4 ms·

I don't follow this closely but from headlines I've seen it appears as Europe goes after encryption more than the US. They also go pursue what many people consi

by bko 5y ago

I don't follow this closely but from headlines I've seen it appears as Europe goes after encryption more than the US. They also go pursue what many people consider "good" internet regulations as well, like right to be forgotten, and whatever the hell those cookie warnings are about. I can't help but to think they are two sides of the same coin. Meaning that consumer friendly internet regulations we can all more or less agree on (e.g. let me cancel subscription online), is very correlated to consumer hostile ones (e.g. banning encryption and restricting ISPs). Am I thinking about this wrong?

Hamuko 5y ago
Maybe the US doesn't need to break encryption after seemingly backdooring every major service in the world (PRISM, etc).
colechristensen 5y ago
They do seem more willing to regulate indeed. Those regulations are to benefit different groups.
- nobodyandproud 5y ago
  Who benefits the mosts from end-to-end encryption? I feel journalists and in-hostile-nation citizens are a smokescreen for more monied interests.
jacquesm 5y ago
There are some lawmakers that are a bit delusional in their thinking and they believe that 'if only they could read everybody's email, listen to every conversation and follow everybody's movements' that they could make a serious impact on crime and terrorism. They don't realize yet that Europe is part of the same universe as the rest of the planet and that we don't get to try legislate that Pi is 3 here in the same way that it didn't work in the US. Cryptography, in particular strong cryptography has become essential for business, a good chunk of our economy now has a cryptographic element to it. You can't expect that to survive without giving the baddies the same level of access that the government is demanding, besides that, the amount of noise they will have to deal with far outweighs any possible advantage. At best there will be some drop in crime because of people being more aware of the chance of being caught but in the past such differences did not seem to make much impact. People will do what they will do, irrespective of the chance of getting caught. All of these things are operating as points between two different extremes, the 'good balance' usually lies somewhere in the middle between the protection of rights on the one end and the ability of the authorities to do the jobs we entrust them with. A lot of these technical ideas originate from the perspective that if it can be automated it will be cheap and if it is cheap then they'll be able to fund it. Whereas good intelligence is super expensive, it requires boots on the ground in greater numbers than is currently possible within the budget constraints that there are. Europe is in this sense much more stingy than say the USA and that alone is a big driver behind all these digital tricks. Also: do note that this is a proposal.
- FourthProtocol 5y ago
  If it becomes real it's also asking to be trolled. Enough clever traps and the entire thing becomes worthless to the state.

by bko 5y ago

Hamuko 5y ago

Maybe the US doesn't need to break encryption after seemingly backdooring every major service in the world (PRISM, etc).

colechristensen 5y ago

They do seem more willing to regulate indeed. Those regulations are to benefit different groups.

nobodyandproud 5y ago
Who benefits the mosts from end-to-end encryption? I feel journalists and in-hostile-nation citizens are a smokescreen for more monied interests.

jacquesm 5y ago

There are some lawmakers that are a bit delusional in their thinking and they believe that 'if only they could read everybody's email, listen to every conversation and follow everybody's movements' that they could make a serious impact on crime and terrorism. They don't realize yet that Europe is part of the same universe as the rest of the planet and that we don't get to try legislate that Pi is 3 here in the same way that it didn't work in the US. Cryptography, in particular strong cryptography has become essential for business, a good chunk of our economy now has a cryptographic element to it. You can't expect that to survive without giving the baddies the same level of access that the government is demanding, besides that, the amount of noise they will have to deal with far outweighs any possible advantage. At best there will be some drop in crime because of people being more aware of the chance of being caught but in the past such differences did not seem to make much impact. People will do what they will do, irrespective of the chance of getting caught. All of these things are operating as points between two different extremes, the 'good balance' usually lies somewhere in the middle between the protection of rights on the one end and the ability of the authorities to do the jobs we entrust them with. A lot of these technical ideas originate from the perspective that if it can be automated it will be cheap and if it is cheap then they'll be able to fund it. Whereas good intelligence is super expensive, it requires boots on the ground in greater numbers than is currently possible within the budget constraints that there are. Europe is in this sense much more stingy than say the USA and that alone is a big driver behind all these digital tricks. Also: do note that this is a proposal.

FourthProtocol 5y ago
If it becomes real it's also asking to be trolled. Enough clever traps and the entire thing becomes worthless to the state.