[HN Gopher] Leaked government document shows Spain wants to ban ...
___________________________________________________________________
Leaked government document shows Spain wants to ban end-to-end
encryption
Author : arkadiyt
Score : 217 points
Date : 2023-05-22 19:31 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wired.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wired.com)
| stonecactus wrote:
| > imperative that we have access to the data
|
| What makes electronic messages be different to other forms of
| private communication that they need to be provided to the
| government automatically? And in the case of Spain in particular,
| there are reports of Pegasus being used to spy on Catalan
| politicians [1][2].
|
| [1] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/05/spain-
| pegasus...
|
| [2] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/04/spain-
| pegasus...
| cookiengineer wrote:
| The issue with governments is that they don't see the risk it
| creates for themselves.
|
| Even if everybody _inside_ your country plays by the rules...
| Everyone _outside_ of it does not.
|
| And let's face it, foreign intelligence services will have a
| feast over this.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| We (the citizens) need access to all the politicians
| communication, just in case if they do anything illegal... 24/7
| microphones, digital communication tracker, etc. Let's start with
| that, and then move on to "normal people", if politicians still
| believe in no privacy.
| nordsieck wrote:
| As a first step, I'd settle for 1 party consent for recording
| everywhere.
|
| And no more unrecorded votes.
| josephcsible wrote:
| Can someone steelman the argument against one-party consent?
| I literally can't think of any reason anyone would want it,
| other than wanting to be able to lie about what they said
| later. It doesn't even help people who are saying things that
| might be dangerous if they leak, since illegal != impossible.
| dabluecaboose wrote:
| > Can someone steelman the argument against one-party
| consent? I literally can't think of any reason anyone would
| want it, other than wanting to be able to lie about what
| they said later.
|
| Are you actually asking hackernews, in a thread about
| banning encryption, why "if you have nothing to hide you
| have nothing to fear" is not a good justification for being
| monitored without your consent?
| josephcsible wrote:
| I don't consider it "being monitored" when the person
| you're talking to is the one doing the recording.
| Contrast "I'm legally allowed to keep emails sent to me
| after I first read them" with "other people are legally
| allowed to read emails sent to me". Wouldn't almost
| everyone agree that the former is a good thing but the
| latter would be a bad thing?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _don 't consider it "being monitored" when the person
| you're talking to is the one doing the recording_
|
| Compromise is reached in quiet, safe places. Politicians
| make bombastic statements for their base and donors, and
| then go behind closed doors to negotiate. You can't
| negotiate in earnest if every offer for compromise you
| put forward immediately results in (a) the losers of that
| compromise creating a ruckus and (b) your opponent using
| (a) to weaken you.
|
| Public negotiations reward playing to the audience. (You
| see this in small groups-letting leaders or the people in
| a friend group who disagree pull aside almost always
| solves the problem better than litigating it as a group.)
| If every conversation _might_ be recorded for replaying
| to a third party, then every conversation will be treated
| as an open one. That destroys room for compromise.
| autoexec wrote:
| This seems like a weak argument since compromise may be
| more difficult, but it certainly isn't impossible when
| conversations are transparent. Eventually the "losers" of
| a compromise are going to learn about how their elected
| officials voted and what the impact of that vote will be
| for them, and they'll hold their elected officials
| accountable for it regardless.
|
| It just isn't worth forcing every person to give up the
| ability to protect themselves by recording their everyday
| conversations just so that politicians can lie to the
| public and their donors while screwing over the people
| behind closed doors.
| dabluecaboose wrote:
| Okay, fair enough. I was so focused on my own perception
| of privacy that it hadn't occurred to me that the person
| I'm talking to has every right to record the conversation
| just as much as they do to remember it.
|
| Speaking as someone who often has to tell people "Email
| that to me or I won't remember it", I can see the utility
| without it being intrusive.
| Manuel_D wrote:
| The police already have the ability to monitor you
| without consent. One party consent lets people record
| their own conversations and push back against false
| allegations about what they did or did not say.
