EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#761

Post by Krisando » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 3:59 PM UTC

Veedrac wrote: post #702

Krisando wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe this is a misquote. It is a legitimate known translation, not a misquote from the Ralph Manheim translation of Mein Kampf (ISBN 0395078016 / year 1943), page 403. Other translations have similar wording on the page, although not in such a nice succint sentence. Manheim was known to have gone into great effort to create an exact English equivalent of Hitler's work for Mein Kampf. > It's also a morally horr…

> The point of the quote is to show there are no limits curtailing liberties, not an absolute we shouldn't bother. The attempt to spin the quote into something else, probably because, you wish to "protect the children" is proving the point. This is not even remotely how you used it. My argument is one where there are obvious checks and balances, where government power is clearly and significantly limited, and little…

> Yet because I mentioned that there are actual people being actually raped, I get Godwin's Law'd

I looked at your posting history, not much Hitler mentions in responses relating to those topics. This is hyperbolic.

> no matter how moderate my position

If your position was moderate then "Most software already practically backdoored already" would have been sufficient.

> Anything even remotely compromising the Bottom Line (universal perfect cryptographic security) is Hitler.

You're way too focused on Hitler. Pretend it's not Hitler, the point is still valid.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#762

Post by yogthos » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 5:04 PM UTC

sharken wrote: post #205

ben_w wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend of mine here in Berlin is from Hong Kong. Thanks to the Pro-Democracy protests in Hong Kong, the general nature of which my friend confirmed, I know about how to use traffic cones to defend against tear gas. I’ve personally witnessed “we don’t like how Corona is being handled” marches here in Berlin. The difference is massive.

That’s a great point, thankfully Europe is more humane than China in dealing with riots. The concern for how Corona is handled in Europe, is that the temporary measures for dealing with Corona become permanent. In Denmark these temporary measures are supposed to expire in March 2021, but it’s anyone’s guess if that arrangement is honored by the government.

> thankfully Europe is more humane than China in dealing with riots

Watching police brutality in countries like France does not give me that impression in the slightest.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#763

Post by romanoderoma » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 5:43 PM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #755

romanoderoma wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 importa…

> yet regardless of motivation.

Regardless of the motivation USA is more dangerous than Somalia (4.31/100k) - of course there are other reasons to be scared there,being killed is only one among many - but still it is kinda bad IMO.

If we count, for example, people killed by the police, there have been 1,004 killings in USA in 2019, 3 every million, 34 every 10 million residents. compared to Germany, whose police is said to be quite violent, it's 30 times more (Germany is around 1 per 10 million residents) and 170 times worse than Japan (0.2 per 10 millions)

All in all, as much as I know numbers don't tell the whole truth, something needs to change over there .

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#764

Post by fakedang » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 7:44 PM UTC

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #652

fakedang wrote: post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well then there is nothing to worry about haha, you sure seem like a splendid lad and the coppers won't ever knock on your door for wrong-think will they, because that has never happened right, that simply isn't a thing in the UK, couldn't be me I surely have only officially approved opinions haha I love this new law

Funnily when I was in London, coppers knocked on my door at least twice a year on average. It was a running gag towards the end.

Considering that I come from a third world nation where the cops often pull members of my community aside for searches and special checks, the British police force for all their faults are a breath of fresh air. I've been exactly in that spot, with police using surveillance data and national ID data to arrest protestors and put them under false charges. I've personally almost been arrested for no reason except for 1.) walking in the night alone and 2.) walking at night in suspicious clothing (i.e. T-shirt and shorts).

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#765

Post by IgorPartola » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 11:13 PM UTC

Zak wrote: post #697

IgorPartola wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah you are correct. But let’s make a physical analogy. If I can make an uncrackable safe in which I put evidence of a crime along with lots of other secrets. The police come to my door with a reasonable search warrant. I tell them I have the key to the safe but will not tell them where it is. They know they have absolutely no way to get into my safe without taking about 100 years and $2 billion. What happens next?

The law isn't entirely settled on the matter, but some rulings so far suggest that the government can compel the surrender of a physical key, but not the disclosure of a combination.

So by that definition since my private key is a lot like a combo to my safe, the government cannot compel me to disclose it? That sound like good news.

Also, I guess I am storing all my keys at STL files that get 3D printed and destroyed upon first use. Hello protection from search warrants!

