EU agreed to "ban" encryption

@Jt0 @kieran

sure, these are well-known issues of mine, with their respective reasons. i would offer to give it a somewhat better shape, if i would have more time now, however, i can still offer any clearance in case of need, and my good intention in general to make my mess more “digestible”, if it is really necessary.

otherwise i hope i could bring up anything interesting in exchange for those hard times i just gave … you. :smiley: i don’t want to be perfect, generally it takes like twice as much time, or maybe even more (to approach) it makes my texts way longer, with broken contexts and repetitions when i edit the middle of something, and the like… so i’m just being consistent with my lazy style, and i’m willing to help, in case of need.

…if people would have known how much i already gave up from my beloved way of existence for their good…

@Birgs
i tried to express well that this is the middle of a research, and these aren’t hard facts at all, these are the bits that i already have, and i know there are a huge amount of questions between those lines. read it as a bunch of pointers to the topic for those who want to go down the rabbit’s hole, but prepare for getting dirty hands during digging! :smiley:

also, thx for the movie, i gotta check it out whenever i will have time, i just took a note, and it is at the top of my related notes! :smiley:

Not exactly true…
The European Council (EU coutries ministers) created a proposal to this effect. Most of those people have little to no technical skills and are severly lacking in ICT knowledge department.
The EU Parlement is not involved YET…

There is NO ban on encryption there is a statement that it must become possible that encryption can be lifted when a judge says so, without telling how this should be done. Like listening in on phone conversations etc.
Problem is it wan’t thought through.

1 Like

Ah yes, a problem the world over … :frowning:

Definitely. I think we all recognize that the original statement about what exactly was “agreed” and what exactly was “proposed” went beyond reality. However reality can always catch up and it is wise to be aware of what legislation may be heading towards you.

I think that making that distinction doesn’t really work.

If it must be possible for a service provider to break the encryption in some way then in effect this is a ban on encryption, at least encryption as we know it, encryption for what it sets out to achieve.

It would seem that this is an outright ban on end-to-end encryption (since there is no way for a service provider to break the encryption if end-to-end encryption is implemented properly).

I would guess that the likely outcome is that at least some service providers will cease providing service in the affected countries (rather than provide a broken service). Customers will then move to use those, now, overseas services. Governments will then move to block those overseas services. So that too would in a sense be a ban on encryption (although motivated parties, including actual criminals will always be able to get around that).

I am talking here about data-in-motion (e.g. instant messaging). Data-at-rest is a whole other can of worms.

1 Like

sorry for keep being myself, i applied some level of improvement to my style, and i can make anything clearer in case of actual need, but whoever will actually pay for my time is busily waiting for my result currently. :smiley: (haha, i have no strict timetable. :slight_smile: )

it is like the cough good guys cough give a pub key to the providers to let them operate rightfully, and then magic happens at the provider that i wont tell how (or lets say i guess i know :smiley: ), and then the providers provide whatever they do, they cant see the contents, they hold the data, but not the jack ketches.

this way, it is possible to dominate tech by law. it sound fine, as they had the right before to open any paper mails, observe various caves of the human body and disassemble an entire home at will, in the name of the common good, whenever they have a reasonable suspicion.

the problem is that they rely on tech, they will either use a single key or hold all the keys the same way and probably the same place, and probably will apply a mechanism to access them only 1-by-1. guess what, a real vulnerability will reveal everything! there are huge interest in this game, i guess…

we, tech experts, not like them, know extreme amounts of good-to-know stuffs about security, so raise hands! is there anybody between our lines who feels safe according their own system?

this is the point, not the possibility and the theory that says tech folks will solve stuffs like before with banks and .gov sites and whatever like… they will solve it! but… one day, the weakest link will just break. its nothing serious, cuz it takes 2 links! the jack ketches with their keyring, and the providers with their mystery-boxes. it sounds painful, and it may smell like war occasionally, but then life will go on after applying some patches to those wounds.

other than this, if i understood correctly, they agreed upon the need, and thats nothing better than this living hell, only by having a countdown to prepare our … never mind, they can check that out too.

also, the problem is actually that the power is about power, cuz this defines its growth, that is its prerequisite, and that means that it is not purely about common good, but about interest of those who own the power. this is the only problem here, cuz this way, it loses its sense, partially, and there are innocent ppl who will suffer, there is no place for arguments, cuz its about definitions, not about sense, and this way no arguments can take place in the name of truth. also, we punish the ignoramus. even those who knowingly harm others dont know something that those know who wouldnt do the same! if nobody qualifies to have this knowledge, who can judge? and the worst is when the ignoramus punishes somebody who knows better! i rest my case, whatever else i could say can only be some detail, explanation or a how to of this.