| hunter2_ wrote:
| You seem to be referring to zero-party consent, which yes
| HN would tend not to want. I think most of HN would be
| into one-party consent, meaning you can time shift that
| which you _already_ had the ability to hear (and
| therefore let third parties hear it, without knowledge of
| the other original party).
| Spivak wrote:
| The sane version is one-party that is actually
| participating in the conversation needs to consent, 3rd
| parties to the conversation have to ask.
| harshreality wrote:
| Having to be constantly on guard about what you say in case
| someone's recording you and can play it back for others, or
| in court, often out of context...
|
| Basically, some expectation of privacy especially in a
| 1-on-1 conversation, even if it's via telecommunications
| tech rather than in-person.
|
| Some people adopt a more filtered, cautious way of speaking
| anyway as a defense mechanism. For them it doesn't matter
| so much. Other people talk informally with less of a
| filter, and for them it matters quite a bit.
|
| Given that recording is ubiquitous now anyway, and voice
| deepfakes are about to render even that irrelevant, there
| probably isn't a good argument against 1-party consent
| today.
|
| (However, government officials, outside of a foreign policy
| context, deserve no privacy for anything related to their
| official duties. The argument that they need to be able to
| talk informally with their peers, without fear of public
| judgment, works against the public interest far more than
| it works for it. That helps build rapport, but no
| politician these days would fully trust someone they're
| just building rapport with; that kind of thing may be
| valuable for diplomatic relations and spies, but not for
| regular government officials. Privacy and secrecy among
| ordinary politicians is little more than a recipe for
| corruption and side-dealing that they know the public would
| be rightly upset about.)
| reaperman wrote:
| It probably felt right around the time when recording
| devices were first invented.
| pezezin wrote:
| Spain is already a 1-party consent country, it is legal to
| record any conversation as long as you are part of it.
| However, it is not legal to publish them, but they can be
| used in a trial.
| joebiden2 wrote:
| Politicians are mostly corrupt, though degrees vary. Most
| relevant child abuse was covered by famous politicians12345.
| Nevertheless, the same politicians cut budgets for police to do
| actual investigation work, because that could harm themselves,
| then want to cut the last line of defense the public has to do
| actual investigation and journalism (which requires free speech
| and privacy) by declaring that this is required to fight
| pedophilia.
|
| We need to do something against this. We really do.
|
| 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein
|
| 2
| https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336831983_Understan...
|
| 3 https://time.com/2974381/england-land-of-royals-tea-and-
| horr...
|
| 4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Dutroux
|
| 5 https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/past-
| pedophile-...
| joebiden2 wrote:
| If you downvote, please at least state a reason. All of the
| links are reputable and verified. And all of them were
| covered by famous, reputable politicians.
| jupp0r wrote:
| You state that "Most relevant child abuse was covered by
| famous politicians" and list 5 examples. This does by no
| means prove your claim. For all I know, the rate of child
| abusers could be much lower among politicians than in the
| general population.
| singleshot_ wrote:
| Two good reasons to downvote this would be 1) that it's a
| conspiracy theory and 2) that reading about pedophilia
| every time one turns on the internet is exhausting.
| serial_dev wrote:
| Not everything that's uncomfortable and swept under the
| rug is a conspiracy theory. Calling the revelations about
| Jeffrey Eppstein and his shady connections in 2023
| conspiracy theory comes off as dismissive.
|
| Relevant standup bit https://youtu.be/b6NmjK2pgiQ
|
| But I sort of get your #2.
| orhmeh09 wrote:
| It's not a conspiracy theory. It's a collection of links
| that describe actual conspiracies.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Didn't downvote. But saying we need to do something about
| corrupt politicians isn't novel. I'm also not sure how
| pedophilia and Jeffrey Epstein is meaningfully related to
| the topic at hand.
