15 ms·

Good for Germany and the EU, but how (or why) is the rule of law supposed to make it a taboo? Is it thrown in just to sound nicer, or did they skip a few steps

Good for Germany and the EU, but how (or why) is the rule of law supposed to make it a taboo? Is it thrown in just to sound nicer, or did they skip a few steps in the reasoning? I heard "rule of law" being used to justify roughly the opposite (Russian laws, including mass surveillance and censorship), and neither that was clear; apparently it worked simply as an universal justification. The usual definition is that there are written laws that apply to everyone equally, as opposed to a rule by decree and some kind of tyranny, and the laws do not change too often, are not made for particular occasions (so they do not turn into decrees effectively). So I'd think "suspicionless" -- that is, universal -- sounds closer to it, rather than selective/arbitrary surveillance on a suspicion. Unless such suspicion is at least decided by a court, without rubber-stamping.

jopsen 1y ago
Just my personal, not fully conceived opinion: ChatControl cannot exists without criminalizing cryptography (crypto with backdoors is not crypto). When the act of uttering sufficiently complicated mathematics is a crime, we entering the territory of absurdity. Such laws cannot be enforced. Enforcement can only be arbitrary.
- retrac 1y ago
  I also think the public generally doesn't understand much of cryptography. It's thought of as some sort of dark art. And to be reliant on computers. But some dice and basic arithmetic will suffice -- though you still shouldn't roll your own crypto system.
  - jamesfisher 1y ago
    Ha, a lovely new meaning for “rolling your own crypto”
- didericis 1y ago
  > Such laws cannot be enforced. Enforcement can only be arbitrary. I am against criminalizing cryptography and largely agree about it being infeasible given the extent of proliferation and ease of replicating it/am playing devil's advocate: Laws banning math related to manufacturing nuclear weapons can and has been enforced. It's important to take legal threats like ChatControl seriously and not just dismiss it as absurd/unenforceable overreach, even if that's likely true.
  - pixl97 1y ago
    Banning math in relation to nuclear weapons was typically very specific and most often involved hardware export controls. The key note with what the previous poster said was 'arbitrary', meaning the laws will end up a nonsensical mess because the maths have huge amount of industrial, commercial, and personal uses and suddenly one range of use is banned leads to situation where law enforcement tends to go after particular groups for who they are, not what they've done.
- renehsz 1y ago
  > Such laws cannot be enforced. Tech companies can certainly be forced to build surveillance into their chat applications and operating systems. This doesn't have to be about backdooring crypto. > Enforcement can only be arbitrary. Sure, but it would be forced upon the vast majority of the population. Tech-savvy people will find ways to circumvent it, so will criminals, but that doesn't make mass surveillance of all others any less scary.
  - jopsen 1y ago
    The argument was that ChatControl is a threat to the rule of law. Because enforcement would be so arbitrary.
pfortuny 1y ago
Nope: The rule of law establishes, first of all, that the Law does not distinguish any kind of person from another. This is why in order to have a true Rule of Law, the three powers (Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary) must be truly separated. Decrees are exactly one way to subvert it: the executive acts as the legislative. Also, in tyrannies (vid. Venezuela, Iran, etc.), the Judiciary is a slave to the executive. The rule of law states, first of all, that people in Government are subject to the same laws as any other citizen. It is obviously an unreachable optimum (like true "democracy" is), but that is the basic principle. Not that "Laws" govern the place. Chat Control (and see especially the Danish Minister who said "common citizens should not expect to be able to use cryptography" or words to that effect) is suspicious under the rule of law because it differentiates ipso iure between "ordinary citizens" and "the executive". Edit: whether you agree with him or not, reading "The road to serfdom" should enlighten you a lot about this topic.
- defanor 1y ago
  What is "nope" about? I understand "people in Government are subject to the same laws as any other citizen" to mean the same as "written laws that apply to everyone equally". The sort of thing Aristotle and Locke advocated for. As for the separation of powers, it is a related concept, but still a distinct one; not sure if bringing it up helps here. Added "The Road to Serfdom" into my book queue, thanks for the suggestion.
rdm_blackhole 1y ago
> Good for Germany and the EU, but how (or why) is the rule of law supposed to make it a taboo? Is it thrown in just to sound nicer, or did they skip a few steps in the reasoning? Don't thank Germany too early. The only reason they changed their tune is because a massive number of people reached out to the government representatives in the last few days/weeks. Without that, it would have gone through. Case and point, you can look at the timeline of each country's position on https://fightchatcontrol.eu https://fightchatcontrol.eu and you will see that Germany went from opposing to undecided to opposing again. This is the sad state of affairs today. Privacy and rule of law have nothing to do with it. I personally reached out to many German MEPs and the only ones who bothered to respond and were against CC were from the AFD. Make of that what you will.
- standardUser 1y ago
  > Don't thank Germany too early. The only reason they changed their tune is because a massive number of people reached out to the government representatives in the last few days/weeks. Well, thank Germany for that then.
- zelphirkalt 1y ago
  For me the Greens responded, confirming they are against chat control, but none from the other parties.
Vinnl 1y ago
> how (or why) is the rule of law supposed to make it a taboo? I'd assume because this means someone has to be officially suspected of a crime, rather than being targeted just because someone didn't like them?
zelphirkalt 1y ago
This kind of mass surveillance is already illegal in Germany, and had Germany voted yes, it would have meant that politicians act against the law, which would be the opposite of the rule of law.
- raxxorraxor 1y ago
  I don't think out constitution is fit to protect against much. It doesn't against home searches for example. Don't call a public official a dick. For surveillance there just has to be the most benign reason to do it anyway as well. It is not a strong constitution like the US has and the last decade proved that point. Also the frequency with legislative proposals contradicting the constitution, it doesn't seem to be respected much.

