6 ms·

Taking stock of the new French-German encryption proposal

51 points by taylorbuley 10y ago

wyager 10y ago
Ah, France and Germany, champions of civil rights. France, where Muslim women are prevented from wearing religiously motivated garb in public. Germany, where people are prosecuted for insulting foreign dictators. Is anyone surprised to see them produce such garbage?
- leereeves 10y ago
  A similar law was proposed in the US not long ago: http://www.burr.senate.gov/press/releases/intelligence-committee-leaders-release-discussion-draft-of-encryption-legislation- http://www.burr.senate.gov/press/releases/intelligence-commi...
  - StavrosK 10y ago
    To be fair to the GP, I don't think the US is considered a bastion of civil liberties...
- allendoerfer 10y ago
  > Germany, where people are prosecuted for insulting foreign dictators. This one (§ 103 StGB [0]) is going to be fixed in 2018. Not instantly, because Merkel did not want to intervene in an ongoing legal process. [0]: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1035 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_st...
  - StavrosK 10y ago
    Let's hope the trend will reverse, because I am very worried by the growing racist sentiment across the entire world. Not to mention that racism is exactly the wrong way to go about fixing things.
    - rmk2 10y ago
      There is nothing racism-specific to that law (and how could there be, because then the law would have to define race). The same law applies whether Erdogan, Mugabe, Kim Yong Un, Theresa May or Christian Kern gets insulted; the problem is that it allows a foreign (as in non-domestic) head of state -- a public figure by definition -- to request prosecution in a case that might very well touch upon, if not outright collide with, §5 GG.
      - StavrosK 10y ago
        Ah, sorry, I wasn't familiar with the above law, I was more talking about the incident in France, but was off-topic in replying to you.
      - realityking 10y ago
        You can insult Theresa May as much as you like, you won't charged under this law - as long as May is not in Germany when you do so. The law only universally applies to Heads of States, not Heads of Governments.
        allendoerfer 10y ago
        You can be charged under different laws, though (§ 185 - § 200 StGB [0]). There is a higher threshold of what public figures have to tolerate, still like everybody else, foreign politicians can sue you under these paragraphs for insulting them. [0] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1700 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_st...
- dang 10y ago
  Please keep nationalistic putdowns off HN.
Freak_NL 10y ago
Ignoring the ample amount of ethical and political objections to the whole notion of government (which government, incidently?) backdoors, how does one even start to implement this kind of legislature? You might be able to coerce Facebook or Google to cooperate, but you can't exactly outlaw any alternative that is out of reach of the EU, or any jurisdiction for that matter. These tools exist now, and won't just dissappear. Any terrorist worth his salt will use whatever works, regardless of legality.
- CydeWeys 10y ago
  > You might be able to coerce Facebook or Google to cooperate I doubt it, not for the French or German governments anyway. Simpler to shutter the offices there and put the onus on France/Germany of creating China-like Great Firewalls if they want to block Google/Facebook web access to their citizens. I can't actually imagine that happening in said democratic societies.
  - allendoerfer 10y ago
    This would be EU law, and apply to a market of currently 508 million people with the potential to grow to 750 million people. I still think and hope it would not be put into place.
    - Freak_NL 10y ago
      These kind of laws also tend not to exist in isolation. There are politicians in both the EU and the US who entertain this notion of cryptographic backdoors. Common sense says that it is impossible for this kind of law to gain traction beyond these kind of probing attempts at finding support; there are just too many practical issues to solve without this law becoming a complete farce.
  - kuschku 10y ago
    > Simpler to shutter the offices there And lose their largest market? The EU is more profitable than the US to Google, Facebook, etc. Not operating there would cost them a huge part of their profits, so no, not really simpler to close the offices there.
spdy 10y ago
Elections are coming and everyone has to play tough. None of this is targeted at terrorist as is does not even remotely make sense its all about controlling the population. Let`s see when they propose to ban math. Mandatory John Oliver on Encryption :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsjZ2r9Ygzw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsjZ2r9Ygzw
RaleyField 10y ago
One thing I miss in here in EU is the first amendment and its interpretation. Code should become protected speech, simple as that, and we shouldn't dance around how to "balance" things out. That said, I'd like somebody to point out where in this proposal are mentioned mandatory backdoors (which article mentions and would be an attack on freedom of speech in my view). Maybe the proposal is only about requests for decryption of ciphertext for which key is present on servers to be legally enforceable.
- wtbob 10y ago
  > One thing I miss in here in EU is the first amendment and its interpretation. And the Second Amendment, which neatly deals with encryption-as-a-munition.
  - homero 10y ago
    I like the fourth amendment too
- guitarbill 10y ago
  > One thing I miss in here in EU is the first amendment and its interpretation What makes you think other countries don't have similar laws? Also, code as protected speech isn't even agreed on in the US AFAIK [0] > for decryption of ciphertext for which key is present on servers to be legally enforceable. Currently it's not doable by anybody (except sender and recipient), so legally enforceable = legally doable = illegally doable = backdoor. Do we really need to point this out every time? It isn't too hard to understand that maths/cryptography has no concept to differentiate between police man, judge, or hacker. [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-24/apple-fbi-fight-asks-is-code-protected-as-free-speech https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-24/apple-fbi...
  - RaleyField 10y ago
    > It isn't too hard to understand that maths/cryptography has no concept to differentiate between police man, judge, or hacker. It isn't too hard to understand that half the apps sell snake oil as well. By the standard used by them "encrypted" communication happens if mechanically aes is being used when talking to server. > What makes you think other countries don't have similar laws? What makes you think other countries have similar laws. They are vaguely similar. Defamation laws are plaintiff friendly in EU. If you say something and you aren't completely sure it is true and will be recognized by courts as such then you are liable. Then you have attacks that would be unthinkable in US, like proposal for law penalizing utterances of "polish death camps" with 3 years. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/use-phrase-polish-death-camps-in-poland-and-you-may-go-to-jail-180960167/?no-ist http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/use-phrase-polish-d...

