4 ms·

> very few laws to completely shut down dissent except it would mean silencing millions of people, which is frankly more similar to the intro of a sci-fi novel

> very few laws to completely shut down dissent except it would mean silencing millions of people, which is frankly more similar to the intro of a sci-fi novel than modern France. See what's happening in Israel, not even the omnipotent Netanyahu could go against the huge popular protests. > Von der Leyen refuses to show the private texts she exchanged with Pfizer' boss, That's the same right everyone has in Europe. Nobody can be forced to publicly show their private conversations. Only the authorities can ask for them in the case of a trial, if a judge gives the authorization. > but wants every EU citizen to surrender their private communications. That's a non sequitur. The law is not about "surrender your private communications", first of all because E2E it's about secrecy, not privacy, privacy still exists without secrecy, and even if it was, Von der Leyen (that I dislike, to use an euphemism) would be subject to it too. The real World does not work like Gotham City.

Aeolun 4y ago
> privacy still exists without secrecy It can, but if the goal is to —in one fell swoop— remove both secrecy (encryption) and privacy (scanning of de—encrypted information) then clearly that isn’t true.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  So basically the privacy is removed the moment privacy is removed (the scanning bit), not when secrecy is.
raverbashing 4y ago
> first of all because E2E it's about secrecy, not privacy I think not even the people in EC in favour of this have such a bad argument as this one Privacy requires secrecy
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > Privacy requires secrecy No, it doesn't. When I go to the urologist there is no secret about what's going to happen, but the doctor closes the door to respect my privacy. When a woman gives birth, unauthorized people are not allowed to enter the room. Because "privacy". When I take money from the ATM I do it in private, not in secrecy. Everyone knows I am taking money, but are required to not get too close. Conflating the two arguments is either out of confusion or bad faith.
  - raverbashing 4y ago
    > When I go to the urologist there is no secret about what's going to happen, Yes there is. What happens there is a secret, protected by medical secrecy. There are assumptions on what can happen, but it is still protected And whatever you're assuming to happen might not necessarily happen there Having exceptions where the information gets out "by itself" (in the case of pregnancy) do not make the acts that happen there any less secret.
    - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
      > What happens there is a secret, protected by medical secrecy No, it isn't. My father is (redaction: was) a doctor, there is no secret about it, medical records are not secret, they are public records kept forever in public medical archives. They are private though, to access them you need an authorization and a reason (of course). Unless it's dictated by the law that some medical records must be kept secret: one example is being HIV positive. > And whatever you're assuming to happen might not necessarily happen there You're actually on the right track, but still confuse the two terms. So I'll make it easier for you: privacy is consensual secrecy is not. That's the real difference. You in fact have a “right to privacy” because other people must respect it, but not equivalent “right to secrecy”, you can be asked to reveal a secret by authorities, while they can't (shouldn't) violate your privacy.
scoutt 4y ago
I think you have a very interesting point I never thought about. And after thinking it for a while, I believe that in the case of digital communications and their nature, secrecy ensures privacy. If there is a line of people, with you at one end and me in the other end, and I need to send a message to you in private, and the only way I have to do it is by communicating this message along the line of people... I would have to come with some encoding method so nobody but you and me can understand this message.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > I would have to come with some encoding method so nobody but you and me can understand this message. That obviously strengthen the chances of the messages staying private, but we had privacy long before encryption. Phone calls could not be listened to and letters could not be opened, without proper authorization. Obviously someone did, but that someone was breaking the law. You have the right to privacy in your own house, of course someone could look inside from a window, but if that's an habit, that someone is breaking the law. etc. etc.

Aeolun 4y ago

> privacy still exists without secrecy It can, but if the goal is to —in one fell swoop— remove both secrecy (encryption) and privacy (scanning of de—encrypted information) then clearly that isn’t true.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
So basically the privacy is removed the moment privacy is removed (the scanning bit), not when secrecy is.

raverbashing 4y ago

> first of all because E2E it's about secrecy, not privacy I think not even the people in EC in favour of this have such a bad argument as this one Privacy requires secrecy

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> Privacy requires secrecy No, it doesn't. When I go to the urologist there is no secret about what's going to happen, but the doctor closes the door to respect my privacy. When a woman gives birth, unauthorized people are not allowed to enter the room. Because "privacy". When I take money from the ATM I do it in private, not in secrecy. Everyone knows I am taking money, but are required to not get too close. Conflating the two arguments is either out of confusion or bad faith.
- raverbashing 4y ago
  > When I go to the urologist there is no secret about what's going to happen, Yes there is. What happens there is a secret, protected by medical secrecy. There are assumptions on what can happen, but it is still protected And whatever you're assuming to happen might not necessarily happen there Having exceptions where the information gets out "by itself" (in the case of pregnancy) do not make the acts that happen there any less secret.
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    > What happens there is a secret, protected by medical secrecy No, it isn't. My father is (redaction: was) a doctor, there is no secret about it, medical records are not secret, they are public records kept forever in public medical archives. They are private though, to access them you need an authorization and a reason (of course). Unless it's dictated by the law that some medical records must be kept secret: one example is being HIV positive. > And whatever you're assuming to happen might not necessarily happen there You're actually on the right track, but still confuse the two terms. So I'll make it easier for you: privacy is consensual secrecy is not. That's the real difference. You in fact have a “right to privacy” because other people must respect it, but not equivalent “right to secrecy”, you can be asked to reveal a secret by authorities, while they can't (shouldn't) violate your privacy.

scoutt 4y ago

I think you have a very interesting point I never thought about. And after thinking it for a while, I believe that in the case of digital communications and their nature, secrecy ensures privacy. If there is a line of people, with you at one end and me in the other end, and I need to send a message to you in private, and the only way I have to do it is by communicating this message along the line of people... I would have to come with some encoding method so nobody but you and me can understand this message.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> I would have to come with some encoding method so nobody but you and me can understand this message. That obviously strengthen the chances of the messages staying private, but we had privacy long before encryption. Phone calls could not be listened to and letters could not be opened, without proper authorization. Obviously someone did, but that someone was breaking the law. You have the right to privacy in your own house, of course someone could look inside from a window, but if that's an habit, that someone is breaking the law. etc. etc.