12 ms·

There seems like there's new bills from Australia, UK and the US every day. They'll just keep going until the shit gets passed?

timeimp 3y ago
Yes - because the public has a very, very short-term working memory. The public pressure and ad campaigns _against_ these things have to be constant. All it takes is 1 domino to fall then it becomes "well, if it is good enough for <other country>, its good enough for us!"
- sgath92 3y ago
  I am not sure that the American public cares much about what has become the norm in other countries so that line doesn't really carry any weight here. I'd argue that instead, its more that the public is so apathetic about bad-turns of law that they'll just shrug with a sigh and begrudgingly tolerate the new paradigm.
- lillecarl 3y ago
  I don't get how the political system can work like this, we keep denying laws that are absolute dogshit. The politicians give them a makeover and try again. They only need a yes once and we need a no every time. Makes me question democracy really, it seems fundamentally broken when the peoples voice is supressed over and over. Same stuff happens in Sweden, but with other kinds of laws.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    Democracy makes a lot more sense if you see it as an emergency escape valve to prevent violent revolution (because you assume anyone willing to violently revolt would be willing to vote).
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - armchairhacker 3y ago
    "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others." A monarchy of genuinely good rulers is a better government than a democracy, but it's hard to ensure a good ruler because whoever gets chosen, there's always a risk they're corrupt. Democracy gives the people more of a chance to prevent bad laws than a monarchy, even if it's a small chance. Maybe one day we'll something better than Democracy, like an AI-controlled government, but nobody's come up with anything so far.
    - flagrant_taco 3y ago
      Why would an I-controlled system be better? How do we guarantee the alignment problem never rears it's head?
    - Gud 3y ago
      This is not an inherent problem with democracy but with representative democracy. These problems go away when the populace have actual power, in a direct democracy. And why on earth e we liked i want to be ruled by a machine? Come on dude
      - immibis 3y ago
        Does it really? you think the average man won't vote for the Everyone Gets A Free House Also Encryption Is Illegal Because Only Criminals Use It bill?
        Gud 3y ago
        Switzerland has direct democracy and it works great. Your concerns are invalid!
        rpdillon 3y ago
        This may be the wrong conclusion to draw. Larger populations present different governance challenges than small ones do, since decisions that affect fewer are easier to make. Switzerland has about the same population as NYC.
  - mkatx 3y ago
    I've always felt like laws should be reviewed every so often, maybe even re-passed, to be sure they are still relevant, make sense, and to see if they worked as intended. There are at least some laws that don't make sense anymore or just flat out failed, but have big implications. Like blue laws, adultery laws, inheritance/intestacy laws, mandatory minimum sentences, sodomy laws, drug laws, etc.. But I do see problems in revisiting laws, it's expensive and time consuming. It would be a never ending battle for both sides, and we would get even less done.
    - immibis 3y ago
      It would be an incentive to write laws succinctly and drop redundant ones so there's less to review.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - ajmurmann 3y ago
      In the current political climate in the US, I'd also be concerned that laws that we obviously need and agree on would be held hostage for negotiation purposes just like the budget. I also wonder if laws would just get bundled together for a single vote and then bullshit/pork gets attached.
    - sneak 3y ago
      Automatic expiration timers for all laws. A bicameral legislature where one half needs 2/3rds majority to pass laws, but the other half only repeals laws and needs only 50%. (The latter is not my idea, it comes from Heinlein.)
    - roenxi 3y ago
      > It would be a never ending battle for both sides, and we would get even less done. Heh, are you a Congressperson? Who is this "we"? The whole thread is people pointing out that "we" and the people doing the things are different. Congress has been on a quiet crusade against encryption since before Pretty Good Privacy in the 90s. I remain confused about what people fundamentally see when they look at Congress. It would be a huge win for them to get nothing done and have nearly no laws, most of what they've passed for the last 30 years has been disastrous and encouraged the US in steadily unwinding financially and as a united political body. If the power isn't in Congress it'll get picked up by state and local governments where much more ordinary people will get a say on how they are governed. And do much less damage when they screw up.
  - flagrant_taco 3y ago
    Suppressing the people's voice isn't democracy at all. At best you could partially attribute that to a representative system based on fear of the mob.
  - bratbag 3y ago
    Dropping democracy means they win the first time.
  - dontlaugh 3y ago
    That's because liberal democracy is indeed broken. The capitalist class use state power to advance their own material interests. Why wouldn't they pay for laws that give them an immediate advantage or at least divide the working class?
