3 ms·

What's most disturbing to me is that these people without any technical knowledge are pushing for these things while largely ignoring expert opinions. Imo it's

What's most disturbing to me is that these people without any technical knowledge are pushing for these things while largely ignoring expert opinions. Imo it's fine to explore such options as you should consider everything, but just give up, accept reality, and go look for alternative options when literally everyone with knowledge about the topic says it's a bad idea and impossible to do in a secure way. They should spend that time on finding solutions that actually work.

throw457 4y ago
The experts could come forward and propose solutions that actually work. Like the CCC did with their talking points at the last major election. I always hear the arguments against but not even once is someone bringing alternatives up. Just like you did in your comment.
- stingraycharles 4y ago
  What if the desire of the government (“listen in on all communication without weakening security”) has no solution? Just because someone has a ridiculous idea, doesn’t always mean “experts should just propose a better alternative”. It may as well mean that the whole goal is flawed.
- workingon 4y ago
  This isn’t a good faith comment. You assume that there is actually a problem with the authorities not having perfect access to criminal communications. We’ve gone the entirety of human history with ridiculously simple methods of analysis for crime etc., and the world is doing just fine. There will always be some crime, stomping out .1% more crime at great expense to the public isn’t even something that everyone would agree is necessary.
  - throw457 4y ago
    People like you always pretend like you are not voting for your government or you are not part of the society you live in. There is a problem with rampart criminal activity on the net and there is atm no solution to it. Pretending that the world doesn't change has never done any good or why you are not writing this on your C64...
- xiphias2 4y ago
  What do you mean come forward? Netherlands government is payed $71 billion every year by the people to serve them. That's quite enough to pay the best security experts and software engineer in the world to increase digital security of the country, and still have plenty of money left to do everything else.
  - throw457 4y ago
    If the experts have better solutions than the one proposed by the government for a problem they care about they can just tell the government about their solutions. Like the CCC in Germany does.These proposals are steered by consultancies like McKinsey and other nefarious actors don't pretend that these politicians just talk out of their ass.
- jchw 4y ago
  There’s no need for a technical solution to this problem, anymore than there is a technical need to solve the problem of two people being able to have a conversation privately behind closed doors. Law enforcement has a lot of options and users having to have their devices treat them like a potential criminal wouldn’t be worth a moderate improvement in solving cases, less the negligible improvement that it would actually yield. If criminals were actually super advanced and air tight, you would not need to worry about backdooring chat apps. They just wouldn’t use them. But since criminals tend to be flawed humans, there is a lot of room to find other avenues. Just like in real life, where cases are routinely solved even though we can’t actually hear every private conversation that occurred behind closed doors. I do understand that E2EE chat is more powerful than conversation behind closed doors, but so is government dragnets, 0day exploit kits, etc. Ironically, extracting digital communications off of devices has actually become a cornerstone of court cases, even when encrypted chat is used.
- codeptualize 4y ago
  It's a very difficult problem, I don't have a solution, I don't know if there is a perfect solution, that doesn't mean that we should go with a really bad idea that will likely have many really dangerous consequences. As I did mention: I think it's good to consider all options, including this one, just move past it if it turns out that it's not a good solution. I think it would be great if the minister organized a panel of experts to find ways to combat these issues instead of insisting on his bad idea that even his own justice department disagrees with. I vote for parties that suggest changes to how our police is structured, I believe that will be much more effective at increasing their capacity and ability to most importantly prevent crimes and otherwise investigate and prosecute. To conclude, I think we fully agree; the focus should be on actual solutions, so let's get past this bad idea and let experts focus on solving the actual problems instead of fighting this bad idea.

throw457 4y ago

The experts could come forward and propose solutions that actually work. Like the CCC did with their talking points at the last major election. I always hear the arguments against but not even once is someone bringing alternatives up. Just like you did in your comment.

stingraycharles 4y ago
What if the desire of the government (“listen in on all communication without weakening security”) has no solution? Just because someone has a ridiculous idea, doesn’t always mean “experts should just propose a better alternative”. It may as well mean that the whole goal is flawed.
workingon 4y ago
This isn’t a good faith comment. You assume that there is actually a problem with the authorities not having perfect access to criminal communications. We’ve gone the entirety of human history with ridiculously simple methods of analysis for crime etc., and the world is doing just fine. There will always be some crime, stomping out .1% more crime at great expense to the public isn’t even something that everyone would agree is necessary.
- throw457 4y ago
  People like you always pretend like you are not voting for your government or you are not part of the society you live in. There is a problem with rampart criminal activity on the net and there is atm no solution to it. Pretending that the world doesn't change has never done any good or why you are not writing this on your C64...
xiphias2 4y ago
What do you mean come forward? Netherlands government is payed $71 billion every year by the people to serve them. That's quite enough to pay the best security experts and software engineer in the world to increase digital security of the country, and still have plenty of money left to do everything else.
- throw457 4y ago
  If the experts have better solutions than the one proposed by the government for a problem they care about they can just tell the government about their solutions. Like the CCC in Germany does.These proposals are steered by consultancies like McKinsey and other nefarious actors don't pretend that these politicians just talk out of their ass.
jchw 4y ago
There’s no need for a technical solution to this problem, anymore than there is a technical need to solve the problem of two people being able to have a conversation privately behind closed doors. Law enforcement has a lot of options and users having to have their devices treat them like a potential criminal wouldn’t be worth a moderate improvement in solving cases, less the negligible improvement that it would actually yield. If criminals were actually super advanced and air tight, you would not need to worry about backdooring chat apps. They just wouldn’t use them. But since criminals tend to be flawed humans, there is a lot of room to find other avenues. Just like in real life, where cases are routinely solved even though we can’t actually hear every private conversation that occurred behind closed doors. I do understand that E2EE chat is more powerful than conversation behind closed doors, but so is government dragnets, 0day exploit kits, etc. Ironically, extracting digital communications off of devices has actually become a cornerstone of court cases, even when encrypted chat is used.
codeptualize 4y ago
It's a very difficult problem, I don't have a solution, I don't know if there is a perfect solution, that doesn't mean that we should go with a really bad idea that will likely have many really dangerous consequences. As I did mention: I think it's good to consider all options, including this one, just move past it if it turns out that it's not a good solution. I think it would be great if the minister organized a panel of experts to find ways to combat these issues instead of insisting on his bad idea that even his own justice department disagrees with. I vote for parties that suggest changes to how our police is structured, I believe that will be much more effective at increasing their capacity and ability to most importantly prevent crimes and otherwise investigate and prosecute. To conclude, I think we fully agree; the focus should be on actual solutions, so let's get past this bad idea and let experts focus on solving the actual problems instead of fighting this bad idea.