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

EU member states still cannot agree about end-to-end encryption

cyberlaw.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 154 posts

Re: EU member states still cannot agree about end-to-end encryption

#81

Post by rdm_blackhole »

varispeed wrote: post #68

What EU is afraid of if they think they need Stasi level of surveillance? Many Europeans still remember the dark times before 1989. Why there is a need to come back to it?

Because people don't care and governments can't help themselves wanting more power. It's sad state of affair. Like you say this is the Stasi's wet dream coming to fruition.

Soon , they'll expand it to wrong-think and who knows maybe disable your device if you dare criticize the EU or someone in power. I mean why stop at CSAM right? Any other reason will work. It's the ultimate power in the hands of politicians.

This woman, who is behind Chat Control is a former communist party member. I think that she must remember with fondness the time where the state has absolute power over it's citizens and decided now, was good time to bring this back to life.

Re: EU member states still cannot agree about end-to-end encryption

#82

Post by eterps »

rdm_blackhole wrote: post #72

So I guess we have to wait to see if EtoE encryption is banned and/or client side scanning becomes mandatory. What is the best path of action for someone who is privacy minded? Buy a dumb phone?

You can continue to use encryption just fine: https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.sufficientlysecure.keych...

The problem would be with the messaging/media services that have EtoE encryption integrated in the same app.

I am not sure how buying a dumb phone solves anything.

Re: EU member states still cannot agree about end-to-end encryption

#83

Post by Arnt »

rdm_blackhole wrote: post #65
mrtksn wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It freaks me out to the point that I rather have my country leave the EU. What makes you think that your country’s politicians don’t want that but some people in Brussels are forcing it? Those people in Brussels are just people from all the countries, including yours. You also vote them in. The desire of governments controlling the population is universal.

The EC members who currently are sponsoring this bill (Chat Control 2.0) are not elected, they are appointed. They do not answer to anyone and they collude with lobby organizations to push an agenda. This is the far from being a democratic process.

A quick glance at Wikipedia suggests that the main sponsor is Ylva Johansson, who is not presently an elected politician, because she stepped down in 2019 after being a member of the swedish parliament for 13 continuous years, for this party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Party_(Sweden)

I have the impression that this is often the case: EC members are recruited from members of national parliament, ministers and people who stepped down from either of those recently.

So technically you're correct, she's not elected. But she got the job by being elected.

Re: EU member states still cannot agree about end-to-end encryption

#84

Post by izacus »

mannerheim wrote: post #64
mrtksn wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And they can keep opposing it if they really don't want it. However I agree that EU can also be used as a scapegoat when implementing unpopular policies, unfortunately. They can claim that they totally didn't want it but EU mede them accept it.

Can the EU sanction countries for not complying?

Yes. But having local polititians whine against EU regulation and then vote for it is a common pattern to get easy wins with easily led people like the original posters here.

Re: EU member states still cannot agree about end-to-end encryption

#85

Post by izacus »

lynx23 wrote: post #30

The day the EU forbids E2E is the day I start to actively root for my country to exit.

Your country is almost certanly supporting this measure and will continue to have the law enacted even after you leave.

Are you SURE your own are not part of the support?

Re: EU member states still cannot agree about end-to-end encryption

#86

Post by rdm_blackhole »

mrtksn wrote: post #76
rdm_blackhole wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So they are not elected? Right? Therefore they are not accountable to the public.

Fun fact, the American president and the British prime ministers are also not elected. If you like to argue over technicalities, we can do that.

I am not a citizen of the UK nor from the US, if this system is enough for you, then by all means feel free to disagree.

In my book an elected official is someone who was voted in office. If you are not elected then you are appointed. If you are appointed you do not need to be accountable because the people cannot revoke your mandate nor can they vote you out.

To me it seems inconceivable that someone who was appointed can decide to bring forward such a law and not have to defend it.

Re: EU member states still cannot agree about end-to-end encryption

#87

Post by mrtksn »

mannerheim wrote: post #64
mrtksn wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And they can keep opposing it if they really don't want it. However I agree that EU can also be used as a scapegoat when implementing unpopular policies, unfortunately. They can claim that they totally didn't want it but EU mede them accept it.

Can the EU sanction countries for not complying?

It's complex, they can be sued or funding can get cut but EU is not like the USA.

It's more like a club where the countries come together to decide how to do things and then they implement local laws to do it. They are not hostile countries brought together by force, the hostilities are usually between neighbours and EU acts as a way to resolve them. For example, countries close to the borders see large refugee influx and the countries further away don't want to have anything to do with that and EU tries to find a way to ease the pressure on the border countries(so far, not very successfully but managed to create a mechanism of keeping refugees outside of EU by paying the host countries like Turkey). Or let's say a country wants to join EU, an EU country might have long standing disputes and EU tries to find a common ground to mediate it(Bulgaria & Northern Macedonia is a vivid recent example). Or let's say there's ethnic issues causing wars and other tragedies, EU creates a law to guarantee the rights of the minorities so that the ethnic issues are no longer relevant those resolved.

Re: EU member states still cannot agree about end-to-end encryption

#88

Post by gmerc »

mannerheim wrote: post #57
ko27 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should be glad EU exists not wishing to leave it. More than half of countries support this kind of control, and yet it probably won't pass because of a minority of countries. Seems like EU will actually end up preventing this from spreading across the continent.

Does the law require unanimity, or just a majority? This page[0] seems to suggest only a majority is necessary, but I can't find anything else to back that up; but I suppose we'll find out in a week or two. [0]: https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/chat-control-2-0-eu-governm...

It’s not gonna pass against Germany.

Re: EU member states still cannot agree about end-to-end encryption

#89

Post by rdm_blackhole »

eterps wrote: post #82
rdm_blackhole wrote: post #72

So I guess we have to wait to see if EtoE encryption is banned and/or client side scanning becomes mandatory. What is the best path of action for someone who is privacy minded? Buy a dumb phone?

You can continue to use encryption just fine: https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.sufficientlysecure.keych... The problem would be with the messaging/media services that have EtoE encryption integrated in the same app. I am not sure how buying a dumb phone solves anything.

Well,a dumb phone without any app capabilities would not have the client-side scanning software running unless I am mistaken.

Re: EU member states still cannot agree about end-to-end encryption

#90

Post by jeltz »

rdm_blackhole wrote: post #41
agilob wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It won't pass >this time<

It will pass this time. The Swedish politician is in the pocket of big tech corporations.

Yes, Sweden is pushing for this but the Parliament will again block it. Swedish politicians can't force it, that is not within their powers.
Post reply on HN