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    Many of these "dogshit" laws make sense, when viewed with narrow enough lens. The problem is twofold... Politicians have limited capacity to research/understand potential side-effects of these laws. So they rely on lobbyists from the interested parties. Or their own staff, who have their own biases. Additionally, politicians face re-election. So, they have to balance the whims of their electorate with what might be a better long-term view. "Think of the children" syndrome, if you will.
- lost_tourist 3y ago
  it's why I donate annually to EFF and ACL . I wish I could afford to donate more.
Marsymars 3y ago
It works for the lobby around lessening and restricting consumer rights when it comes to copyright.
davkan 3y ago
Unless we pass an amendment to the constitution guaranteeing the right for private individuals communicate over encrypted channels, which won’t happen. And we have to win every single time one of these bills come up. They only have to win once.
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  If we're really at a point where all rights must be constitutional protected the game is already lost. Rights and freedoms are meant to default to the citizen, meaning anything is legal unless it specifically violates a law on the books. I.e. Laws and rights are meant to be subtractive rather than addative. You can remove my rights by law, short of that I can do whatever I want.
  - smabie 3y ago
    This is exactly what they're doing tho? Removing rights by laws
    - flagrant_taco 3y ago
      Sure, they're trying to. We're supposed to have a say in laws that get passed and who is passing them though. I was only pushing back on the idea that we need new amendments to carve out our rights when we shiuld be able to simply block laws we disagree with and replace the people trying to trample on our rights. With regards to privacy specifically, we could go a long way with the existing rights protecting us from illegal search and seizure. That should really cover any overstepping by the government and police, leaving only the need to limit what private companies can and can't do (though this should be done with laws and not amendments).
  - solidsnack9000 3y ago
    I don't think this is the right way to look at it. Without the 1st Amendment, where would be today? Many people on this site are not fans of the 2nd Amendment, but I think they would have to acknowledge that, without it, the situation of the armed citizenry today, while not really comparable to that of colonial times, would be much shabbier than it is -- we would have lost as much of the right to bear arms as the British have, or the Canadians. One important function of laws is to delimit and codify the exercise of rights and freedoms. Another is to explicitly limit the government. We should probably be amending the Constitution to accomplish this more often, actually.
lost_tourist 3y ago
It does seem that at some point they will get the right mix of executive and congressional branches to get it done, unfortunately. They really despise not being able to surveil all of us 24/7.
isaacremuant 3y ago
Europe besides the UK too. Don't be fooled by the EU is privacy heaven smoke and mirrors. Just because the EU is not US doesn't mean they're not doing the same Draconian shit funded by similar or the same people. They use the same excuses of "needing it to catch heinous crime/think of the children" and "it will only be used for criminals" but we know that's not true. We know that these laws are used against those considered adversarial to gov, including those engaging in journalism, whether they have a degree on it or not (which shouldn't be the bar to not get surveilled and treated like an authortiarian state)
- cccbbbaaa 3y ago
  The situation in EU is more nuanced than what HN wants you to believe: https://www.euractiv.com/section/law-enforcement/news/eu-watchdog-online-child-abuse-draft-law-creates-illusion-of-legality/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/law-enforcement/news/eu-wat... > Wiewiórowski said this type of indiscriminate scanning of private communications “will always be illegal under the Charter of Fundamental Rights (and probably under several national constitutional laws as well),” https://edps.europa.eu/system/files/2022-07/22-07-28_edpb-edps-joint-opinion-csam_en.pdf https://edps.europa.eu/system/files/2022-07/22-07-28_edpb-ed... https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/summary-of-statement-by-the-federal-commissioner-for-data-protection-and-freedom-of-information-on-the-public-hearing-of-the-committee-on-digital-affairs-of-the-german-bundestagon-the-topic-of/ https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/summary-of-statement-by-the... https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/leaked-eu-council-legal-analysis-eu-chat-control-plans-for-indiscriminately-searching-private-messages-doomed-to-failure/ https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/leaked-eu-council-legal-ana... See also the repeated ECJ decisions against IP retention.
  - isaacremuant 3y ago
    I don't see how calling it nuanced negates anything I said. From the top of my head, Spain, Sweden and Ireland (but not limited to them) absolutely support getting access to e2e encrypted information if they can get away with it. https://www.wired.com/story/europe-break-encryption-leaked-document-csa-law/ https://www.wired.com/story/europe-break-encryption-leaked-d... Obviously most countries that face this have to deal with reality and the insecurities they might introduce but it's not moral qualms or privacy advocates that usually stop them. And just because someone in a eu body said something is illegal doesn't mean we won't get a big propaganda push down the line if they decide to implement it, like what happens in vaccine passports in Europe (which clearly broke all kinds of rules of freedom of travel and human rights). I don't care what HN "wants me to believe" and I certainly don't generally represent popular HN views. We can argue on the merits of what I say.