THat’s not that simple, pub key nowadays is mostly used for authentication but not for encryption, encryption is rather achieved by ephemeral E[C]DH keys. That’s a new development in security after old-style encryption (with static asymetric derived keys) was proven insecure. And it looks like this legislation may be going to unwind this progress going back to static keys.

3 Likes

actually that should be right, and thx for it! :slight_smile:

otherwise maybe this is still just a matter of a new cypher, but i dunno the reasons behind this, but only that it is used only for initialization, and then a symmetric key encryption takes place instead… i was wondering why, but i didnt go after it…

edit:
i mean if an asymmetric key encryption can provide sufficient security anyhow, then the tech is possible to be made.

also, i forgot about this rhetorical one:
what about those sins that nobody will remember but the cops will, while some doesnt even know what they ate yesterday… :smiley:

i can still clearly remember some discussions some people used to have around me …

“hey, so you’re still in school but you don’t like learning and you’re superficial at everything you do so what are you going to do for a living later down the road ?”

“i don’t know, i guess i’ll become a cop. i’ll be fine don’t worry about me …”

"that’s m’boy !!! "

1 Like

We used to call them “Professional Students”.

2 Likes

@hippi

I watched about the first 30 minutes of it out of curiosity, but I really don’t buy into the whole sovereign citizen thing. I stopped watching when they started making the arguments about capitalized legal names (to which they even admit their legal peril). I have seen and looked into their ideals before. I agree with a lot of their moral principals, and I get where they are coming from, but what I fail to understand is why SovCits think that these statutes we have for say driving a car, having to register it, maintain a license, and receive tickets (some tickets are B.S. tho), are all bad ideas. We need to have a system for making sure that people driving their 2 ton metal death boxes at 65mph have adequate equipment, and are able to drive in a safe manner. Not to mention, I have never, ever seen a case where a someone was able to be born a U.S. citizen, and then just relinquish that “contract” and become sovereign, and not governed by the law of the land; Or have I seen a SovCit win in court against a traffic violation using their sovereignty double speak. The only group of people that somewhat fall into the category of freemen are the Natives. Though they too still have most of the same legal obligations as any American. Anytime I ever find information on how to become a SovCit, it always leads to some crazy conspiracy that lacks some basic fundamentals. I do not disagree that citizens contract with the government. But that does not mean you can just cancel that contract, and continue to live here with no societal obligation, but still reap its benefits. I would be really curious to understand why SovCits think it would be ok if everyone drove around without insurance, licenses, or a safe vehicle, among other things. True freedom in a society relies on the basis that others are not allowed to infringe upon your freedom. This is what crimes are for. If you are operating a vehicle with one working brake and no insurance, you are now infringing on my freedom to travel due to your negligence. It would be the same idea if you walked down a busy sidewalk in NYC swinging your fists around as you walk by people. Your “right to travel freely” (as they put it), cannot infringe on mine.

I agree with those principles being a good foundation for freedom. But you see, this doesn’t work in practice. You need to DEFINE what each four of those things mean. This is what the basis is for systems to uphold the freedoms of individuals (AKA Laws). Otherwise, say in this sovereign society, someone steals 500$ from another in a NY court. The defendant is arbitrarily ordered by the judge to pay the victim 1000$ by no definition of the law (a fair judgement in my eyes). Now in California, someone also steals 500$ from another person. Since there is no legal definitions, this judge could either decide that the defendant was starving and that no punishment was needed, or he may decide he should have 5 years in jail. We need definitions for consistency, unless you would like your courts to be anarchist, relying on the moral definitions of one individual, instead of the tried and true rights and punishments as defined by the supreme court. I also somewhat agree with your last sentence here. There are plenty of issues with our legal system here in the U.S. but compared to a lot of places, it’s pretty damn good. The main issues IMO reside in for-profit prisons, ticket funded/motivated police departments, and the lobbying in congress (should be illegal) which destructively feeds back into my first 2 issues. We have the legal right to freedom of speech. Do you know how rare that is around the globe? Even in 1st world countries. In Canada, you can go to jail for mis-gendering someone now. I am not trying to claim that the U.S. is the end all be all of ideal freedom, but it is arguably the freest country in the world because of our balances in the legal system.