| serial_dev wrote:
| Politicians usually go with the "think of the children"
| persuasion tactic when they want to do some nefarious
| stuff (and when they don't "fight terrorism" or recently
| "misinformation").
| pessimizer wrote:
| Politicians are the most surveilled people, and sometimes vote
| for things like this for fear of or as the result of being
| targeted by their own or other countries' intelligence
| agencies.
|
| If the CIA wants Spain to ban encryption, they're not going to
| be bothered by the resistance of some Spanish MPs, they're
| going to fix the problem.
|
| We (the citizens) need to ban secret police and secret courts.
| wnevets wrote:
| If they got nothing to hide why wouldn't they do it?
| flagrant_taco wrote:
| Not to defend politicians, but I don't want to be does on
| just because I think I'm doing nothing wrong
| jraph wrote:
| I believe your parent commenter is being sarcastic by
| quoting the "nothing to hide" meme. Politicians notoriously
| have many things to hide.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| Yep, and they're working and being paid for and by us. If
| they're working for the benefit of the people (or at least
| their voters), why would they keep secrets from us/them?
| dylkil wrote:
| In the uk politicians were allowed to opt out
|
| https://www.digit.fyi/data-protection-political-parties/
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| More responsibility demands more scrutiny.
| belter wrote:
| "Dutch PM Mark Rutte questioned after deleting text messages
| for years" - https://www.euronews.com/2022/05/19/dutch-pm-mark-
| rutte-ques...
| TheRealDunkirk wrote:
| Every country wants to ban end-to-end encryption. It's this one,
| common desire that gives me comfort that it actually works.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| Fair point. We always hear about the NSA has this or that. The
| calls to ban encryption are lower in the US, so I wonder if NSA
| has something they just won't share with Europe?
| snehk wrote:
| It is so ridiculous that the exact same discussion has to be
| repeated again and again. The arguments haven't changed. "Bad
| thing is happening and we need this to ensure it doesn't
| anymore". The bad thing changes to what's currently the most
| popular threat although protecting children is obviously an all-
| time favorite.
|
| I think the next angle will be that it's needed to prevent hate
| speech. Any other ideas?
| ok_dad wrote:
| Well, some states are already banning talking about gay and
| transgender people and are banning books related to those
| topics and others that go against their beliefs.
|
| As a matter of fact, it seems over my 40 years here that most
| of the time it's religious extremists who want to ban speech
| and literature, I haven't seen much legal action taken against
| fundamentalist religious literature, no matter how hateful,
| though.
|
| Edit: love this was "flagged" even though I didn't break any
| rules. I was just stating facts, most of the bans today are by
| Christians against LGBTQ folks, not the other way around as the
| OP stated. I guess that is par for the course here; love this
| place for tech discussion but when it gets political it turns a
| bit fascist in here.
| lokhura wrote:
| States are not banning books and talking about gay and
| transgender people. Not sure where you got that info from. As
| I understand, what they are doing is removing non age
| appropiate books from elementary and middle school libraries,
| some of which include LGBTQ content. I would not call this
| "banning a book", in the same way that not being able to
| watch violent movies in elementary school is not "banning a
| movie".
|
| I would suggest you look into the content of the books being
| challenged and come to your own conclusion as to whether they
| are age appropiate or not. After all, the term "age
| appropiate" is subjective.
| ok_dad wrote:
| Well maybe parents should do that rather than the state?
| What's bad about LGBTQ content and what does that even
| mean?
|
| I swear, you folks will reach as far as possible to make
| book bans seem reasonable.
| [deleted]
| lokhura wrote:
| Who is "you folks"? I can think for myself, thanks. I'm
| providing some context for your naive or perhaps
| intentional misunderstanding of what is actually
| happening.
|
| And who do you think votes for these decisions? The
| parents. So presumably many parents think that some books
| in school liraries are not age appropiate.
|
| I haven't even expressed my opinion on this topic yet you
| are assuming my stance because you lack nuance. That's
| why I suggest you read the actual books that are being
| challenged and come back with a more informed
| perspective.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _who do you think votes for these decisions? The
| parents._
|
| There are a _lot_ of non-parents with strong opinions
| about this.