timeimp 3y ago

Yes - because the public has a very, very short-term working memory. The public pressure and ad campaigns _against_ these things have to be constant. All it takes is 1 domino to fall then it becomes "well, if it is good enough for <other country>, its good enough for us!"

sgath92 3y ago
I am not sure that the American public cares much about what has become the norm in other countries so that line doesn't really carry any weight here. I'd argue that instead, its more that the public is so apathetic about bad-turns of law that they'll just shrug with a sigh and begrudgingly tolerate the new paradigm.
lillecarl 3y ago
I don't get how the political system can work like this, we keep denying laws that are absolute dogshit. The politicians give them a makeover and try again. They only need a yes once and we need a no every time. Makes me question democracy really, it seems fundamentally broken when the peoples voice is supressed over and over. Same stuff happens in Sweden, but with other kinds of laws.
- bombcar 3y ago
  Democracy makes a lot more sense if you see it as an emergency escape valve to prevent violent revolution (because you assume anyone willing to violently revolt would be willing to vote).
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- armchairhacker 3y ago
  "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others." A monarchy of genuinely good rulers is a better government than a democracy, but it's hard to ensure a good ruler because whoever gets chosen, there's always a risk they're corrupt. Democracy gives the people more of a chance to prevent bad laws than a monarchy, even if it's a small chance. Maybe one day we'll something better than Democracy, like an AI-controlled government, but nobody's come up with anything so far.
  - flagrant_taco 3y ago
    Why would an I-controlled system be better? How do we guarantee the alignment problem never rears it's head?
  - Gud 3y ago
    This is not an inherent problem with democracy but with representative democracy. These problems go away when the populace have actual power, in a direct democracy. And why on earth e we liked i want to be ruled by a machine? Come on dude
    - immibis 3y ago
      Does it really? you think the average man won't vote for the Everyone Gets A Free House Also Encryption Is Illegal Because Only Criminals Use It bill?
      - Gud 3y ago
        Switzerland has direct democracy and it works great. Your concerns are invalid!
        rpdillon 3y ago
        This may be the wrong conclusion to draw. Larger populations present different governance challenges than small ones do, since decisions that affect fewer are easier to make. Switzerland has about the same population as NYC.
- mkatx 3y ago
  I've always felt like laws should be reviewed every so often, maybe even re-passed, to be sure they are still relevant, make sense, and to see if they worked as intended. There are at least some laws that don't make sense anymore or just flat out failed, but have big implications. Like blue laws, adultery laws, inheritance/intestacy laws, mandatory minimum sentences, sodomy laws, drug laws, etc.. But I do see problems in revisiting laws, it's expensive and time consuming. It would be a never ending battle for both sides, and we would get even less done.
  - immibis 3y ago
    It would be an incentive to write laws succinctly and drop redundant ones so there's less to review.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - ajmurmann 3y ago
    In the current political climate in the US, I'd also be concerned that laws that we obviously need and agree on would be held hostage for negotiation purposes just like the budget. I also wonder if laws would just get bundled together for a single vote and then bullshit/pork gets attached.
  - sneak 3y ago
    Automatic expiration timers for all laws. A bicameral legislature where one half needs 2/3rds majority to pass laws, but the other half only repeals laws and needs only 50%. (The latter is not my idea, it comes from Heinlein.)
  - roenxi 3y ago
    > It would be a never ending battle for both sides, and we would get even less done. Heh, are you a Congressperson? Who is this "we"? The whole thread is people pointing out that "we" and the people doing the things are different. Congress has been on a quiet crusade against encryption since before Pretty Good Privacy in the 90s. I remain confused about what people fundamentally see when they look at Congress. It would be a huge win for them to get nothing done and have nearly no laws, most of what they've passed for the last 30 years has been disastrous and encouraged the US in steadily unwinding financially and as a united political body. If the power isn't in Congress it'll get picked up by state and local governments where much more ordinary people will get a say on how they are governed. And do much less damage when they screw up.
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  Suppressing the people's voice isn't democracy at all. At best you could partially attribute that to a representative system based on fear of the mob.
- bratbag 3y ago
  Dropping democracy means they win the first time.
- dontlaugh 3y ago
  That's because liberal democracy is indeed broken. The capitalist class use state power to advance their own material interests. Why wouldn't they pay for laws that give them an immediate advantage or at least divide the working class?
- alistairSH 3y ago
  Many of these "dogshit" laws make sense, when viewed with narrow enough lens. The problem is twofold... Politicians have limited capacity to research/understand potential side-effects of these laws. So they rely on lobbyists from the interested parties. Or their own staff, who have their own biases. Additionally, politicians face re-election. So, they have to balance the whims of their electorate with what might be a better long-term view. "Think of the children" syndrome, if you will.
lost_tourist 3y ago
it's why I donate annually to EFF and ACL . I wish I could afford to donate more.

