6 ms·

European regulators are idiots who have spent nearly half a decade trying to undermine end to end encryption. If I were them, I’d say their best chance at defen

European regulators are idiots who have spent nearly half a decade trying to undermine end to end encryption. If I were them, I’d say their best chance at defending human freedom would be to make nuclear reactors easy to build, not engaging in some boondoggle about how easy it is to install some apps on a phone. This will end up being as useful as GDPR privacy notices and cookie consents on websites.

smoldesu 3y ago
> European regulators are idiots who have spent nearly half a decade trying to undermine end to end encryption. How exactly are they different from Apple, then? Why didn't Apple resist their incorporation into FIVE-EYES and Europe's surveillance network? > If I were them, I’d say their best chance at defending human freedom would be to make nuclear reactors easy to build That's the Free Market's job. If the world's largest company was a nuclear reactor business and not a smartphone one, maybe they'd be doing it. > This will end up being as useful as GDPR privacy notices and cookie consents on websites. Or as effective as their USB-C regulation. Time will tell, eh?
- shuckles 3y ago
  > How exactly are they different from Apple, then Because Apple sells the highest security mass market consumer device ever made? Because Apple brought easy to use, end to end encryption to the masses with iMessage? No clue what your point here is besides regurgitating some non-specific conspiracy theory about the extent of Apple’s cooperation with the government. > That's the Free Market's job. Regulation is not the free market’s job, as you evidently believe since you are so excited about digital markets regulation. Maybe they could start by not categorizing wood pellets shipped across the Atlantic and produced from strip mining forests in southeastern United States as “green energy.” > Or as effective as their USB-C regulation How was USB-C regulation effective? Yeah Apple complied, but are customers’ lives better? In aggregate? By what metric? I for one had to buy a new iPhone cable for the first time in half a decade to connect my phone to my car. By its stated aims, the regulation was not effective in my case.
  - Apocryphon 3y ago
    The mere fact that you had to buy a cable does not speak to the efficacy or lack thereof of the regulation, any more than the first tweet I found by searching "USB-C Apple" does. https://twitter.com/trunarla/status/1706760798662758517 https://twitter.com/trunarla/status/1706760798662758517 I suppose hackers really are digging EU regulation in this area! https://twitter.com/trunarla/status/1706766113672212932 https://twitter.com/trunarla/status/1706766113672212932 Gamers too? https://twitter.com/VadimYuryev/status/1704507228353351741 https://twitter.com/VadimYuryev/status/1704507228353351741
    - shuckles 3y ago
      I was not the one claiming the regulation was effective, so the burden of proof isn't on me.
      - Apocryphon 3y ago
        Ah, but you are claiming that the regulation was ineffective, by advancing your anecdotal case as evidence. And with one simple search there is at least two anecdata points that cancel out yours.
      - smoldesu 3y ago
        You made no claim. A single contradiction is not a refutation or even a counterarguement. It is the bare-minimum disagreement you can assert without attacking the speaker instead of the problem: https://issuepedia.org/File:Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg https://issuepedia.org/File:Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreeme... This argument may not be worth continuing if you don't have anything left to say.
        shuckles 3y ago
        You: The regulation to require USB-C was effective. [no citation] Me: By what standard? In my specific case, it wasn’t. You: Blah blah blah burden of proof hierarchy of disagreement. So do you have any citation or do you plan to keep deflecting? So far, my anecdote has been the only evidence provided about the matter, even if it’s weak which I already conceded.
Apocryphon 3y ago
What about Japanese regulators https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36393809 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36393809

smoldesu 3y ago

> European regulators are idiots who have spent nearly half a decade trying to undermine end to end encryption. How exactly are they different from Apple, then? Why didn't Apple resist their incorporation into FIVE-EYES and Europe's surveillance network? > If I were them, I’d say their best chance at defending human freedom would be to make nuclear reactors easy to build That's the Free Market's job. If the world's largest company was a nuclear reactor business and not a smartphone one, maybe they'd be doing it. > This will end up being as useful as GDPR privacy notices and cookie consents on websites. Or as effective as their USB-C regulation. Time will tell, eh?

shuckles 3y ago
> How exactly are they different from Apple, then Because Apple sells the highest security mass market consumer device ever made? Because Apple brought easy to use, end to end encryption to the masses with iMessage? No clue what your point here is besides regurgitating some non-specific conspiracy theory about the extent of Apple’s cooperation with the government. > That's the Free Market's job. Regulation is not the free market’s job, as you evidently believe since you are so excited about digital markets regulation. Maybe they could start by not categorizing wood pellets shipped across the Atlantic and produced from strip mining forests in southeastern United States as “green energy.” > Or as effective as their USB-C regulation How was USB-C regulation effective? Yeah Apple complied, but are customers’ lives better? In aggregate? By what metric? I for one had to buy a new iPhone cable for the first time in half a decade to connect my phone to my car. By its stated aims, the regulation was not effective in my case.
- Apocryphon 3y ago
  The mere fact that you had to buy a cable does not speak to the efficacy or lack thereof of the regulation, any more than the first tweet I found by searching "USB-C Apple" does. https://twitter.com/trunarla/status/1706760798662758517 https://twitter.com/trunarla/status/1706760798662758517 I suppose hackers really are digging EU regulation in this area! https://twitter.com/trunarla/status/1706766113672212932 https://twitter.com/trunarla/status/1706766113672212932 Gamers too? https://twitter.com/VadimYuryev/status/1704507228353351741 https://twitter.com/VadimYuryev/status/1704507228353351741
  - shuckles 3y ago
    I was not the one claiming the regulation was effective, so the burden of proof isn't on me.
    - Apocryphon 3y ago
      Ah, but you are claiming that the regulation was ineffective, by advancing your anecdotal case as evidence. And with one simple search there is at least two anecdata points that cancel out yours.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      You made no claim. A single contradiction is not a refutation or even a counterarguement. It is the bare-minimum disagreement you can assert without attacking the speaker instead of the problem: https://issuepedia.org/File:Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg https://issuepedia.org/File:Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreeme... This argument may not be worth continuing if you don't have anything left to say.
      - shuckles 3y ago
        You: The regulation to require USB-C was effective. [no citation] Me: By what standard? In my specific case, it wasn’t. You: Blah blah blah burden of proof hierarchy of disagreement. So do you have any citation or do you plan to keep deflecting? So far, my anecdote has been the only evidence provided about the matter, even if it’s weak which I already conceded.

Apocryphon 3y ago

What about Japanese regulators https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36393809 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36393809