51 points by taylorbuley 10y ago

Ah, France and Germany, champions of civil rights. France, where Muslim women are prevented from wearing religiously motivated garb in public. Germany, where people are prosecuted for insulting foreign dictators. Is anyone surprised to see them produce such garbage?

leereeves 10y ago
A similar law was proposed in the US not long ago: http://www.burr.senate.gov/press/releases/intelligence-committee-leaders-release-discussion-draft-of-encryption-legislation- http://www.burr.senate.gov/press/releases/intelligence-commi...
- StavrosK 10y ago
  To be fair to the GP, I don't think the US is considered a bastion of civil liberties...
allendoerfer 10y ago
> Germany, where people are prosecuted for insulting foreign dictators. This one (§ 103 StGB [0]) is going to be fixed in 2018. Not instantly, because Merkel did not want to intervene in an ongoing legal process. [0]: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1035 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_st...
- StavrosK 10y ago
  Let's hope the trend will reverse, because I am very worried by the growing racist sentiment across the entire world. Not to mention that racism is exactly the wrong way to go about fixing things.
  - rmk2 10y ago
    There is nothing racism-specific to that law (and how could there be, because then the law would have to define race). The same law applies whether Erdogan, Mugabe, Kim Yong Un, Theresa May or Christian Kern gets insulted; the problem is that it allows a foreign (as in non-domestic) head of state -- a public figure by definition -- to request prosecution in a case that might very well touch upon, if not outright collide with, §5 GG.
    - StavrosK 10y ago
      Ah, sorry, I wasn't familiar with the above law, I was more talking about the incident in France, but was off-topic in replying to you.
    - realityking 10y ago
      You can insult Theresa May as much as you like, you won't charged under this law - as long as May is not in Germany when you do so. The law only universally applies to Heads of States, not Heads of Governments.
      - allendoerfer 10y ago
        You can be charged under different laws, though (§ 185 - § 200 StGB [0]). There is a higher threshold of what public figures have to tolerate, still like everybody else, foreign politicians can sue you under these paragraphs for insulting them. [0] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1700 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_st...
dang 10y ago
Please keep nationalistic putdowns off HN.