Marsymars 3y ago

It works for the lobby around lessening and restricting consumer rights when it comes to copyright.

davkan 3y ago

Unless we pass an amendment to the constitution guaranteeing the right for private individuals communicate over encrypted channels, which won’t happen. And we have to win every single time one of these bills come up. They only have to win once.

flagrant_taco 3y ago
If we're really at a point where all rights must be constitutional protected the game is already lost. Rights and freedoms are meant to default to the citizen, meaning anything is legal unless it specifically violates a law on the books. I.e. Laws and rights are meant to be subtractive rather than addative. You can remove my rights by law, short of that I can do whatever I want.
- smabie 3y ago
  This is exactly what they're doing tho? Removing rights by laws
  - flagrant_taco 3y ago
    Sure, they're trying to. We're supposed to have a say in laws that get passed and who is passing them though. I was only pushing back on the idea that we need new amendments to carve out our rights when we shiuld be able to simply block laws we disagree with and replace the people trying to trample on our rights. With regards to privacy specifically, we could go a long way with the existing rights protecting us from illegal search and seizure. That should really cover any overstepping by the government and police, leaving only the need to limit what private companies can and can't do (though this should be done with laws and not amendments).
- solidsnack9000 3y ago
  I don't think this is the right way to look at it. Without the 1st Amendment, where would be today? Many people on this site are not fans of the 2nd Amendment, but I think they would have to acknowledge that, without it, the situation of the armed citizenry today, while not really comparable to that of colonial times, would be much shabbier than it is -- we would have lost as much of the right to bear arms as the British have, or the Canadians. One important function of laws is to delimit and codify the exercise of rights and freedoms. Another is to explicitly limit the government. We should probably be amending the Constitution to accomplish this more often, actually.

lost_tourist 3y ago

It does seem that at some point they will get the right mix of executive and congressional branches to get it done, unfortunately. They really despise not being able to surveil all of us 24/7.

isaacremuant 3y ago

Europe besides the UK too. Don't be fooled by the EU is privacy heaven smoke and mirrors. Just because the EU is not US doesn't mean they're not doing the same Draconian shit funded by similar or the same people. They use the same excuses of "needing it to catch heinous crime/think of the children" and "it will only be used for criminals" but we know that's not true. We know that these laws are used against those considered adversarial to gov, including those engaging in journalism, whether they have a degree on it or not (which shouldn't be the bar to not get surveilled and treated like an authortiarian state)

cccbbbaaa 3y ago
The situation in EU is more nuanced than what HN wants you to believe: https://www.euractiv.com/section/law-enforcement/news/eu-watchdog-online-child-abuse-draft-law-creates-illusion-of-legality/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/law-enforcement/news/eu-wat... > Wiewiórowski said this type of indiscriminate scanning of private communications “will always be illegal under the Charter of Fundamental Rights (and probably under several national constitutional laws as well),” https://edps.europa.eu/system/files/2022-07/22-07-28_edpb-edps-joint-opinion-csam_en.pdf https://edps.europa.eu/system/files/2022-07/22-07-28_edpb-ed... https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/summary-of-statement-by-the-federal-commissioner-for-data-protection-and-freedom-of-information-on-the-public-hearing-of-the-committee-on-digital-affairs-of-the-german-bundestagon-the-topic-of/ https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/summary-of-statement-by-the... https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/leaked-eu-council-legal-analysis-eu-chat-control-plans-for-indiscriminately-searching-private-messages-doomed-to-failure/ https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/leaked-eu-council-legal-ana... See also the repeated ECJ decisions against IP retention.
- isaacremuant 3y ago
  I don't see how calling it nuanced negates anything I said. From the top of my head, Spain, Sweden and Ireland (but not limited to them) absolutely support getting access to e2e encrypted information if they can get away with it. https://www.wired.com/story/europe-break-encryption-leaked-document-csa-law/ https://www.wired.com/story/europe-break-encryption-leaked-d... Obviously most countries that face this have to deal with reality and the insecurities they might introduce but it's not moral qualms or privacy advocates that usually stop them. And just because someone in a eu body said something is illegal doesn't mean we won't get a big propaganda push down the line if they decide to implement it, like what happens in vaccine passports in Europe (which clearly broke all kinds of rules of freedom of travel and human rights). I don't care what HN "wants me to believe" and I certainly don't generally represent popular HN views. We can argue on the merits of what I say.