5 ms·

Something is a crime if society determines that it should be so. Nothing more. Clearly the pressure on government to write these laws is coming from somewhere.

by loftsy 1y ago

Something is a crime if society determines that it should be so. Nothing more. Clearly the pressure on government to write these laws is coming from somewhere. You should engage with the arguments the other side makes.

mathieuh 1y ago
The arguments from the other side are of the "think of the children" and "tough on crime" variety. They are purely emotional and if you try to dispute them they just respond with "so you don't care about children?". It's like trying to argue with a religious person on matters of faith, you're just not very likely to convince them. *edited to add "on matters of faith"
- voidUpdate 1y ago
  "Think of the children" is used so often when talking about LGBT issues, often not thinking at all about the LGBT children
  - 9rx 1y ago
    "Think of the children" really means "Think of my children". Nobody gives a shit about someone else's children.
ivl 1y ago
The arguments are mostly that they dislike what can be accomplished via math. “The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia” isn't exactly an 'argument' so much as an insistence. The article does address the flaws in some of their arguments (encryption inconveniences law enforcement, think of the children) by pointing out that the average person and children are kept save from criminal elements by encryption.
- loftsy 1y ago
  You can make gun fairly easily with what can be accomplished with a CNC machine. It is still illegal.
  - ivl 1y ago
    Where that is illegal they don't go making CNC machines illegal because of that.
    - RegnisGnaw 1y ago
      They're not making math illegal.
    - nradov 1y ago
      Legislators are literally trying to restrict sales of machines that can be used to build firearms. I don't agree with this, but it's happening. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/A2228 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/A2228
  - 15155 1y ago
    > It is still illegal. Not in the vast majority of the United States.
ziddoap 1y ago
>You should engage with the arguments the other side makes. The arguments are "Protect the children.", "Catch terrorists.", "Catch criminals.". Those arguments have been engaged with for decades. They are purely emotional arguments. Anyone who still pushes those arguments forth is most likely doing so with ulterior motives and cannot be reasonably "engaged" with.
- HDThoreaun 1y ago
  For what its worth the anti-encryption/anti-privacy laws have caught terrorists in the UK. My company provides data storage for their dragnet and handles various requests and Ive seen first hand 4 different instances where the UK gov watching everyones internet activity led to terrorists being caught.
  - cess11 1y ago
    That same government can use that same dragnet in the suppression of accountability for the war crimes and atrocities it is engaged in.
  - rdm_blackhole 1y ago
    This number by itself means nothing as the other variables are unknown. How many terrorists were not caught by these systems? How many would have actually done these actions instead of just talking about it? How many could have been caught with just standard police work? Without knowing these variables then there is no way to say if these systems are particularly good at catching terrorists.
    - HDThoreaun 1y ago
      I wouldnt go as far as saying it means nothing, but I agree that the story certainly isnt simple. Was just pointing out that "catch terrorists" isnt a purely emotional argument. Would the terrorists be caught anyway? We'll never know, but theres no way you can say they would for certain. Personally I dont think catching a few terrorists is worth giving up privacy but other people disagree. > Without knowing these variables then there is no way to say if these systems are particularly good at catching terrorists. I dont think we can ever figure this out since no one is willing to run an rct when it comes to counter terrorism
freehorse 1y ago
The other side being, for instance, the surveillance lobby that pushes for chat control laws in the EU? The "arguments the other side makes" are pretty clear at this point, and nothing to do with the "think about the kids" really, not sure engaging with them is the point.
gosub100 1y ago
Kind of impossible when they meet In secret courts and have privileged access to Congress.
nickslaughter02 1y ago
> Clearly the pressure on government to write these laws is coming from somewhere Software surveillance vendors. > Chat control: EU Ombudsman criticises revolving door between Europol and chat control tech lobbyist Thorn > Breyer welcomes the outcome: “When a former Europol employee sells their internal knowledge and contacts for the purpose of lobbying personally known EU Commission staff, this is exactly what must be prevented. Since the revelation of ‘Chatcontrol-Gate,’ we know that the EU’s chat control proposal is ultimately a product of lobbying by an international surveillance-industrial complex. To ensure this never happens again, the surveillance lobbying swamp must be drained.” https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/chat-control-eu-ombudsman-criticises-revolving-door-between-europol-and-chat-control-tech-lobbyist-thorn/ https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/chat-control-eu-ombudsman-c...
geocar 1y ago
> Something is a crime if society determines that it should be so. Nothing more. According to The New Oxford Companion to Law, the term crime does not, in modern criminal law, have any simple and universally accepted definition. Society also determined it was ok to use a firehose on black people, so I think the best we can say is that the term Crime has nothing to do with Morality, and people who conflate the two need to be looked at with suspicion. > You should engage with the arguments the other side makes. I don't. I think most arguments about crime require one-side to act in bad-faith. After all: The author doesn't actually mean that Encryption isn't illegal in some jurisdictions, they mean that it shouldn't be. You know this. I know this. And yet you really think someone needs your tautological definition of crime? I don't believe you.
markhahn 1y ago
The problem is LEOs (and associated industry) claiming that enforcement is impossible without the ability to obtain cleartext. This is a lie: obtaining cleartext just makes enforcement vastly easier and more scalable. If crims have encrypted mobile phones, you can still point a microphone at them. Scalability is the big issue.
- OhMeadhbh 1y ago
  Honestly, I had always assumed LEO wanted access to decrypted message content so they could sell it to advertisers. I mean sure, you could catch a criminal or two, but with all that non-criminal data, just imagine how much off-the-books revenue you could accrue by selling it to the AdWords guys.

