5 ms·

I just don't get it - criminals will just continue to use "real" encryption. Why are some of these people so obsessed with reading everyone's chats?

edejong 1y ago
Crowd control, psyops, trend analysis. EU is quickly becoming authoritarian and the change is instigated by the sitting parties.
jeroenhd 1y ago
By banning real encryption, the police can arrest anyone using chat apps they can't control. Them not being able to spy on you automatically makes you guilty. Also something something children something terrorism something something safety, whatever makes the uninformed public feel like this is something that'll benefit them.
- chedabob 1y ago
  The criminals will just use something that hides in plain sight. I think it was Encrochat devices that booted into a fairly vanilla looking OS, and there was another platform where it was hidden in something like a calculator app.
  - thyristan 1y ago
    It isn't about criminals. It is about population control. Keeping the plebs in their place, lest they vote unsavoury opposition parties, or get ideas about real democratic participation.
  - pjerem 1y ago
    You mean, EncroChat, the company that was infiltrated by cops which led to 4500 arrests ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EncroChat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EncroChat
    - tobyhinloopen 1y ago
      > a Dutch organized crime gang was involved and financed the developers. I mean, maybe that has something to do with it?
closewith 1y ago
When real encryption is illegal, it will be easier to roll them up. > Why are some of these people so obsessed with reading everyone's chats? Having worked with some of the people in law enforcement heavily pushing this, it generally does come from child safety concerns and the overwhelming amount of CSAM sent via encrypted means. Personally, I don't believe that it will ever be restricted to serious crimes and the potential for abuse is infinite, so I don't believe it is justifiable, but child sexual abuse is a real and enormous problem that causes untold harm and suffering, so we have to find a balance.
- mordae 1y ago
  I am willing to increase funding for undercover operatives who infiltrate CSAM smuggling rings and bust them. But nobody asked for this. They always say it is impossible without breaking encryption.
PeterStuer 1y ago
It is not about "the criminals", it is about control. They want you to self-censor "wrongthink" in any space. The rise of totalitairianism in the EU is very real.
- ekianjo 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- geertj 1y ago
  Yes, 100%. I grew up in Europe, and have been in the US for the last 10+ years, with all of my family still in Europe. I think this gives me reasonable feel for the "situation on the ground." The best way I can describe my social circles in the US and EU is that in the US, we still have "principled freedom", where there (still) is a majority of people that understand the original ideas of the founding fathers, and can imagine that things could theoretically be different (the word used for this is "tyranny", which sounded super weird when I first came here). In EU, I see a total disconnect with any foundational principles or values. Worse is that the population would 100% disagree with you on this, but when you probe "what are these values and why are they there," you get mostly circular reasoning based on some neo-liberal viewpoints. Furthermore, people just can't imagine ever losing their freedoms. This makes Europe essentially like the frog in the pot on the stove. If you mention the word "tyranny" to Europeans, they basically think you're a crackpot. I have seen things change a teeny bit with the war in Ukraine, where folks get at least somewhat concerned, but the concerns are still about an external boogyman. Nowhere is there any realization that big government, with a lot of unelected bureaucrats, typically becomes the enemy of the people because "power corrupts."
  - saubeidl 1y ago
    I feel like this is an absurd position to take when people are literally being snatched off the street and being sent to torture camps in the US. The tyranny is much closer there than in the EU.
energy123 1y ago
The steel-man case could be: > This will catch the x% of lone wolf terrorists who are too mentally unwell to use encryption and too unwell to hide their intentions. > Without this, the relative increase in terrorism will cause strongmen to get elected who will just enact even more severe surveillance, among many other bad things. > So it's not a choice between surveillance and no surveillance. It's a choice between relative levels of badness. > This will also catch real criminals by listening to their close family members who have worse OPSEC than the criminals.
- realusername 1y ago
  Don't know about other countries but in France most of the terrorist attacks have been coordinated using plain unencrypted sms. The criminals aren't the masterminds people portrait in the movies.
  - tobyhinloopen 1y ago
    The criminals that are caught, maybe (: How about the criminals that are not yet caught
    - realusername 1y ago
      I don't have an example of a terrorist attack where the terrorists managed to get away with it without getting caught. It's not the 80s anymore, it's very hard to hide somewhere without any trace of some sort.
cpa 1y ago
It really depends on the "use case." Regulators are primarily concerned about grooming, which involves criminals using apps that teenagers frequent. Also, criminals usually have poor operational security—far from perfect. The seriousness of the offense isn't related to the quality of their opsec. Regulators and law enforcement are generally rational. They may be short-sighted, but they often have reasonable explanations for things you might dismiss as stupid. That sucks, CSAM sucks, emotional regulation sucks, and as a society, we don't know how to manage allowing kids online. In fact we don't even know, what we'd like. From a political/policy standpoint, that's the challenge of the next 20 years.
- collyw 1y ago
  They don't seem at all bothered about it in the UK, they try to cover it up.
- john_the_writer 1y ago
  As a parent, I can tell you it's insanely easy to manage allowing kids online. Don't.. or 100% supervised. Done
  - bornfreddy 1y ago
    This works - until they grow up. Will you filter the world for them when they are adults too? Your role, as a parent, is to prepare them for independent life, life without you. How will you do that if you never give them the reins?
    - Pedro_Ribeiro 1y ago
      Clearly by installing a wrongthink iron dome around the world!
    - dmpk2k 1y ago
      They get the reigns when they're an adult. The prior poster did mention supervision.
  - cpa 1y ago
jesterson 1y ago
Easy - you can scan and ban political dissent. This is the only reason the scumbags are pushing it hard. I wonder if anyone believes those measure are actually against childporn.
isaacremuant 1y ago
Because total surveillance increases the power of the state which can then use it to suppress threats to its power, including effective political dissent. It's not new. It happens everytime if you follow history but people have been conditioned to think skepticism, unless is against "trump bad", is absolutely a conspiracy theory. The important thing also is that this total massive invasion of privacy won't be for all. You don't get gov transparency but the opposite. The asymmetry of information only increases that power to oppress.

