4 ms·

I see that you are claiming that "evidence" is in the resolution itself - something not even Protonmail does! As is obvious from my comment, I did read the reso

I see that you are claiming that "evidence" is in the resolution itself - something not even Protonmail does! As is obvious from my comment, I did read the resolution and agree with Protonmail that it does not provide sufficient evidence. More substantially, we clearly disagree about the interpretation of point [4]. I would in particular question whether it calls for a ban on end-to-end encryption - at the very least you have to accept that it does not do so explicitly! And one could, for example, interpret it as a call to force suspected criminals to give up their passwords or some such. I would therefore also propose that your claim of "Orwellian" is only fully justified once we find an actual proposal in front of the EU parliament that bans encryption. At the moment we are rather far from this, and - without further evidence - I correspondingly think that your claim is rather far-fetched.

dalbasal 6y ago
Where did I "claim" anything. You demanded evidence from a blog post commenting on a wide discussion, that they have been involved in for years. There are plenty of arguments by plenty of people making this point. You can agree or disagree with that, but you can't demand that they convince you. If I say that a free press is important to democracy, you cannot demand that I "prove it." OTOH, If a (my) legislating body has officially resolved something, as they have, I do get to demand that they tell me what it is. Telling me that they expect big tech to implement a system where police can gain lawful access to my data without circumventing encryption is... pissing on me while telling me it's raining. And yes, Orwellian, in the simplest and most iconic way. This is a resolution to ban encryption. Plain and simple. The resolution's language is all about how they respect privacy and encryption. This is Ministry of Love language, and it's Orwell all the way down. The only way to progress as they clearly wish is by changing the definition of the term "encrypted." More precisely, taking away the "end-2-end" caveat or some other way of encrypting while circumventing encryption. Incidentally, instead of "police," the resolution refers to them (5 times) as "competent authorities." This is like an Orwell homage... maybe an intentional wink. If I ever write a 1984 knock-off, the police will be called CAs.
- prof-dr-ir 6y ago
  > This is a resolution to ban encryption. Plain and simple. Yes I do know that this is your viewpoint - thank you for repeating it. But, as I also repeatedly said, I have a hard time seeing it because, well, the resolution does in fact not explicitly ban (E2E) encryption. So can you please help convince me and fellow ignorami by providing a link or two? Is there maybe a statement by a council member? A proposal for the type of backdoor/encryption type the council would like to see implemented? I think something like that would really move the discussion forward.
  - heimatau 6y ago
    >I have a hard time seeing it because, well, the resolution does in fact not explicitly ban (E2E) encryption. If you need the actions of the government to be explicit then you'd have a difficult time to prove any case. Let's turn this back towards you, based on the evidence of previous actions by the government of the EU (and EU), how can you claim anything prevents this malicious behavior? Nothing explicitly prevents these abuses. This is an intentional design. Does the right to E2E exist in this resolution? It doesn't, so please don't assume they won't use a roundabout way to remove this human right. Please don't ignore abuses of governmental power, they weld their power with little recourse. Let's not be quick to encourage their poor legislation.
    - prof-dr-ir 6y ago
      You seem to have upgraded the claim that "banning encryption is implicit in the resolution" for a far broader claim that I can probably summarize as "assume malice". But yet again, all I find to support the latter claim are sweeping statements without evidence. Can you provide me with examples of EU law that you consider abuses of power and that remove human rights? (Also, the "EU government" does not exist, so with "governmental power" you maybe mean the power of the Commission?)
      - heimatau 6y ago
        > Can you provide me with examples of EU law that you consider abuses of power and that remove human rights? Their previous attempts to making encryption illegal. I believe encryption is a fundamental human right. You never answered my question. You seem bogged down on my characterization. Let me ask again without the characterization. What EU laws ensure the human right to encryption?

dalbasal 6y ago

Where did I "claim" anything. You demanded evidence from a blog post commenting on a wide discussion, that they have been involved in for years. There are plenty of arguments by plenty of people making this point. You can agree or disagree with that, but you can't demand that they convince you. If I say that a free press is important to democracy, you cannot demand that I "prove it." OTOH, If a (my) legislating body has officially resolved something, as they have, I do get to demand that they tell me what it is. Telling me that they expect big tech to implement a system where police can gain lawful access to my data without circumventing encryption is... pissing on me while telling me it's raining. And yes, Orwellian, in the simplest and most iconic way. This is a resolution to ban encryption. Plain and simple. The resolution's language is all about how they respect privacy and encryption. This is Ministry of Love language, and it's Orwell all the way down. The only way to progress as they clearly wish is by changing the definition of the term "encrypted." More precisely, taking away the "end-2-end" caveat or some other way of encrypting while circumventing encryption. Incidentally, instead of "police," the resolution refers to them (5 times) as "competent authorities." This is like an Orwell homage... maybe an intentional wink. If I ever write a 1984 knock-off, the police will be called CAs.

prof-dr-ir 6y ago
> This is a resolution to ban encryption. Plain and simple. Yes I do know that this is your viewpoint - thank you for repeating it. But, as I also repeatedly said, I have a hard time seeing it because, well, the resolution does in fact not explicitly ban (E2E) encryption. So can you please help convince me and fellow ignorami by providing a link or two? Is there maybe a statement by a council member? A proposal for the type of backdoor/encryption type the council would like to see implemented? I think something like that would really move the discussion forward.
- heimatau 6y ago
  >I have a hard time seeing it because, well, the resolution does in fact not explicitly ban (E2E) encryption. If you need the actions of the government to be explicit then you'd have a difficult time to prove any case. Let's turn this back towards you, based on the evidence of previous actions by the government of the EU (and EU), how can you claim anything prevents this malicious behavior? Nothing explicitly prevents these abuses. This is an intentional design. Does the right to E2E exist in this resolution? It doesn't, so please don't assume they won't use a roundabout way to remove this human right. Please don't ignore abuses of governmental power, they weld their power with little recourse. Let's not be quick to encourage their poor legislation.
  - prof-dr-ir 6y ago
    You seem to have upgraded the claim that "banning encryption is implicit in the resolution" for a far broader claim that I can probably summarize as "assume malice". But yet again, all I find to support the latter claim are sweeping statements without evidence. Can you provide me with examples of EU law that you consider abuses of power and that remove human rights? (Also, the "EU government" does not exist, so with "governmental power" you maybe mean the power of the Commission?)
    - heimatau 6y ago
      > Can you provide me with examples of EU law that you consider abuses of power and that remove human rights? Their previous attempts to making encryption illegal. I believe encryption is a fundamental human right. You never answered my question. You seem bogged down on my characterization. Let me ask again without the characterization. What EU laws ensure the human right to encryption?