| ok_dad wrote:
| > read the actual books that are being challenged
|
| Give me a list then.
|
| > who do you think votes for these decisions? The parents
|
| You think voting for something like this is reasonable?
| Why can those parents not police what their children do,
| so those of us who want our kids to be raised with
| knowledge of other people's struggles can let them read
| those books? I don't go looking to ban the bible, even if
| it has rape, murder, incest, and etc. in it.
| lokhura wrote:
| Here are the top most challenged books of 2022 according
| to the ALA: - "Gender Queer" by Maia
| Kobabe - "All Boys Aren't Blue" by George M.
| Johnson - "The Bluest Eye" by Toni Morrison
| - "Flamer" by Mike Curato - "Looking for Alaska"
| by John Green - "The Perks of Being a Wallflower"
| by Stephen Chbosky - "Lawn Boy" by Jonathan
| Evison - "The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-
| Time Indian" by Sherman Alexie - "Out of
| Darkness" by Ashley Hope Perez - "A Court of Mist
| and Fury" by Sarah J. Maas - "Crank" by Ellen
| Hopkins - "Me and Earl and the Dying Girl" by
| Jesse Andrews - "This Book Is Gay" by Juno Dawson
| ok_dad wrote:
| OK, now assuming I have read them, and I probably won't
| but assume I do: why should they be banned? Tell me
| exactly why parents shouldn't be on the hook to track
| what their kids read and talk with them about what they
| believe? Why is information like this dangerous? What
| danger does it pose to society that gay people and
| transgender people exist? What danger does information
| about sex pose to a child?
|
| Then, once you answered that, tell me why I shouldn't ban
| Catholic churches from my community because of the
| perceived risk of pedophilia loving sexual pervert
| priests? (note: I don't believe we should ban churches,
| but at least I can show evidence of a threat)
|
| My point here is that information is not dangerous and
| should not be banned or kept behind a locked door. That's
| how we end up with powerful interests controlling us.
| detaro wrote:
| And it's clearly attempted to make any mention of gay or
| trans people existing or being in any way normal "not age
| appropriate". The sponsor of Florida's law gave pure
| mention of a child having two dads as an example of what
| should be prevented in schools.
| firstlink wrote:
| You are taking a ban on books which literally instruct
| kids who are too young to figure it out for themselves,
| how to have sex[0], and claiming that this is somehow a
| ban on LGBTQ people existing. When you compare this
| behavior to people who say that your only possible motive
| is pedophilia, the latter win out in the sanity and
| making sense departments, if only marginally. In case you
| can't tell, that reflects pretty poorly on you.
|
| [0] Absolutely no one who is developmentally prepared to
| have sex needs a book to tell them about the existence of
| oral sex, because they already know. We are not talking
| about books telling teens how to have sex _safely_ , we
| are talking about books informing pre-pubescent children
| which parts A go into which parts B.
| ok_dad wrote:
| First of all, there is no book for children that talks
| about oral sex that is was in any place where a kid could
| read it. Second, it's the parents responsibility to
| police their kids not the state. Get real.
| firstlink wrote:
| > there is no book for children that talks about oral sex
| that is was in any place where a kid could read it
|
| Yes there was, and your conviction that this must be an
| exaggeration shows just how completely out of touch the
| mainstream media-following public is from the reality of
| the situation. Just as a single example, the children's
| illustrated sex instruction manual "This Book is Gay" has
| had its relevant contents republished all over the
| internet, so that one would practically have to have been
| specifically avoiding seeing it. It is using LGBTQ as a
| shield for pedophilia and as an LGBTQ person that makes
| me sick. The very title gleefully declares this intent:
| "This Book is Gay" and therefore if you object you must
| be a homophobe, and not, you know, someone who thinks
| that maybe children shouldn't be having sex unless and
| until they are old enough to work it out for themselves.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _we are talking about books informing pre-pubescent
| children which parts A go into which parts B_
|
| On what planet is a kid seeking out this information
| learning about it for the first time in the school
| library?