edejong 1y ago

Crowd control, psyops, trend analysis. EU is quickly becoming authoritarian and the change is instigated by the sitting parties.

jeroenhd 1y ago

By banning real encryption, the police can arrest anyone using chat apps they can't control. Them not being able to spy on you automatically makes you guilty. Also something something children something terrorism something something safety, whatever makes the uninformed public feel like this is something that'll benefit them.

chedabob 1y ago
The criminals will just use something that hides in plain sight. I think it was Encrochat devices that booted into a fairly vanilla looking OS, and there was another platform where it was hidden in something like a calculator app.
- thyristan 1y ago
  It isn't about criminals. It is about population control. Keeping the plebs in their place, lest they vote unsavoury opposition parties, or get ideas about real democratic participation.
- pjerem 1y ago
  You mean, EncroChat, the company that was infiltrated by cops which led to 4500 arrests ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EncroChat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EncroChat
  - tobyhinloopen 1y ago
    > a Dutch organized crime gang was involved and financed the developers. I mean, maybe that has something to do with it?

closewith 1y ago

When real encryption is illegal, it will be easier to roll them up. > Why are some of these people so obsessed with reading everyone's chats? Having worked with some of the people in law enforcement heavily pushing this, it generally does come from child safety concerns and the overwhelming amount of CSAM sent via encrypted means. Personally, I don't believe that it will ever be restricted to serious crimes and the potential for abuse is infinite, so I don't believe it is justifiable, but child sexual abuse is a real and enormous problem that causes untold harm and suffering, so we have to find a balance.

mordae 1y ago
I am willing to increase funding for undercover operatives who infiltrate CSAM smuggling rings and bust them. But nobody asked for this. They always say it is impossible without breaking encryption.

