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

771–780 of 780 posts

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#771

Post by einpoklum »

MayeulC wrote: post #769
einpoklum wrote: post #756

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

In Romanian, it's something like "you can't reconcile the lamb and the cabbage" (because the lamb eats the cabbage if they're together).

And in Hebrew it's "You can't eat the cake and leave it whole" or "you can't hold the rope from both edges".

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#772

Post by buisi »

Arathorn wrote: post #547
gfxgirl wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While adding backdoors to encryption is a bad idea my gut sys decentralized reputation is just a bad. Most here know the Black Mirror episode "Nosedive". But it's worse than that, people on different sides of the political spectrum will work to "cancel" people of the other side by working to lower their rep via crowdsourcing. 4chan type groups will do the same for "the lulz", I can even imagine the ransomware people…

Totally agreed that badly designed rep systems can rapidly descend into Black Mirror territory. In Nosedive for instance the score you get is absolute, while the thing we’re proposing here is entirely relative and subjective. The idea is to empower users to maintain their own view of the world. If a voting ring of idiots conspire to try to trash someone’s reputation... you’d filter out the voting ring from your reput…

Unfortunately, I don't think that'll work. For it to work, you would need every actor to play along, otherwise someone could just move to Tor to do the exact same thing. I don't think it's possible to eliminate what they want to eliminate, and they will only push for more and more.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#773

Post by buisi »

Arathorn wrote: post #704
contravariant wrote: post #678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you've answered this point already somewhere but how exactly are you planning to make censorship (for lack of a better word) stand out?

Overloading the word 'censorship' is going to get a bit confusing here ;) "Censorship", meaning: "malicious server or ISP silently blocks or withholds traffic from you" is a risk in Matrix today, completely independently of the reputation stuff being discussed here. The mitigation is to get rid of servers (and even ISPs), as per https://matrix.org/blog/2020/06/02/introducing-p-2-p-matrix/ "Censorship", meaning: "your…

Are the blocklists public? I thought these schemes involved uploading files to a "trusted third party" like Microsoft, and for them to decide if the files are lawful?

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#774

Post by buisi »

vorpalhex wrote: post #495
Veedrac wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

1a - Because that worked out so well for HDMI? It'll be what, maybe 90 days before those "law enforcement keys" are public? 1b - If it's already backdoored then there is no need for such an act, the problem is already solved. 2 - It's ineffective for it's stated goal because the stated goal is not the real goal. The goal is to enable a continued abuse of power, one which is already ongoing, and one which produces no…

Sex trafficking is a very difficult problem to address. Even if you were to shutdown an online network, someone could fly to a third world country to personally do it, and there are always going to be takers lining up.

People in third world countries are poor, and may be desperate. A purely technical solution is not going to address this. Rather, we need ways to lift people out of poverty, and improve their standard of living. No one should ever have to live like that to survive.

I don't know if it is possible to stop child pornography (anyone anywhere in the world can create it and anyone anywhere can view it), but it should be able to reduce the amount of sex abuse in the world, if the government were to pursue prevention initiatives to stop it where ever possible.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#775

Post by EliRivers »

intricatedetail wrote: post #410
m4rtink wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Czech pirat party is dping rather well on both local and european level - it meeds a lot of work, but it can be done!

It's much less work to convince one country than dozens.

Which is why we can now watch our protections and human rights and other such vanish into the distance. Without the need to convince dozens of other countries to join in, the UK can fuck itself over. The greatest threat to the liberties of the British people remains its own government and ruling classes.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#776

Post by jordanbeiber »

agensaequivocum wrote: post #740
jordanbeiber wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact so many people feel they need a gun for safety is the first and biggest issue IMO. This is fueled by movies and culture - have the gun in your possession and you’ll automatically win the fight - that was easy! I’ve read countless comments from Americans that they have a gun to shoot intruders. Statistics telling you there’s a bigger chance someone else will get hurt be damned. These ideas are have to be fuel…

> This is fueled by movies and culture - have the gun in your possession and you’ll automatically win the fight No. It's not automatic. But my wife has a much better chance against a 250lb 6ft man with one than without one.

That is still assuming a lot of things IMO.

I’d love to see stats on these scenarios... are they common?

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#778

Post by thw0rted »

shostak wrote: post #768
IgorPartola wrote: post #765

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is also a great example of how you can follow what sounds like logical principles to a completely bonkers end-state. Knowledge is protected but your bodily autonomy is not? Eesh.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#779

Post by thw0rted »

iandanforth wrote: post #238

I see this as follows: 1. Terrorism and trafficking of children will win the moral high ground. 2. App stores will be forced locale by locale to conform to these policies. 3. Most people will not notice or care. 4. This will be used by N-Eyes and totalitarian governments to quash dissent. 5. Meanwhile the tech crowd will create alternate app distribution mechanisms allowing those who care to communicate securely. 6.…

#6 is the whole point.

As is always the case with these fights, the fundamental fact is that the war is asymmetric. We have to be right all of the time, they have to be right once. We have to break all encryption everywhere forever, they have to find one non-backdoor'd solution.

If you really hold the backdoor proponents' feet to the fire, they'll admit that yes, this is true, but at least with a backdoor you can catch some of the terrorists/child abusers/etc, some of the time (of course, you only get the dumb ones...), and we wouldn't want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. But of course, saying you want to compromise all privacy in the developed world to catch a few dumb traffickers doesn't get votes.

Re: EU Draft Council Declaration Against Encryption [pdf]

#780

Post by freeflight »

agensaequivocum wrote: post #739
freeflight wrote: post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some states have very strict regimes that compare to Switzerland's, and in some you can just walk into a store and buy long guns if you're of age. Which is exactly why the regulation in the US does not work; Anybody who disagrees with their states particular laws can just cross into another state to get their fix there. That why any proper regulation needs to happen on a federal level so individual states won't act…

> Anybody who disagrees with their states particular laws can just cross into another state to get their fix there. If you mean purchase something you cannot buy in your state, that's not true. Interstate handgun purchases are completely banned and long guns can only be sold if the sale complies with both state laws.

I mean bypassing state-level mandatory background checks by travelling to a state where those are not required for private sales and just buy a firearm there with zero regulation and documentation.
Post reply on HN