| detaro wrote:
| "discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity"
| (direct quote from the law in question) is not
| "instruction on how to have sex", however often people
| claim it is. If that was what the law was banning, I'd be
| a lot less concerned about it, but it just isn't.
| dabluecaboose wrote:
| [flagged]
| ok_dad wrote:
| https://archive.md/NYhdy
|
| Here is an article about a woman who was gay and married to
| a woman and explains in her own words how she was
| ostracized and put down because of it, and then had to quit
| because even mentioning her marriage in the classroom could
| have gotten her fired.
|
| Seems to me like things were not overblown, and Florida is
| turning into a Christian fascist stronghold
| firstlink wrote:
| [flagged]
| ok_dad wrote:
| Did you read it? When the law came into affect, the
| teacher quit her job rather than possibly be in legal and
| work trouble if she even mentioned why she wore a fucking
| diamond ring. Read better.
| dudul wrote:
| Some extremists want to ban books, other want to ban words
| and force made up words on others. Some want to stop
| conversations about some topics, others want to impose
| conversations to people who don't care.
|
| It's all about extremists, it's even all about "religion",
| even from the ones who call themselves anti-religion.
| ok_dad wrote:
| Don't "both sides" this one: in this case one "side" wants
| to eliminate certain people from existence, and another
| "side" wants to be able to live in peace without being
| judged and harmed.
| dabluecaboose wrote:
| >love this was "flagged" even though I didn't break any
| rules. I was just stating facts,
|
| Maybe it was flagged because you started a slapfight about
| LGBTQ issues on a thread about encryption; then started
| implying anyone disagreeing with you was a fascist bending
| over backwards to ban books, instead of a human with
| potentially justified objections to said material?
|
| > Be kind. Don't be snarky.
|
| > Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at
| the rest of the community.
|
| > Assume good faith.
|
| > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological
| battle. That tramples curiosity.
|
| Just to potshot at a few
| ok_dad wrote:
| I didn't start anything, the OP asked what was next to be
| banned, and I answered with one area that is being banned
| right now that is relevant. And yes, fascists want to ban
| information that is against their worldview, that's not
| news. I won't be speaking in whispers about what's
| happening around me in the world; that's how fascists come
| to power, when good people are quiet about it. When
| relevant, I will talk about how they are perverting our
| laws to make progress on fascist things.
|
| Edit: I like your edit with HN rules. It's interesting that
| often fascists like to utilize the rule of law to supress
| speech and dissent in order to pervert and take over
| control of the rule of law.
|
| I am done in this thread, anyways, everything that had to
| be said was said, and it's irrelevant to discuss further.
| soupbowl wrote:
| Banning from where? If you are talking about what is
| happening around the country at school board meanings then
| you are framing things pretty poorly.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Banning from where?_
|
| I used to buy the incrementalist argument that these books
| are inappropriate for grade schoolers. But then the law,
| predictably, was extended to high school and shows no sign
| of stopping.
|
| Banning books has never been looked back on as a sign of a
| strong society. School is meant to be about resolving
| conflicting ideas. Pretending kids aren't getting 10x worse
| on the internet, or from their friends with an internet-
| connected device, just separates society into an imbecilic
| underclass and ones who can afford a more interrogative
| education.
| ok_dad wrote:
| Even at that level, why ban a book? Set them in a special
| section that requires parents to accompany the kids to
| check out the books. I remember my mom coming with me to
| the library as a kid to help me find books.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _ban a book? Set them in a special section that
| requires parents to accompany the kids to check out the
| books_
|
| This is the answer, and what you see in most elite
| private schools. (Adult supervision versus parents,
| granted, though parents are of course welcome.)
