5 ms·

Actually, shooting is a sport that isn't meant to hurt or kill. Drugs are great for society, doesn't matter how much they hurt and kill.

krono 5y ago
That's precisely why both are available in a highly regulated fashion rather than completely outlawed.
- 1337shadow 5y ago
  That's exactly why the law was not outlawing encryption at all: > the proposed passage that would have forced companies to decrypt encrypted data upon request by the authorities got removed from the draft law. I guess the article is pretty confusing.
  - ttybird2 5y ago
    It is outlawing end-to-end encryption instead.
    - 1337shadow 5y ago
      What makes you think that?
      - ttybird2 5y ago
        This: "> the proposed passage that would have forced companies to decrypt encrypted data upon request by the authorities"
        1337shadow 5y ago
        This is not against encryption, this is about decryption of encrypted data upon request by the authorities.
        ttybird2 5y ago
        I never said that it was against encryption in general. Only that it was against end-to-end encryption.
        1337shadow 5y ago
        This is not what I read.
      - psyc 5y ago
        Here is the Wikipedia article. The answer is in the very short intro. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_encryption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_encryption You're very active in this thread and making quite strongly opinionated statements. Probably worth a quick read.
        1337shadow 5y ago
        > End-to-end encryption is a system of communication where the only people who can read the messages are the people communicating. That is not a technical explanation. We can still have encryption on both ends of a communication, and at the same time have suspects using two keys instead of one to encrypt. We can encrypt a message for multiple users with GPG, why couldn't we here? As far as I understand E2EE still works, except that users suspected of a felony would also have the state key in their encryption, that doesn't mean removing other keys!! Which we should definitely not do because we do not want to compromise the privacy of innocent people!!
        ttybird2 5y ago
        "That is not a technical explanation." Technical or not it does not matter. It is clear and specific. If you encrypt the messages for someone else too (or if you leak the keys) it is not end-to-end encrypted. "and at the same time have suspects using two keys instead of one to encrypt" And regular citizens. "except that users suspected of a felony would also have the state key in their encryption" And regular citizens :) Anyway, in that case it is not end-to-end encrypted because the state is not one of the people communicating. "that doesn't mean removing other keys!!" This is not what was claimed.
        1337shadow 5y ago
        Technical matters to me. Maybe that's not what was claim, I beg to interpret this law differently, and anyway I disagree with the response that has been given here. And ... I'm not the only one who interprets the law in question this way: https://www.nextinpact.com/lebrief/48261/chiffrement-bout-en-bout-belgique-voudrait-pouvoir-installer-porte-derobee https://www.nextinpact.com/lebrief/48261/chiffrement-bout-en... https://www.rtbf.be/info/belgique/detail_un-projet-de-loi-belge-voudrait-que-le-cryptage-puisse-etre-desactive-sur-whatsapp-des-experts-tirent-la-sonnette-d-alarme?id=10858476 https://www.rtbf.be/info/belgique/detail_un-projet-de-loi-be... So, you've been under the influence of fake news. Sorry.
  - krono 5y ago
    This disproportionately affects all encrypted data. Also, I imagine a lot of non-nefarious encryption is done to hide data from the same entities that would be in control of the proposed back-door.
ben_w 5y ago
I recall China fought a war against the British specifically because the latter wanted to sell a drug which was terrible for society to the former.
- 1337shadow 5y ago
  Yes, I'm sorry I thought my second sentence was so stupid it would not be taken seriously...

krono 5y ago

That's precisely why both are available in a highly regulated fashion rather than completely outlawed.

1337shadow 5y ago
That's exactly why the law was not outlawing encryption at all: > the proposed passage that would have forced companies to decrypt encrypted data upon request by the authorities got removed from the draft law. I guess the article is pretty confusing.
- ttybird2 5y ago
  It is outlawing end-to-end encryption instead.
  - 1337shadow 5y ago
    What makes you think that?
    - ttybird2 5y ago
      This: "> the proposed passage that would have forced companies to decrypt encrypted data upon request by the authorities"
      - 1337shadow 5y ago
        This is not against encryption, this is about decryption of encrypted data upon request by the authorities.
        ttybird2 5y ago
        I never said that it was against encryption in general. Only that it was against end-to-end encryption.
        1337shadow 5y ago
        This is not what I read.
    - psyc 5y ago
      Here is the Wikipedia article. The answer is in the very short intro. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_encryption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_encryption You're very active in this thread and making quite strongly opinionated statements. Probably worth a quick read.
      - 1337shadow 5y ago
        > End-to-end encryption is a system of communication where the only people who can read the messages are the people communicating. That is not a technical explanation. We can still have encryption on both ends of a communication, and at the same time have suspects using two keys instead of one to encrypt. We can encrypt a message for multiple users with GPG, why couldn't we here? As far as I understand E2EE still works, except that users suspected of a felony would also have the state key in their encryption, that doesn't mean removing other keys!! Which we should definitely not do because we do not want to compromise the privacy of innocent people!!
        ttybird2 5y ago
        "That is not a technical explanation." Technical or not it does not matter. It is clear and specific. If you encrypt the messages for someone else too (or if you leak the keys) it is not end-to-end encrypted. "and at the same time have suspects using two keys instead of one to encrypt" And regular citizens. "except that users suspected of a felony would also have the state key in their encryption" And regular citizens :) Anyway, in that case it is not end-to-end encrypted because the state is not one of the people communicating. "that doesn't mean removing other keys!!" This is not what was claimed.
        1337shadow 5y ago
        Technical matters to me. Maybe that's not what was claim, I beg to interpret this law differently, and anyway I disagree with the response that has been given here. And ... I'm not the only one who interprets the law in question this way: https://www.nextinpact.com/lebrief/48261/chiffrement-bout-en-bout-belgique-voudrait-pouvoir-installer-porte-derobee https://www.nextinpact.com/lebrief/48261/chiffrement-bout-en... https://www.rtbf.be/info/belgique/detail_un-projet-de-loi-belge-voudrait-que-le-cryptage-puisse-etre-desactive-sur-whatsapp-des-experts-tirent-la-sonnette-d-alarme?id=10858476 https://www.rtbf.be/info/belgique/detail_un-projet-de-loi-be... So, you've been under the influence of fake news. Sorry.
- krono 5y ago
  This disproportionately affects all encrypted data. Also, I imagine a lot of non-nefarious encryption is done to hide data from the same entities that would be in control of the proposed back-door.

ben_w 5y ago

I recall China fought a war against the British specifically because the latter wanted to sell a drug which was terrible for society to the former.

1337shadow 5y ago
Yes, I'm sorry I thought my second sentence was so stupid it would not be taken seriously...