2 Likes

Very sick. :frowning:

In among all the propaganda in the quotes from the EU that are replicated in that article is the only morsel of meat:

At the top of that precarious stack was, as with similar proposals in the United States, client-side scanning. We’ve explained previously why client-side scanning is a backdoor by any other name. Unalterable computer code that runs on your own device, comparing in real-time the contents of your messages to an unauditable ban-list, stands directly opposed to the privacy assurances that the term “end-to-end encryption” is understood to convey. It’s the same approach used by China to keep track of political conversations on services like WeChat, and has no place in a tool that claims to keep conversations private.

In other words, for example, if you use WhatsApp then the official WhatsApp client contains this backdoor code to check everything you will send on your client to make sure that you aren’t engaging in unauthorized thought (and presumably WhatsApp frustrates you on an ongoing basis if you try to use an unofficial client).

Nothing about “unalterable computer code that runs on your device” fits with anything that I want for my computers, or really fits with an open source agenda at all.

7 Likes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSu4rCizyUM < Snowden interview from 2020/12/21

by the way it looks like he’s gonna’ be a father soon … daddy Snowden :innocent:

3 Likes

u have a really clear vision, and i totally appreciate it, fully reasonable, and represents both sides of the coin! :slight_smile:

it leads to conspiracy stuffs, right, as i said, im still in the middle of my own research, so this is a basic image about my findings/understanding, nothing more.

if we roll with it, then it really raises extremely hard questions, just as u found it to be like. the basics seem to be legit, why any1 would be above any1 else, and registering me without my actual acceptance (or by my silence, or by my parents, but even after i can decide about myself (im not ready! :slight_smile: )) is taking away a part of my freedom, as this contract has two sides, it grants privileges, and it enforces responsibilities. i guess, that they can only take away from the full spectrum of my default abilities, and they cant give me anything more than the basic human rights. on the contrary, they can give me values, its like a “social insurance”, they provide me ways to reach things that requires collective work on the 1st place. but… why i couldnt interact with a society, or better(?) said, a state, like 2 humans could? and then what real extra i can get? the real extra is in the social insurance, when the society can save u out from the trouble that u made for urself, similarly to ur example.

what i really cant agree with, is that u say that its like no responsibility, while i think its the maximum responsibility! u will face with societies as a standalone barefoot human being, but only in case if u violated a member of that community, while, on the other hand, they could just simply kill u, maybe get some bad words from some international entities, no war, life goes on… this is an extreme level of responsibility!!! if a sovereign one cant offer a good, reasonable and acceptable solution for a trouble they made for a society, then the society will most likely judge by their rules, and the guilty human may search for help at international organizations. in the meantime, legal entities have knotted hands, they can only play their own written, well-defined game, they have no power beyond, while they would punish their people for anything beyond the written rules, but that may happen. after all, its about being extremely cautious about what u do and wat u say, but(!) u can really tell what, u can really give reasonable solutions to resolve issues, u r free to shape the game u play!!! u should be an excellent gamer on the 1st place to make this any better than being part of the society!

a reasonable bad consequence is that u cant select ur country on an online form from a preset list to register. :smiley: according to my knowledge, u can still get a paper that tells that u r a free human being, but i have none of those to tell.

why on earth is this interesting for anybody? cuz that blessed system have been poisoned, its not about serving trust, its about serving law, its not a subject of arguments after uve been found guilty (or possibly guilty), while its a toy of the giants to oil the cogwheels of their business! they make rules for their own good, without (given) reasons, just to make themselves able to put on more “fat”, or suck more blood… even if this is probably the minor part, there are huge business interests to keep those bits there, that have nothing to do with the common good! its awesome in its paper form, like science is, but the ppl (and money and interests) behind them are fallible! they always give place for questionable bits for a long-long while, that is a matter of paying enough for a research by a tobacco company (for example) and it will affect ur food, healthcare, law, books, media, and history!