| ok_dad wrote:
| What do you mean? It's been in the news constantly about
| Floridas don't say gay laws and stuff. You folks will reach
| as far as possible to make book bans seem reasonable.
| dylan604 wrote:
| the separation of church and state is very inconvenient for
| them, and they have done every thing they can to blur those
| lines to be forgotten about by the masses.
| jupp0r wrote:
| I don't understand how this is proposed all over again when it
| has zero chance to be effective.
|
| Criminals will not use apps that compromise security. They will
| still use apps that are end-to-end encrypted. These people are
| breaking the law already, why would they make an exception for
| one that would compromise their opsec?
| eointierney wrote:
| The problem is not that they want to ban encryption but that they
| can't. It's like banning poetry
| mrfinn wrote:
| As a Spaniard, genuinely curious about why they are so worried. I
| mean, the real reason. My first bet is Catalonia, but wouldn't be
| surprised they are actually worried about their own security.
| lapufifarre668 wrote:
| [flagged]
| rgmmm wrote:
| Hermano Grande
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Hermano Largo, at any rate.
| olliej wrote:
| I'd have more sympathy to the "we need to be able to read every
| one's message, and open up everyone's communication to criminals
| to stop crime" story if there was any evidence it would actually
| do anything.
|
| There is no evidence that the reason terrorist attacks (the
| common go to) would be stopped by removing encryption from
| people, because we know that existing attacks have occurred even
| when law enforcement is already aware (take the Manchester
| bombing: multiple friends and family had reported him to the
| police on multiple occasions).
|
| We do have a huge amount of evidence that any such attack on
| privacy will immediately be abused. In the UK those laws that
| were passed to "stop terrorism", etc are used to catch people not
| picking up dog poop, not paying TV licensing, etc. In the US we
| had wide spread warrantless surveillance of literally everyone,
| courtesy of AT&T.
|
| My opinion is that any law that proponents proclaim will only be
| used to stop X should contain terms along the line of "any use of
| this legislation for any purpose other than X invalidates this
| law, any evidence acquired must be destroyed, and any convictions
| derived from such evidence are no longer valid". I would give
| good odds that any attempt to add such text would result in push
| back by the people saying the law is only needed to stop X.
| deepspace wrote:
| We had a recent example in Canada of how any attempt at
| restricting such a law would go.
|
| - The government proposes a law to regulate content on the
| internet, ostensibly targeted at Netflix and similar services.
|
| - Critics point out that the law would apply to small-time
| content creators too, and could destroy their ability to
| compete.
|
| - The government pinky-swears that they would never apply the
| law to individuals.
|
| - A member of the opposition proposes an amendment to
| explicitly exclude individuals from the law.
|
| - The government rejects the proposal and passes the bill as
| originally drafted.
| drexlspivey wrote:
| Crazy that we need big corporations to protect us from the
| government. It was supposed to be the other way around.
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| The corporations just want to stake their claim of keeping our
| data to themselves away from other corporations. Crazy were in
| a situation where corporations and governments are at war over
| who gets the looting rights.
| sneak wrote:
| Corporations serve at the pleasure of the government. Big
| corporations serve as single chokepoints for extortion or
| blackmail (via threats to business, legal via regulation or
| otherwise) to put in backdoors.
|
| All power structures are your enemy.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv...
|
| For the purposes of privacy and human rights, corporations and
| the state are integrated in almost all large industrialized
| nations. Businesses are too busy being businesses to fight city
| hall.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Gov't is just a special case of corporation. Every city within
| a state has a charter just like a corporation.
| pessimizer wrote:
| More the opposite. Corporations are granted charters (and
| limited-liability) by governments because they are extensions
| of governments. They're either meant to
|
| 1) take risks to accomplish goals that would be beneficial to
| government, but that government does not want to risk itself,
| _[e.g. if there were no grocery stores, government would have
| to feed you, but government doesn 't have the information to
| choose locations and stock stores effectively, which
| competition provides]_
|
| 2) allow the government to do things that government isn't
| allowed to do directly _[e.g. censor content, cut off
| undesirables from financial services, pay lower than their
| current government union contracts or legislation]_ , or to
|
| 3) aid the transfer of wealth from government to insiders
| through either government overpayment for services it could
| more cheaply provide itself, or by having looser
| labor/materials sourcing/pollution regulation or monitoring
| than government does, providing self-dealers a margin built
| from externalities.
