5 ms·

I fear that they have jailing opponents in mind.

by bandris 11y ago

tankenmate 11y ago
They intend to jail anyone who uses GMail, WhatsApp, or any other encrypted service? Such a effort will fail, if only because there isn't enough space in the jails...
- eru 11y ago
  They intend to jail anyone they don't like, not anyone who uses certain programs.
- pyvpx 11y ago
  That assumes universal or consistent application of the law, which is very rarely the intention behind these kinds of laws
- boredpudding 11y ago
  Close borders. Country itself is the jail.
  - ptaipale 11y ago
    Is that "close" as in an imperative ("close those Hungarians inside their borders") or as in a description that borders are "closed" ("the Hungarians have closed their borders")? I have seen a lot of Orban-bashing because he wants does not accept the uncontrolled immigration policies of EU (of people from outside EU, particularly Middle East) but there the "borders are closed" is for outsiders coming in, not for Hungarians leaving (which would actually make the country a jail). Two very different things. Right to emigrate out of a country is a fundamental human right, right to immigrate in to a particular country is not. People who advocate for the latter tend to (intentionally) confuse it with the former.
    - boredpudding 11y ago
      I mean the first. If you want to jail everybody using encryption, you have to jail everybody. So, the best action for that is to close the borders so the Hungarians can't leave. It is a ridiculous solution for a ridiculous plan. > Right to emigrate out of a country is a fundamental human right Not if you're in jail.
      - ptaipale 11y ago
        Yes, obviously; being in jail means that some fundamental human rights (right of free movement) are removed. However, which do you mean, that others should lock Hungarians in a country-wide jail as a retaliation for having elected a leader you don't like, or that Hungarians themselves should do it for some reason even if they don't want to?
        boredpudding 10y ago
        I mean: If Hungary wants to jail everybody who uses encryption, and everybody uses encryption, it's "more efficient" to make the country itself the jail, because that many Hungarians don't fit inside the jails. It's a joke.
- 075 11y ago
  No, they will jail anyone who they think have done something, but have no proof. This law will make them able to jail anyone without a reason.
  - freehunter 11y ago
    It's more common than you might think, even in the US. A common example I see is major cities where the freeway speed limit is 45 or 55, but everyone is doing 70 or 80mph, even the police officers. Most of the time that cop will drive right past you even if you're doing 20mph or 30mph over the speed limit, but if they want to pull you over, now they have a free reason to arrest you and impound your car. But if you're driving the speed limit while everyone else flies by you, you could be pulled over because driving too slow is suspicious. It seems that, given enough time, governments will find ways to implement enough contradictory laws that everyone is a criminal.
- arviewer 11y ago
  Not if they have the keys to decrypt the content. But apparently they've come to their senses and have abandonded this idea.
- bad_user 11y ago
  You should beware, as GMail isn't an "encrypted service", only your communication with their servers is. This prevents MitM attacks from small adversaries, until the government forces their own root certificate on every citizen that is. But given Google has business and representation in Europe, they are susceptible to governmental requests for mass surveillance (especially because of the good cooperation the NSA has with foreign intelligence agencies), plus for individuals (like specific enemies of government) all it takes is a subpoena.
  - tankenmate 11y ago
    Even if the Govt forces their own certificates on people it won't work with modern browsers because they support certificate pinning (and hence will refuse to visit a site with the wrong CA). So then they'd need to force Govt browsers on people while also trying to censor browsers from the rest of the world. None of the above is viable in the short, medium or long term.
    - ryanlol 11y ago
      I don't think any browser implements certificate pinning in such a manner.
- fsloth 11y ago
  The second interpretation is that the point is to create state power to imprison anyone they do not like while giving plausibly legal excuse for this. The pattern typically goes like this: 1. Create an inane law that no-one obeys 2. Do not enforce the law 3. People forget the law, and behave as they've always done 4. Now, to jail anyone you don't like, just set a police to watch over them and observe any number of the every day tasks declared illegal 5. Congratulations, you now have a seemingly legal mechanism to jail anyone you don't like. Good job! Lot's of legislation end up stupid because people are not perfect, but since silly all-encompassing laws have been used historically as a tool for oppression one should have as little as possible charity in the interpretation when a silly law is observed.