u just cant go to nowhere to say hey what if weed would be legal, its a holy medical herb, and other societies roll with it happily … are u guilty bruh?! as a small person, u have nothing to do for ur will, u have the right place to go with ur problems, but … nothing will happen! u r a slave, not an equal party, nobody will care if u know better! money will switch owner, hands will be shaken, papers will be signed, and no single baserock of the pyramid can say anything awesome alone, even if there is a stone directly above it for this very purpose, and the crowd is the dumbest, as intelligence is a matter of peaks in that same graph about the crowd, but there are no reasons, u can go out and collect signatures, no matter if u r right or not… innocent ppl suffer from this holy law without being able to shape the game they were pulled into! not before the trouble, neither after it! thats the problem! building a car basically requires a society, cuz of its complexity, and all the organizations behind its creation, but if u wouldnt pay taxes like 50% and more of ur income, then probably u could get that car from that society without being a member of it… or two! there are serious issues here! what about the game that u can pick a name from two under every constellation, and that is ur opinion? red or blue? :slight_smile: (not if i would want to compare the usa to hungary by their systems, both could be based on general reasons, instead of the interests of those big parties…)

conclusion: none, still learning, searching for a path, and i dunno which is actually better, but today somebody said yet again that she will put my message i wrote her on a forum into her collection of my bits, i guess i know something (in general) and im into bring change, whatever the path will be, i want to give back the power to the humanity (as a software engineer on the 1st place :smiley: ) but law says the last word (if not the crowd), so i have to do my research, and i have extreme amounts of validated ideas by many, so i live for this! :slight_smile:

ps plz launch some good legal californian rockets high up for my well-being, here in hungary! :smiley:
bless u folks, u carry on an/some extremely important flag(s) here and beyond! :slight_smile:

1 Like

i think you double pasted a few paragraphs ! wanna make sense of it ? most people take the easy way out …

aww, thx bruh, gotta fix it! this is the 2nd time today, the previous one was a totally distant topic, inserted into the middle of a word X’D

(i was suspicious about the length, and i guess it is a fault that happens sometimes when i touch the very-very top-right corner of my touch pad, then it inserts the content of the previous selection, but not the clipboard… one day i will check out my relevant config files to factor this out :smiley: (not a librem issue! :slight_smile: :frowning: ))

edit:
the extra copy had an extra line at the end, but not the “u” at the beginning of my 1st sentence - its too much of a nice wish to let it disappear in the mess! :slight_smile:

Licensure, whether for driving, business… or software, does nothing for safety. Licenses are about restriction of liberty and to monopolize those who bend the knee. :crown: :gun:

Hey, any chance you guys could take this to a new topic in Round Table? :wink:

3 Likes

Agreed, a system run by people for people so people learn how to drive their conveyances safely WITHOUT harming another makes sense; licensing for that reason - makes sense; licensing as it stands now to make money for a corporation (national, local g0v, police - look it up dnb.com) - what good does that do for mankind; same with all those gazillions of statutes, acts, codes, rules, regulations EU, US, Canadian you name it which no wo/man can remember - - what good does that do for mankind;

Boils down - again - to

  1. do no harm to another wo/man
  2. cause no loss to the property of another wo/man
  3. transact with honour at all times
  4. uphold the peace at all times

How much clearer can you define it…

1 Like

Don’t take this the wrong way, but I really don’t even know how to respond to this. I think English may not be your first language? I apologize if it is. I am just having a very hard time following a lot of your logic here. Again, I agree with a lot of your moral standpoints about humans being equal and not having control over one another. I just have a hard time seeing how your system of seemingly sudo-anarchy would work in practice. Like if you want to live in a world where someone can exact revenge in the form of murder, that causes all sorts of problems. It can even cause war, which you explicitly say would not happen. But I digress. I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

I think we should just end it here. Im done. lol