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#766

Post by ars » Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 12:14 AM UTC

hvis wrote: post #669

ars wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you make it cost $30,000 worth of computer time to decrypt, the vast majority of people would have privacy, yet the government could afford to tap important targets (and it would also block government fishing expeditions - they would be too expensive).

The government could, and any medium-sized corporation could as well. Ahoy, industrial espionage! Don't forget the Moore's law as well (even though it's taken a hit lately). Come next year, it will cost 15000, in another few years it's 7500, and some time after it will cost And also, please remember that the journalists and human rights activists use encryption to keep their correspondence concealed chiefly from the…

> The government could, and any medium-sized corporation could as well. Ahoy, industrial espionage!

It's not actually that easy to tap into internet communications. Even without encryption it would be a huge challenge to spy on someone.

A government could obviously do it. A medium-sized corporation? Not likely.

> because the legislation rarely moves that quickly

Just legislate "encryption that takes no more than $80,000 to break, indexed for inflation", and it will auto adjust as computers get faster. (i.e. legislate the cost, not the key-strength.)

> the journalists and human rights activists use encryption to keep their correspondence concealed chiefly from the government. And there are other governments on this planet, not just US.

Those other governments can just outlaw encryption then entirely. My idea is specifically for governments that are gentle enough to allow normal people privacy. Authoritarian governments are not going to be limited by a law.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#767

Post by hvis » Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 12:33 AM UTC

ars wrote: post #766

hvis wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government could, and any medium-sized corporation could as well. Ahoy, industrial espionage! Don't forget the Moore's law as well (even though it's taken a hit lately). Come next year, it will cost 15000, in another few years it's 7500, and some time after it will cost And also, please remember that the journalists and human rights activists use encryption to keep their correspondence concealed chiefly from the…

> The government could, and any medium-sized corporation could as well. Ahoy, industrial espionage! It's not actually that easy to tap into internet communications. Even without encryption it would be a huge challenge to spy on someone. A government could obviously do it. A medium-sized corporation? Not likely. > because the legislation rarely moves that quickly Just legislate "encryption that takes no more than $80,…

> A government could obviously do it. A medium-sized corporation? Not likely.

A medium-sized corporation can be an Internet provider. Or have a deal with one.

> Those other governments can just outlaw encryption then entirely.

If the EU criminalizes encryption, people living in those other countries wouldn't be able to use private communications (to hide from their oppressive governments) in the popular chat apps which usually target US and EU markets. Whether their governments outlaw encryption or not.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#768

Post by shostak » Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 5:32 AM UTC

IgorPartola wrote: post #765

Zak wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law isn't entirely settled on the matter, but some rulings so far suggest that the government can compel the surrender of a physical key, but not the disclosure of a combination.

So by that definition since my private key is a lot like a combo to my safe, the government cannot compel me to disclose it? That sound like good news. Also, I guess I am storing all my keys at STL files that get 3D printed and destroyed upon first use. Hello protection from search warrants!

It's the password required to decrypt the secret key that you would not need to disclose. They'll likely end up with the encrypted secret key, but no way to access it. That's because the password is something you know, and divulging it could mean self-incrimination.

Courts have ruled, for example, that the police can compel a suspect to put their face or finger up to a phone to unlock it through biometric means, but a suspect cannot be compelled to divulge their PIN. That's why using biometrics, while convenient, is a bad idea.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#769

Post by MayeulC » Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 11:31 AM UTC

einpoklum wrote: post #756

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

My bad :)

Well, you got the point. In french, we'd say: "You can't both have butter and money for it" -- greedy butter sellers.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#770

Post by bildung » Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 1:36 PM UTC

NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #682

bildung wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It appears this study shows that the majority of suspects for crimes are immigrants, which is an important distinction. I have no knowledge about the situation in Sweden, but in Germany there are known statistical problems like immigrants both having a higher chance of becoming suspects ("Tatverdachteffekt") and crimes where an immigrant is suspected are more likely to be reported ("Anzeigeeffekt"). Stastistics about…

I would bet basically anything that inferring "did commit" from "is suspect" works very well in aggregate.

"Recent figures show that only 15 percent of all crimes are solved." https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/5399870

That low resolution rate alone introduces a margin of error that is larger than the difference between immigrant and non-immigrant suspects. It is therefore possible that the much higher immigrant suspect rate is entirely a result of biases.