| dylan604 wrote:
| A city files a charter with the state to be recognized as a
| city. A business files a charter with the same state (not a
| city) to be recognized as a business. It's like
| instantiating the same base class, but extending each one
| with specific properties that identify them as different
| objects.
|
| Whether it is A->B or B->A doesn't really matter. It's all
| a method of operating as a defined entity to the state with
| minor differences. It would not be hard to define something
| like Apple with it's corporate campus as a city. That would
| blur the lines pretty significantly. They could create an
| actual Apple Police. I'm guessing that would do some heads
| in.
| acuozzo wrote:
| I just don't understand _how_ they think they can do so.
|
| It's not even the "why?". I get the "why?" even though I
| obviously don't agree.
|
| It's the "how?".
| ska wrote:
| The how probably isn't so hard if you are a state actor. You
| won't be 100% effective, but if you make it a felony to possess
| systems that can do it, to use systems that can do it, to
| possess any data that can be tied to such a system, etc., etc.
| it's quite likely that usage would drop to nearly nothing.
| [deleted]
| roywiggins wrote:
| If they can get the apps removed from Google/Apple app stores
| in their country, and put blocks at the ISP level to prevent
| anyone actually communicating with Signal or WhatsApp servers,
| they'll get most of the way there.
| gnulinux wrote:
| How do you ban cocaine? How do you ban special parts in guns
| that make them automatic? How do you enforce _any_ law that 's
| not practical to enforce?
|
| You just make it a felony with a penalty of decades of
| imprisonment. Then, all the businesses stop doing it and you
| selectively enforce the law in order to make an example out of
| people. The idea is never to enforce it fully.
|
| If encryption is a felony, your average business will stop
| using it, which is pretty much the desired effect. They don't
| care so much about your personal website or data store using
| encryption. They'll just make it a fringe technique.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| If only more people understood that the police aren't there
| to stop crime rather to document it, we would be further
| along with the enlightenment.
|
| It's all punitive because preventative is fantasy.
| jchw wrote:
| Controlling supply chains is a lot easier when you're dealing
| with physical things and not abstract concepts.
| crocowhile wrote:
| So are they banning VPN and SSL too? Those are not fringe
| techniques.
| themoonisachees wrote:
| Most likely it would enable them to go "well we can't decrypt
| your messages you exchanged with you conspirators which we
| think would prove you're a criminal, but since you used E2EE
| you are now a criminal by default."
|
| It also enables them to stop petty criminals, but we both know
| they don't really care about that.
| miohtama wrote:
| You force Google and Apple drop apps in the app store that
| support encrypted messages.
|
| You sue and jail any website operator offering access to
| encrypted peer-to-peer chats.
| mercacona wrote:
| Spain's politicians don't understand what this ban means. In
| their eyes, it's like allowing a policeman to open suspicious
| mail at the post office; and no, it's like getting your mail in
| transparent envelopes, or receiving all your online shopping in
| crystal boxes. However, nobody will convince them since someone
| has sold them the other idea: the same people who sell ultra-
| expensive software to government that causes nothing but
| problems.
| czscout wrote:
| This seems similar to the ridiculous questions members of the US
| Congress asked Google and Facebook employees a few years ago. Law
| makers (particularly the older, less technologically inclined)
| tend to view things through the worst possible lens because they
| lack the knowledge required to understand the inherent value of
| technologies such as encryption.
| judge2020 wrote:
| It's not just lack of knowledge, but lack of willingness to
| learn and apply it.
