / 100k

homicide rate by firearms: 0.3 / 100k

Italy is quite average for the west, all the other western countries have similar stats, more or less.

What's wrong with the US?

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#753

Post by mritun »

BuildTheRobots wrote: post #17
camgunz wrote: post #4

We need to establish the use of encryption as a basic human right. I'm so tired of this cropping up every couple years.

> Article 8: Right to privacy - Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. - There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention…

“Everyone has right to privacy ... except for ... protection of economic interest, keeping of morals, preventing disorder ...”

That sounds more like declaration of “human rights” by China than by EU

shakes head

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#754

Post by phkahler »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #743
phkahler wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Law enforcement and judicial authorities must be able to access data in a lawful and targeted manner As is the case everywhere, they claim to want lawful access. In reality that's a minor point, what they really want is access to information without the knowledge of its owner. They're OK with needing approval or getting a warrant to read your email just as long as it's some 3rd party granting access so you won't k…

>They're OK with needing approval or getting a warrant to read your email just as long as it's some 3rd party granting access so you won't know. Of course nobody will ever examine the warrants or the approval process to ensure that "lawful access" is only granted when even the minimal evidentiary standards they require are met. And if they do someday examine those warrants, and find out that they are riddled with fal…

>> Of course nobody will ever examine the warrants or the approval process to ensure that "lawful access" is only granted when even the minimal evidentiary standards they require are met.

Yet another reason they dont want to serve warrants directly on individuals. If people know it's happening they'll question it and make public anything corrupt in the process.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#755

Post by ben_w »

romanoderoma wrote: post #752
ben_w wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s your source? Wikipedia puts their intentional homicide rates at 4.96 and 4.40 per 100k respectively.

Homicide rate in NK (4.4 / 100k) https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/intentional-homicides-per... Homicide rates from firearms NK (0.11 / 100k) https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/homicide-rates-from-firea... Homicide rate in USA (6.1 / 100k) https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/homicide-rate?tab=chart&s... Homicide rates from firearms USA (4.63 / 100k) https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/homicide-rates-from-firea... So U…

Ah, you’re referring to murder specifically by guns yet regardless of motivation.

Yeah, no. The figure here would be for those executed by the state for political crimes, though that will be hard to measure in both cases and I’d prefer to include in that count things like “unlawfully killed by cops who didn’t like you because you uncovered evidence of systematic racism” because I feel de-facto truths are more important than de-jure claims.

Then you get messy things like prison labour, and systematic policies of punishing entire communities for crimes (or protests) of a few from that community, and I don’t even know if you’re able to demonstrate any of these without being piled on by people defending any given example as unrelated/justified/propaganda/all of the above.

In fairness to you, this is a lot messier than my original comment. :)

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#756

Post by einpoklum »

MayeulC wrote: post #165

This is madness. Oh, of course, it's much easier to put a wrench into some gears to show that you are actually working at "solving the terrorism problem" than shaving the yaks, but that machine is actually important for other things. We live in a dangerous world. We cannot control everything. I don't mind a slight risk of terrorist attack on myself or my family (caveat lector: I am young), if that means greater freed…

> You can't both have your cake and eat it, too.

Actually you can have your cake and eat it. What you can't do is eat your cake and have it :-P

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#758

Post by yogthos »

jariel wrote: post #441
yogthos wrote: post #5

I was told that this only happens in authoritarian regimes like China. Turns out that while everybody was talking about China exact same things were happening here in the West. It's as if the whole focus on China was specifically designed to distract people from what's happening in their own countries.

"China exact same things were happening here in the West" No, there's really no comparison. A justice system, with reasonable information to infer a crime, seeking a warrant, using rules and regulations that have integrity, oversight, sanctioned by a Judge, following specific rules of access with certain, proportional criteria - is nothing like 'China'. In fact, we are already subject to that, everywhere in Europe, j…

>A justice system, with reasonable information to infer a crime, seeking a warrant, using rules and regulations that have integrity, oversight, sanctioned by a Judge, following specific rules of access with certain, proportional criteria - is nothing like 'China'.

LMFAO imagine saying that with a straight face in 2020 when US nabs people off the street in unmarked vans, and the judicial branch is staffed by political partisans actively working withe the republican party to steal the election.

You sweet summer child.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#759

Post by marcus_holmes »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #745
nitrogen wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to convey the idea that a real person is behind the faceless snooping, but usually people don't want a real person looking at their private info. "Do you want the cop who pulls your daughter over for forgetting to put the new sticker on her license plate to be able to look up all her beach photos during the stop?"

Cops want to be able to see everything. I don't think it comes necessarily from want to see nude in particular. Government likes power, the more they get, the more they want. That includes cops. They can't think beyond their own mind often. Most people would probably (at the beginning) use backdoors responsibly, but when it becomes mundane they will use it all the time and without compuncture. This leads to power gra…

This. Hence the proliferation of government access to CCTV footage that was originally collected for "serious crime" only.

It'll start out with "we only need to break your e2e encryption for serious crime cases", but in 10 years your local council will be breaking into your dm's to see if you used the right recycling bin.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#760

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

I have ranted against this many times, and I will say it one more time: the goal of war on encryption is not fight with terrorism. It is thought-policing.

Terrorists have easy ways to talk to each other securely, using GPG and email, or even SSH for that matter. They don't need fancy apps, filters, masks, stickers and other UX candy.

General population, on the other hand, wants these things, and uses a small number of apps that government wants to control. Turns out, not just in authoritarian countries, but in a supposedly democratic EU too. It is common people who are most affected by lack of privacy, and the goal is the same that STASI / KGB had: to filter out dissidents who might pose risk to those who are currenlty at the top.

Such powers can be abused easily, and it special services will be granted such powers, they WILL be abused. So a duty of every free person is to fight such proposals and kill them outright.

Post reply on HN