3 ms·

Signal will withdraw from Sweden if encryption-busting laws take effect

55 points by pseudolus 2y ago

NalNezumi 2y ago
The citizens rights have slowly but surely been eroding over the last couple of years in Sweden, under the guise of protection from gang violence. With the Uk precedence, this might actually pass given the current political climate. Sad how a country that used to have pirate bay have come to this.
- whynotmaybe 2y ago
  How is this an erosion of citizens rights? From my understanding, every country in the world have always been able to tap to phone lines to listen to conversations whenever they wanted (sometimes surrounded by laws). And now every country is trying to do the same with electronic communications that were evading this situation. Of course it will be abused, it always was the case and always will. I see this more as a wake up call that only face to face communication in private settings are legally private. Privacy was never automatic before 2000`s, it required effort. It seems people forgot that.
  - NalNezumi 2y ago
    >From my understanding, every country in the world > it always was the case and always will >before 2000`s, it required effort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
    - whynotmaybe 2y ago
      How ? It seems to be a continuation of historical trends where privacy was never automatic but somehow people always forget it. Is this fundamentally different?
      - fwn 2y ago
        When I was standing in the field in the Middle Ages, harvesting turnips, and I said to the guy next to me: I don't think I like our prince. There was no permanent record of that. If I was standing at the loom and I said to the weaver next to me: I don't think we're getting enough of a share of the value of our work, then there was no permanent record of that. Today, if I ask my colleague on MS Teams what he wants for lunch, IT will probably still be able to process that message automatically 30 years from now. Without a persistent record, privacy was the default. All messages were ephemeral. Large-scale automated surveillance power is a contemporary anomaly, and it is currently uncertain whether open and democratic societies will survive this very recent and dangerous threat.
        whynotmaybe 2y ago
        You're comparing oral discussion with written discussions. We got so distracted by shiny new tools that we forgot what it was underneath. My grandfather, before the modern computer era, used to say "words fade, writings stays". Trying to prevent government from breaking encryption won't solve the underlying issue that we are naive.
        andelink 2y ago
        Am I wrong to expect a letter I send someone via mail to not be opened and read by the post office first? I’ll be damned if I ever reach your level of indifference.
        whynotmaybe 2y ago
        No, you can expect that it won't be read. But nobody can assure you that it never will. This is the same with email or IM. I don't go around giving my Gmail password to everyone, but I know that many processes at Gmail read my mails. I don't consider it indifference to know that every written conversation I make could be read by someone. Nobody should blindly trust anyone telling you the opposite.
akimbostrawman 2y ago
This is how you actually take a stance unlike the cowards at apple
immibis 2y ago
Dupe https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43171205 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43171205
LuciOfStars 2y ago
Everyone seems to be cheering for this, but I think it's important to remember that Swedes have a need for private, secure communications just like the rest of us. If they've already gotten their normie friends to switch to Signal, I highly doubt they'll be ecstatic about moving apps again. This is bad for people that depend on Signal, period.
- winternewt 2y ago
  Who is cheering, other than clueless boomer politicians?
impossiblefork 2y ago
This law is probably not legal though. The data storage directive wasn't, this probably isn't either. Obviously we have parliamentary sovereignty, so if parliament actually wants it done, then it's the law, but they probably would not exercise parliamentary sovereignty in a case like this which would be dubious treaty-wise once there's a legal judgement against in something like the ECHR. There's a reason this is being considered though, and it's kind of a problem. People probably genuinely believe that unless they can go through stuff that people say, a bunch of the foreigners would cause problems that be dealt with as society is presently organized.

55 points by pseudolus 2y ago

The citizens rights have slowly but surely been eroding over the last couple of years in Sweden, under the guise of protection from gang violence. With the Uk precedence, this might actually pass given the current political climate. Sad how a country that used to have pirate bay have come to this.

whynotmaybe 2y ago
How is this an erosion of citizens rights? From my understanding, every country in the world have always been able to tap to phone lines to listen to conversations whenever they wanted (sometimes surrounded by laws). And now every country is trying to do the same with electronic communications that were evading this situation. Of course it will be abused, it always was the case and always will. I see this more as a wake up call that only face to face communication in private settings are legally private. Privacy was never automatic before 2000`s, it required effort. It seems people forgot that.
- NalNezumi 2y ago
  >From my understanding, every country in the world > it always was the case and always will >before 2000`s, it required effort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
  - whynotmaybe 2y ago
    How ? It seems to be a continuation of historical trends where privacy was never automatic but somehow people always forget it. Is this fundamentally different?
    - fwn 2y ago
      When I was standing in the field in the Middle Ages, harvesting turnips, and I said to the guy next to me: I don't think I like our prince. There was no permanent record of that. If I was standing at the loom and I said to the weaver next to me: I don't think we're getting enough of a share of the value of our work, then there was no permanent record of that. Today, if I ask my colleague on MS Teams what he wants for lunch, IT will probably still be able to process that message automatically 30 years from now. Without a persistent record, privacy was the default. All messages were ephemeral. Large-scale automated surveillance power is a contemporary anomaly, and it is currently uncertain whether open and democratic societies will survive this very recent and dangerous threat.
      - whynotmaybe 2y ago
        You're comparing oral discussion with written discussions. We got so distracted by shiny new tools that we forgot what it was underneath. My grandfather, before the modern computer era, used to say "words fade, writings stays". Trying to prevent government from breaking encryption won't solve the underlying issue that we are naive.
        andelink 2y ago
        Am I wrong to expect a letter I send someone via mail to not be opened and read by the post office first? I’ll be damned if I ever reach your level of indifference.
        whynotmaybe 2y ago
        No, you can expect that it won't be read. But nobody can assure you that it never will. This is the same with email or IM. I don't go around giving my Gmail password to everyone, but I know that many processes at Gmail read my mails. I don't consider it indifference to know that every written conversation I make could be read by someone. Nobody should blindly trust anyone telling you the opposite.

akimbostrawman 2y ago

This is how you actually take a stance unlike the cowards at apple

immibis 2y ago

Dupe https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43171205 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43171205

LuciOfStars 2y ago

Everyone seems to be cheering for this, but I think it's important to remember that Swedes have a need for private, secure communications just like the rest of us. If they've already gotten their normie friends to switch to Signal, I highly doubt they'll be ecstatic about moving apps again. This is bad for people that depend on Signal, period.

winternewt 2y ago
Who is cheering, other than clueless boomer politicians?

impossiblefork 2y ago

This law is probably not legal though. The data storage directive wasn't, this probably isn't either. Obviously we have parliamentary sovereignty, so if parliament actually wants it done, then it's the law, but they probably would not exercise parliamentary sovereignty in a case like this which would be dubious treaty-wise once there's a legal judgement against in something like the ECHR. There's a reason this is being considered though, and it's kind of a problem. People probably genuinely believe that unless they can go through stuff that people say, a bunch of the foreigners would cause problems that be dealt with as society is presently organized.