I fear that they have jailing opponents in mind.

by bandris 11y ago

I fear that they have jailing opponents in mind.

They intend to jail anyone who uses GMail, WhatsApp, or any other encrypted service? Such a effort will fail, if only because there isn't enough space in the jails...

eru 11y ago
They intend to jail anyone they don't like, not anyone who uses certain programs.
pyvpx 11y ago
That assumes universal or consistent application of the law, which is very rarely the intention behind these kinds of laws
boredpudding 11y ago
Close borders. Country itself is the jail.
- ptaipale 11y ago
  Is that "close" as in an imperative ("close those Hungarians inside their borders") or as in a description that borders are "closed" ("the Hungarians have closed their borders")? I have seen a lot of Orban-bashing because he wants does not accept the uncontrolled immigration policies of EU (of people from outside EU, particularly Middle East) but there the "borders are closed" is for outsiders coming in, not for Hungarians leaving (which would actually make the country a jail). Two very different things. Right to emigrate out of a country is a fundamental human right, right to immigrate in to a particular country is not. People who advocate for the latter tend to (intentionally) confuse it with the former.
  - boredpudding 11y ago
    I mean the first. If you want to jail everybody using encryption, you have to jail everybody. So, the best action for that is to close the borders so the Hungarians can't leave. It is a ridiculous solution for a ridiculous plan. > Right to emigrate out of a country is a fundamental human right Not if you're in jail.
    - ptaipale 11y ago
      Yes, obviously; being in jail means that some fundamental human rights (right of free movement) are removed. However, which do you mean, that others should lock Hungarians in a country-wide jail as a retaliation for having elected a leader you don't like, or that Hungarians themselves should do it for some reason even if they don't want to?
      - boredpudding 10y ago
        I mean: If Hungary wants to jail everybody who uses encryption, and everybody uses encryption, it's "more efficient" to make the country itself the jail, because that many Hungarians don't fit inside the jails. It's a joke.
075 11y ago
No, they will jail anyone who they think have done something, but have no proof. This law will make them able to jail anyone without a reason.
- freehunter 11y ago
  It's more common than you might think, even in the US. A common example I see is major cities where the freeway speed limit is 45 or 55, but everyone is doing 70 or 80mph, even the police officers. Most of the time that cop will drive right past you even if you're doing 20mph or 30mph over the speed limit, but if they want to pull you over, now they have a free reason to arrest you and impound your car. But if you're driving the speed limit while everyone else flies by you, you could be pulled over because driving too slow is suspicious. It seems that, given enough time, governments will find ways to implement enough contradictory laws that everyone is a criminal.
arviewer 11y ago
Not if they have the keys to decrypt the content. But apparently they've come to their senses and have abandonded this idea.
bad_user 11y ago
You should beware, as GMail isn't an "encrypted service", only your communication with their servers is. This prevents MitM attacks from small adversaries, until the government forces their own root certificate on every citizen that is. But given Google has business and representation in Europe, they are susceptible to governmental requests for mass surveillance (especially because of the good cooperation the NSA has with foreign intelligence agencies), plus for individuals (like specific enemies of government) all it takes is a subpoena.
- tankenmate 11y ago
  Even if the Govt forces their own certificates on people it won't work with modern browsers because they support certificate pinning (and hence will refuse to visit a site with the wrong CA). So then they'd need to force Govt browsers on people while also trying to censor browsers from the rest of the world. None of the above is viable in the short, medium or long term.
  - ryanlol 11y ago
    I don't think any browser implements certificate pinning in such a manner.
fsloth 11y ago
The second interpretation is that the point is to create state power to imprison anyone they do not like while giving plausibly legal excuse for this. The pattern typically goes like this: 1. Create an inane law that no-one obeys 2. Do not enforce the law 3. People forget the law, and behave as they've always done 4. Now, to jail anyone you don't like, just set a police to watch over them and observe any number of the every day tasks declared illegal 5. Congratulations, you now have a seemingly legal mechanism to jail anyone you don't like. Good job! Lot's of legislation end up stupid because people are not perfect, but since silly all-encompassing laws have been used historically as a tool for oppression one should have as little as possible charity in the interpretation when a silly law is observed.