91–100 of 780 posts
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.
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.
The US has been on Saudi and North Korea level for a while now
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If by “we” you mean “the UK”, I’d like to point you in the direction of the UK’s Investigatory Powers Act, which is much worse than “we don’t like encrypted chat”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_201...
That is true, but you will be able to vote for a party in power to reverse it. Not possible in case of EU.
Explain this logic to me please.
I'm in my early 40s. Up until I was ~35 I was very strongly against this, sort of like most you. Now I feel the EU in general (some member states a lot worse than others) has backed itself into a corner because of the utterly failed integration efforts, union-wide. I live in a EU nation that has seen a very high rise in violent (and sometimes frankly horrible) crime over the past decade. As a dad of a 1-year old daug…
They had all the necessary information to know that guy presented a risk and they didn't act on it. What makes you think that having more information in the form of unencrypted chats would have helped the authorities?
The question on banning encryption always comes back, but so far I haven't seen any cogent argument for why it would really help the police stop crime. And, what would stop criminals from using an illegal chat app that uses encryption? Or from using their own code words? This kind of law will only reduce the rights of the innocent majority while doing very little to stop criminals.
I'm in my early 40s. Up until I was ~35 I was very strongly against this, sort of like most you. Now I feel the EU in general (some member states a lot worse than others) has backed itself into a corner because of the utterly failed integration efforts, union-wide. I live in a EU nation that has seen a very high rise in violent (and sometimes frankly horrible) crime over the past decade. As a dad of a 1-year old daug…
With that out of the way, how do you propose stopping criminals from using encrypted chat? You can make it illegal, of course, but making it impossible for someone who doesn't care about laws to install software that's available on the internet and use it to send and receive data over the internet is... difficult.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I note that here I am in the UK, and the current home secretary appears to be Priti Patel. Who is far more hardline on this than the EU, and not in the good direction. If we left at the last minute, it's so that we can go faster. One of the things we are deliberately jettisoning is the protections afforded us by being in the EU.
We now have more control and we can vote for a party that could fix this.
Ultimately the problem with any idea like this is that encryption is as basic as mathematics and trying to ban it will only harm everyday people and the dumb criminal. The criminals that want to stay hidden will continue to do so because you will always find open source projects that provides encryption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you can have wiretapping you don't have E2E encryption. So I think this would be a ban on E2E encryption, not on encryption in general of course but I think that should be self evident.
If you're not the subject of the wiretapping, your connection will continue to use E2E, it's not complicated. Yes, wiretapped connections are not E2E while they're being monitored, obviously
How do you assure that the people flipping the toggle are the 'good' guys.
Given the way five eyes (and similar groups) have behaved particularly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you think that this will reduce violent crime in any meaningful way? The guy who mugs you isn't going to go on Messenger and send out a quick "brb gonna mug someone" message. And they definitely won't if they know the government is listening. And regardless, we trade freedoms for risk of death all the time. We would have far less crime if no one was allowed to leave their house without an ankle monitor and…
I don't think he's talking about the guy who mugs him. More like about the guy who mows down a crowd with an automatic weapon, the guy who drives a truck through the center of a Christmas market or the guy who blows up a metro station. That kind of people.