Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Statement on EU-US Cooperation on Turning Public Opinion Against Encryption

globalencryption.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 240 posts

Re: Statement on EU-US Cooperation on Turning Public Opinion Against Encryption

#81

Post by dalbasal »

CrampusDestrus wrote: post #18

I have no problem with the police hacking into devices. They have the right to use bugs and find exploits just like they have the right to pick a safe of force a door. But backdoors and unacceptable, that's like mandating that every house have microphones in every room connected to the police center

There comes a point where reasoning about rights by analogy loses its bite... imo.

Digital rights, digital ownership, digital business models, privacy, security, speech, digital policing... they're all very different from their analog analogs.

The differences between A & B are less pronounced in the digital realm.

Police hacking into devices has more in common, practically and culturally, with signals intelligence than it does with ordinary policing.

I don't disagree with you. I just don't agree that "it's very simple." We need to invent or adopt novel concepts, not insist that nothing has changed.

Re: Statement on EU-US Cooperation on Turning Public Opinion Against Encryption

#82

Post by AlecSchueler »

totetsu wrote: post #44
CrampusDestrus wrote: post #18

I have no problem with the police hacking into devices. They have the right to use bugs and find exploits just like they have the right to pick a safe of force a door. But backdoors and unacceptable, that's like mandating that every house have microphones in every room connected to the police center

I was thinking about this today. Like we watch a moive about cold war times and see the gmen or the stasi doing some unbelievable intrusive surveillance and think wow what times they would have been to live in, and at the same time my every movement for the past 10 years when I had a cellphone in my pocket is in a database somewhere and I barely think about it.

I think the difference is that in those situations the people had no say in what was and wasn't acceptable and some of the things we take for granted as basic freedoms may have been outlawed and targeted. This is why you can feel comfortable with it but they could not: there's not a huge disparity between what you want to do or say and what you're allowed to do or say, and you feel the punishment for doing or saying as you shouldn't is acceptable.

Re: Statement on EU-US Cooperation on Turning Public Opinion Against Encryption

#83

Post by zoklet-enjoyer »

8n4vidtmkvmk wrote: post #39
hulitu wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Interesting how our leaders see their role not as representing our interests, but in shaping our interests. Someone called it "Manufacturing consent". I think this name describes it pretty good. What these politicians do not seem to underestand is that those law may turn against them at a later point in time.

or instantly. politicians are people and I'm pretty sure they use phones. if a backdoor is added it will almost instantly be used against them I'm sure. even well meaning apps are hacked.

It's a moral obligation to do this to those who impose restrictions like this on the public.

Re: Statement on EU-US Cooperation on Turning Public Opinion Against Encryption

#84

Post by kevviiinn »

alphanullmeric wrote: post #77
fleventynine wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused, are you suggesting that malnourished kids should pay for their own lunch (or for that matter, education?). There are some services we have to collectively pay for to live in a stable society.

I’m suggesting that someone not willing to pay their own fair share should not pretend others are not willing to pay theirs.

But you aren't answering the question, if a program for people in poverty isn't funded by society as a whole, are you having the people in poverty fund it because they're the ones who use it? Your argument seems to break down under examination

Re: Statement on EU-US Cooperation on Turning Public Opinion Against Encryption

#85

Post by 2devnull »

fatcat500 wrote: post #19

Interesting how our leaders see their role not as representing our interests, but in shaping our interests. There exists an entire subject in political science dealing with how to increase compliance with the schemes of regulators (see Nudge Theory). The mistake they make is a classic short-run vs. long-run miscalculation. In the short-run, you can get away with these kinds of tactics to increase compliance. For exam…

I had a nice dialog with GPT (davinci) that made me reconsider very similar reticence I felt about nudging. I think nudges can be done in ways that are transparent, ethical and long run net positive. But clearly it’s a very complicated subject.

Re: Statement on EU-US Cooperation on Turning Public Opinion Against Encryption

#87

Post by alphanullmeric »

kevviiinn wrote: post #84
alphanullmeric wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m suggesting that someone not willing to pay their own fair share should not pretend others are not willing to pay theirs.

But you aren't answering the question, if a program for people in poverty isn't funded by society as a whole, are you having the people in poverty fund it because they're the ones who use it? Your argument seems to break down under examination

I answered the question before it was asked. If you want such a program to exist, you pay for it. If your idea is to make me pay for it, you don’t believe in paying your fair share. Whether or not it is practical to follow my rule to the absolute is a different question. I’m just tired of hearing the fair share people justify not paying their fair share.

Re: Statement on EU-US Cooperation on Turning Public Opinion Against Encryption

#88

Post by ClumsyPilot »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #80
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point of view falls apart when crime enters the picture. Criminal law is just another form of regulation. Somehow we decided that taking cocaine is a crime. And that pedophiles are criminals. And then government tries to ensure compliance with criminal law. People generally agree that it is fit and proper for government to act, through education and other means, to ensure most people aren't criminals. You might…

I think the difference is criminal law seeks compliance with the laws as they are, but this manufacturing of consent seeks compliance on bills when the elecorate may well note vote in their favour otherwise. Does that make sense? In one case they do what the public has told them and in the other they're telling the public what to do. As public servants the first should be acceptable but the latter now.

I am not sure the difference is as real as it seems

No-one specifically voted for the patriot act, no one was elected on promices of passing it, yet it became law.

In Britain they are considering a law to ban drivers under 25 from carrying any children in the car. Noone has ever voted for this.

https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/company-car-tax-and-legisla...

Re: Statement on EU-US Cooperation on Turning Public Opinion Against Encryption

#89

Post by thatguy0900 »

fatcat500 wrote: post #19

Interesting how our leaders see their role not as representing our interests, but in shaping our interests. There exists an entire subject in political science dealing with how to increase compliance with the schemes of regulators (see Nudge Theory). The mistake they make is a classic short-run vs. long-run miscalculation. In the short-run, you can get away with these kinds of tactics to increase compliance. For exam…

I worry that the advent of an entirely mechanized military with robot infantry will be the end of the leaders ever being in a precarious situation

Re: Statement on EU-US Cooperation on Turning Public Opinion Against Encryption

#90

Post by wahnfrieden »

RobotToaster wrote: post #69
dekken_ wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget about > "The Engineering of Consent" is an essay by Edward Bernays first published in 1947,

"Inventing Reality" by Michael Parenti is another book on the subject.

barthes mythologies
Post reply on HN