Freak_NL 10y ago

Ignoring the ample amount of ethical and political objections to the whole notion of government (which government, incidently?) backdoors, how does one even start to implement this kind of legislature? You might be able to coerce Facebook or Google to cooperate, but you can't exactly outlaw any alternative that is out of reach of the EU, or any jurisdiction for that matter. These tools exist now, and won't just dissappear. Any terrorist worth his salt will use whatever works, regardless of legality.

CydeWeys 10y ago
> You might be able to coerce Facebook or Google to cooperate I doubt it, not for the French or German governments anyway. Simpler to shutter the offices there and put the onus on France/Germany of creating China-like Great Firewalls if they want to block Google/Facebook web access to their citizens. I can't actually imagine that happening in said democratic societies.
- allendoerfer 10y ago
  This would be EU law, and apply to a market of currently 508 million people with the potential to grow to 750 million people. I still think and hope it would not be put into place.
  - Freak_NL 10y ago
    These kind of laws also tend not to exist in isolation. There are politicians in both the EU and the US who entertain this notion of cryptographic backdoors. Common sense says that it is impossible for this kind of law to gain traction beyond these kind of probing attempts at finding support; there are just too many practical issues to solve without this law becoming a complete farce.
- kuschku 10y ago
  > Simpler to shutter the offices there And lose their largest market? The EU is more profitable than the US to Google, Facebook, etc. Not operating there would cost them a huge part of their profits, so no, not really simpler to close the offices there.

spdy 10y ago

Elections are coming and everyone has to play tough. None of this is targeted at terrorist as is does not even remotely make sense its all about controlling the population. Let`s see when they propose to ban math. Mandatory John Oliver on Encryption :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsjZ2r9Ygzw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsjZ2r9Ygzw

RaleyField 10y ago

One thing I miss in here in EU is the first amendment and its interpretation. Code should become protected speech, simple as that, and we shouldn't dance around how to "balance" things out. That said, I'd like somebody to point out where in this proposal are mentioned mandatory backdoors (which article mentions and would be an attack on freedom of speech in my view). Maybe the proposal is only about requests for decryption of ciphertext for which key is present on servers to be legally enforceable.

wtbob 10y ago
> One thing I miss in here in EU is the first amendment and its interpretation. And the Second Amendment, which neatly deals with encryption-as-a-munition.
- homero 10y ago
  I like the fourth amendment too
guitarbill 10y ago
> One thing I miss in here in EU is the first amendment and its interpretation What makes you think other countries don't have similar laws? Also, code as protected speech isn't even agreed on in the US AFAIK [0] > for decryption of ciphertext for which key is present on servers to be legally enforceable. Currently it's not doable by anybody (except sender and recipient), so legally enforceable = legally doable = illegally doable = backdoor. Do we really need to point this out every time? It isn't too hard to understand that maths/cryptography has no concept to differentiate between police man, judge, or hacker. [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-24/apple-fbi-fight-asks-is-code-protected-as-free-speech https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-24/apple-fbi...
- RaleyField 10y ago
  > It isn't too hard to understand that maths/cryptography has no concept to differentiate between police man, judge, or hacker. It isn't too hard to understand that half the apps sell snake oil as well. By the standard used by them "encrypted" communication happens if mechanically aes is being used when talking to server. > What makes you think other countries don't have similar laws? What makes you think other countries have similar laws. They are vaguely similar. Defamation laws are plaintiff friendly in EU. If you say something and you aren't completely sure it is true and will be recognized by courts as such then you are liable. Then you have attacks that would be unthinkable in US, like proposal for law penalizing utterances of "polish death camps" with 3 years. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/use-phrase-polish-death-camps-in-poland-and-you-may-go-to-jail-180960167/?no-ist http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/use-phrase-polish-d...