|
| Their priorities are set on the power plays that happen in
| government chambers, the government and corporate interests
| that ask them to change laws for some purpose, and performing
| actions that will keep them elected (in that order). Banning
| encryption is something that satisfy the second group, where
| government organizations would love to make their jobs easier
| by having a key to encrypted communications. The fact that the
| entire internet is built on encryption is only a barrier to
| these governmental powers telling lawmakers to "pull the
| trigger" on banning encryption, since the compromises will hit
| corporations the most (since corporations actually do need
| perfect encryption without the government spying on them).
| mistrial9 wrote:
| I think you misunderstand the display put on by _most_ senior
| members. They have staff that can get details. However, playing
| dumb or obstinate is a negotiating tactic. The authority
| hierarchy at play is more important that the details of the
| tech, viewed a certain way. Let 's be blunt, more than half of
| all representatives in both parties work on behalf of local,
| state, Federal and international security.
| [deleted]
| belter wrote:
| Much like certain segments of American society prioritize gun
| regulation as the paramount factor influencing their electoral
| choices, I aspire that citizens might accord an equivalent level
| of importance to the prohibition of end-to-end encryption in
| shaping their voting decisions.
| dylan604 wrote:
| personally, i doubt this to be true. the voting masses are by
| and large not that smart on issues like this. granting access
| to personal data in order to receive promotional information
| has been accepted and liked by a large percentage of the
| masses. if not liked, then tolerated. if not tolerated, then
| willfully ignored.
|
| if the argument is to get discounts on retail
| products/services, then of course the "think of the children"
| or "but terrorists" will work on them as well.
|
| putting that much decision making in the hands of the voting
| public is always a scary idea, and never a sure thing.
| balderdash wrote:
| Yeah - I'm constantly floored by the number of people that
| trust Clear at the airport, to save a couple of minutes in
| line...
| balderdash wrote:
| Off the wall idea - given that encryption was classified as a
| munition in the U.S. from an export control standpoint, does
| that mean it's protected under the second amendment?
| hospitalhusband wrote:
| That's not an off the wall idea at all. https://duckduckgo.co
| m/?q=encryption+2nd+amendment+protectio...
| gmerc wrote:
| LLMs make it possible to scan every message, every phone call,
| every communication and classify it for intent. Ba Without E2E we
| are screwed.
| xkcd-sucks wrote:
| tbf communications are now classified by ridiculously broad
| criteria like degree-of-separation (my Doordash driver who
| called me donated money to "terrorists" so now my
| communications are fair game), keywords (I venmoed my friend
| for tickets to ISIS-the-band's last show) and geography (I live
| within 100 miles of the US border) so LLMs don't seem
| necessarily _worse_
| throw_a_grenade wrote:
| https://archive.is/3rqpB
| DrThunder wrote:
| Every single government on Earth does. This is why you limit
| their power.
| gsdofthewoods wrote:
| Apparently Germany is an exception. From the story:
|
| > Representatives from Germany--a country that has staunchly
| opposed the proposal--said the draft law needs to explicitly
| state that no technologies will be used that disrupt,
| circumvent, or modify encryption. "This means that the draft
| text must be revised before Germany can accept it," the country
| said.
| [deleted]
| tpmx wrote:
| Reminder that France actually _did this_ in the 90s, because why
| wouldn 't such such an exceptional country with such glorious
| leaders do that? Clearly they knew was was best.
|
| https://www.theregister.com/1999/01/15/france_to_end_severe_...
|
| > Until 1996 anyone wishing to encrypt any document had to first
| receive an official sanction or risk fines from F6000 to F500,000
| ($1000 to $89,300) and a 2-6 month jail term.
|
| This news item from 1999 is about France finally making it legal
| to use toy ciphers to encrypt documents in France.
|
| (And, yes, this was _that_ Dominique Strauss-Kahn.)
| EGreg wrote:
| The global view to put it into context:
|
| https://community.qbix.com/t/the-coming-war-on-end-to-end-en...
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-22 23:00 UTC)