jopsen 1y ago

Just my personal, not fully conceived opinion: ChatControl cannot exists without criminalizing cryptography (crypto with backdoors is not crypto). When the act of uttering sufficiently complicated mathematics is a crime, we entering the territory of absurdity. Such laws cannot be enforced. Enforcement can only be arbitrary.

retrac 1y ago
I also think the public generally doesn't understand much of cryptography. It's thought of as some sort of dark art. And to be reliant on computers. But some dice and basic arithmetic will suffice -- though you still shouldn't roll your own crypto system.
- jamesfisher 1y ago
  Ha, a lovely new meaning for “rolling your own crypto”
didericis 1y ago
> Such laws cannot be enforced. Enforcement can only be arbitrary. I am against criminalizing cryptography and largely agree about it being infeasible given the extent of proliferation and ease of replicating it/am playing devil's advocate: Laws banning math related to manufacturing nuclear weapons can and has been enforced. It's important to take legal threats like ChatControl seriously and not just dismiss it as absurd/unenforceable overreach, even if that's likely true.
- pixl97 1y ago
  Banning math in relation to nuclear weapons was typically very specific and most often involved hardware export controls. The key note with what the previous poster said was 'arbitrary', meaning the laws will end up a nonsensical mess because the maths have huge amount of industrial, commercial, and personal uses and suddenly one range of use is banned leads to situation where law enforcement tends to go after particular groups for who they are, not what they've done.
renehsz 1y ago
> Such laws cannot be enforced. Tech companies can certainly be forced to build surveillance into their chat applications and operating systems. This doesn't have to be about backdooring crypto. > Enforcement can only be arbitrary. Sure, but it would be forced upon the vast majority of the population. Tech-savvy people will find ways to circumvent it, so will criminals, but that doesn't make mass surveillance of all others any less scary.
- jopsen 1y ago
  The argument was that ChatControl is a threat to the rule of law. Because enforcement would be so arbitrary.

pfortuny 1y ago

Nope: The rule of law establishes, first of all, that the Law does not distinguish any kind of person from another. This is why in order to have a true Rule of Law, the three powers (Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary) must be truly separated. Decrees are exactly one way to subvert it: the executive acts as the legislative. Also, in tyrannies (vid. Venezuela, Iran, etc.), the Judiciary is a slave to the executive. The rule of law states, first of all, that people in Government are subject to the same laws as any other citizen. It is obviously an unreachable optimum (like true "democracy" is), but that is the basic principle. Not that "Laws" govern the place. Chat Control (and see especially the Danish Minister who said "common citizens should not expect to be able to use cryptography" or words to that effect) is suspicious under the rule of law because it differentiates ipso iure between "ordinary citizens" and "the executive". Edit: whether you agree with him or not, reading "The road to serfdom" should enlighten you a lot about this topic.

defanor 1y ago
What is "nope" about? I understand "people in Government are subject to the same laws as any other citizen" to mean the same as "written laws that apply to everyone equally". The sort of thing Aristotle and Locke advocated for. As for the separation of powers, it is a related concept, but still a distinct one; not sure if bringing it up helps here. Added "The Road to Serfdom" into my book queue, thanks for the suggestion.

rdm_blackhole 1y ago

> Good for Germany and the EU, but how (or why) is the rule of law supposed to make it a taboo? Is it thrown in just to sound nicer, or did they skip a few steps in the reasoning? Don't thank Germany too early. The only reason they changed their tune is because a massive number of people reached out to the government representatives in the last few days/weeks. Without that, it would have gone through. Case and point, you can look at the timeline of each country's position on https://fightchatcontrol.eu https://fightchatcontrol.eu and you will see that Germany went from opposing to undecided to opposing again. This is the sad state of affairs today. Privacy and rule of law have nothing to do with it. I personally reached out to many German MEPs and the only ones who bothered to respond and were against CC were from the AFD. Make of that what you will.

standardUser 1y ago
> Don't thank Germany too early. The only reason they changed their tune is because a massive number of people reached out to the government representatives in the last few days/weeks. Well, thank Germany for that then.
zelphirkalt 1y ago
For me the Greens responded, confirming they are against chat control, but none from the other parties.

Vinnl 1y ago

> how (or why) is the rule of law supposed to make it a taboo? I'd assume because this means someone has to be officially suspected of a crime, rather than being targeted just because someone didn't like them?

zelphirkalt 1y ago

This kind of mass surveillance is already illegal in Germany, and had Germany voted yes, it would have meant that politicians act against the law, which would be the opposite of the rule of law.

raxxorraxor 1y ago
I don't think out constitution is fit to protect against much. It doesn't against home searches for example. Don't call a public official a dick. For surveillance there just has to be the most benign reason to do it anyway as well. It is not a strong constitution like the US has and the last decade proved that point. Also the frequency with legislative proposals contradicting the constitution, it doesn't seem to be respected much.