PeterStuer 1y ago

It is not about "the criminals", it is about control. They want you to self-censor "wrongthink" in any space. The rise of totalitairianism in the EU is very real.

ekianjo 1y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
geertj 1y ago
Yes, 100%. I grew up in Europe, and have been in the US for the last 10+ years, with all of my family still in Europe. I think this gives me reasonable feel for the "situation on the ground." The best way I can describe my social circles in the US and EU is that in the US, we still have "principled freedom", where there (still) is a majority of people that understand the original ideas of the founding fathers, and can imagine that things could theoretically be different (the word used for this is "tyranny", which sounded super weird when I first came here). In EU, I see a total disconnect with any foundational principles or values. Worse is that the population would 100% disagree with you on this, but when you probe "what are these values and why are they there," you get mostly circular reasoning based on some neo-liberal viewpoints. Furthermore, people just can't imagine ever losing their freedoms. This makes Europe essentially like the frog in the pot on the stove. If you mention the word "tyranny" to Europeans, they basically think you're a crackpot. I have seen things change a teeny bit with the war in Ukraine, where folks get at least somewhat concerned, but the concerns are still about an external boogyman. Nowhere is there any realization that big government, with a lot of unelected bureaucrats, typically becomes the enemy of the people because "power corrupts."
- saubeidl 1y ago
  I feel like this is an absurd position to take when people are literally being snatched off the street and being sent to torture camps in the US. The tyranny is much closer there than in the EU.

energy123 1y ago

The steel-man case could be: > This will catch the x% of lone wolf terrorists who are too mentally unwell to use encryption and too unwell to hide their intentions. > Without this, the relative increase in terrorism will cause strongmen to get elected who will just enact even more severe surveillance, among many other bad things. > So it's not a choice between surveillance and no surveillance. It's a choice between relative levels of badness. > This will also catch real criminals by listening to their close family members who have worse OPSEC than the criminals.

realusername 1y ago
Don't know about other countries but in France most of the terrorist attacks have been coordinated using plain unencrypted sms. The criminals aren't the masterminds people portrait in the movies.
- tobyhinloopen 1y ago
  The criminals that are caught, maybe (: How about the criminals that are not yet caught
  - realusername 1y ago
    I don't have an example of a terrorist attack where the terrorists managed to get away with it without getting caught. It's not the 80s anymore, it's very hard to hide somewhere without any trace of some sort.

cpa 1y ago

It really depends on the "use case." Regulators are primarily concerned about grooming, which involves criminals using apps that teenagers frequent. Also, criminals usually have poor operational security—far from perfect. The seriousness of the offense isn't related to the quality of their opsec. Regulators and law enforcement are generally rational. They may be short-sighted, but they often have reasonable explanations for things you might dismiss as stupid. That sucks, CSAM sucks, emotional regulation sucks, and as a society, we don't know how to manage allowing kids online. In fact we don't even know, what we'd like. From a political/policy standpoint, that's the challenge of the next 20 years.

collyw 1y ago
They don't seem at all bothered about it in the UK, they try to cover it up.
john_the_writer 1y ago
As a parent, I can tell you it's insanely easy to manage allowing kids online. Don't.. or 100% supervised. Done
- bornfreddy 1y ago
  This works - until they grow up. Will you filter the world for them when they are adults too? Your role, as a parent, is to prepare them for independent life, life without you. How will you do that if you never give them the reins?
  - Pedro_Ribeiro 1y ago
    Clearly by installing a wrongthink iron dome around the world!
  - dmpk2k 1y ago
    They get the reigns when they're an adult. The prior poster did mention supervision.
- cpa 1y ago

jesterson 1y ago

Easy - you can scan and ban political dissent. This is the only reason the scumbags are pushing it hard. I wonder if anyone believes those measure are actually against childporn.

isaacremuant 1y ago

Because total surveillance increases the power of the state which can then use it to suppress threats to its power, including effective political dissent. It's not new. It happens everytime if you follow history but people have been conditioned to think skepticism, unless is against "trump bad", is absolutely a conspiracy theory. The important thing also is that this total massive invasion of privacy won't be for all. You don't get gov transparency but the opposite. The asymmetry of information only increases that power to oppress.