by loftsy 1y ago

mathieuh 1y ago

The arguments from the other side are of the "think of the children" and "tough on crime" variety. They are purely emotional and if you try to dispute them they just respond with "so you don't care about children?". It's like trying to argue with a religious person on matters of faith, you're just not very likely to convince them. *edited to add "on matters of faith"

voidUpdate 1y ago
"Think of the children" is used so often when talking about LGBT issues, often not thinking at all about the LGBT children
- 9rx 1y ago
  "Think of the children" really means "Think of my children". Nobody gives a shit about someone else's children.

ivl 1y ago

The arguments are mostly that they dislike what can be accomplished via math. “The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia” isn't exactly an 'argument' so much as an insistence. The article does address the flaws in some of their arguments (encryption inconveniences law enforcement, think of the children) by pointing out that the average person and children are kept save from criminal elements by encryption.

loftsy 1y ago
You can make gun fairly easily with what can be accomplished with a CNC machine. It is still illegal.
- ivl 1y ago
  Where that is illegal they don't go making CNC machines illegal because of that.
  - RegnisGnaw 1y ago
    They're not making math illegal.
  - nradov 1y ago
    Legislators are literally trying to restrict sales of machines that can be used to build firearms. I don't agree with this, but it's happening. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/A2228 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/A2228
- 15155 1y ago
  > It is still illegal. Not in the vast majority of the United States.

ziddoap 1y ago

>You should engage with the arguments the other side makes. The arguments are "Protect the children.", "Catch terrorists.", "Catch criminals.". Those arguments have been engaged with for decades. They are purely emotional arguments. Anyone who still pushes those arguments forth is most likely doing so with ulterior motives and cannot be reasonably "engaged" with.

HDThoreaun 1y ago
For what its worth the anti-encryption/anti-privacy laws have caught terrorists in the UK. My company provides data storage for their dragnet and handles various requests and Ive seen first hand 4 different instances where the UK gov watching everyones internet activity led to terrorists being caught.
- cess11 1y ago
  That same government can use that same dragnet in the suppression of accountability for the war crimes and atrocities it is engaged in.
- rdm_blackhole 1y ago
  This number by itself means nothing as the other variables are unknown. How many terrorists were not caught by these systems? How many would have actually done these actions instead of just talking about it? How many could have been caught with just standard police work? Without knowing these variables then there is no way to say if these systems are particularly good at catching terrorists.
  - HDThoreaun 1y ago
    I wouldnt go as far as saying it means nothing, but I agree that the story certainly isnt simple. Was just pointing out that "catch terrorists" isnt a purely emotional argument. Would the terrorists be caught anyway? We'll never know, but theres no way you can say they would for certain. Personally I dont think catching a few terrorists is worth giving up privacy but other people disagree. > Without knowing these variables then there is no way to say if these systems are particularly good at catching terrorists. I dont think we can ever figure this out since no one is willing to run an rct when it comes to counter terrorism

freehorse 1y ago

The other side being, for instance, the surveillance lobby that pushes for chat control laws in the EU? The "arguments the other side makes" are pretty clear at this point, and nothing to do with the "think about the kids" really, not sure engaging with them is the point.

gosub100 1y ago

Kind of impossible when they meet In secret courts and have privileged access to Congress.

nickslaughter02 1y ago

> Clearly the pressure on government to write these laws is coming from somewhere Software surveillance vendors. > Chat control: EU Ombudsman criticises revolving door between Europol and chat control tech lobbyist Thorn > Breyer welcomes the outcome: “When a former Europol employee sells their internal knowledge and contacts for the purpose of lobbying personally known EU Commission staff, this is exactly what must be prevented. Since the revelation of ‘Chatcontrol-Gate,’ we know that the EU’s chat control proposal is ultimately a product of lobbying by an international surveillance-industrial complex. To ensure this never happens again, the surveillance lobbying swamp must be drained.” https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/chat-control-eu-ombudsman-criticises-revolving-door-between-europol-and-chat-control-tech-lobbyist-thorn/ https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/chat-control-eu-ombudsman-c...

geocar 1y ago

> Something is a crime if society determines that it should be so. Nothing more. According to The New Oxford Companion to Law, the term crime does not, in modern criminal law, have any simple and universally accepted definition. Society also determined it was ok to use a firehose on black people, so I think the best we can say is that the term Crime has nothing to do with Morality, and people who conflate the two need to be looked at with suspicion. > You should engage with the arguments the other side makes. I don't. I think most arguments about crime require one-side to act in bad-faith. After all: The author doesn't actually mean that Encryption isn't illegal in some jurisdictions, they mean that it shouldn't be. You know this. I know this. And yet you really think someone needs your tautological definition of crime? I don't believe you.

markhahn 1y ago

The problem is LEOs (and associated industry) claiming that enforcement is impossible without the ability to obtain cleartext. This is a lie: obtaining cleartext just makes enforcement vastly easier and more scalable. If crims have encrypted mobile phones, you can still point a microphone at them. Scalability is the big issue.

OhMeadhbh 1y ago
Honestly, I had always assumed LEO wanted access to decrypted message content so they could sell it to advertisers. I mean sure, you could catch a criminal or two, but with all that non-criminal data, just imagine how much off-the-books revenue you could accrue by selling it to the AdWords guys.