Almost everyone in any kind of power wants this except for themselves of course. It has nothing to do with 'the children' or 'crime'; they are not that naive. But some politicians who believe the crime & children narrative while not being in the same court as the censoring crowd might be naive enough to vote for it. It's a world wide illness and it should be prevented.
I feel your vibe as I also distrust authority, but no, it's not "nothing" to do with kids and crime — calls for an end to crypto are foolish and misguided, crypto tech is too simple to inhibit and blocking access to it creates opportunities for criminals to do crimes, any competent criminal group can roll their own crypto from open source projects… but there's a lot of non-competent criminal groups out there too, just like there are plenty of non-competent legally operating corporations.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Well, organised criminals for one, that way they know what they can get away with.
I know where I want to end up, but not how to get there from here: The Culture (Iain M Banks) is a surveillance anarchy where everyone is able to watch anyone at any time, and yet nobody really cares what you do.
Once the encryption is banned, the next step will be for online safety czars to censor speech they disagree with, even in private communications. No thanks.
In France, there are many laws against free speech (lois mémorielles, anti haine en ligne, anti Le Pen, anti fake news (including criticizing the government), etc...).
I read this as "European Police Chiefs want everyone to leave their digital keys under the doormat". I always have the idea that police are late to this particular arms race and don't realize that their way of thinking about security is still somewhere last century.
I mean, I don't even mean it to be insulting or anything. People can't be good at everything. It seems that police I've met so far (n<10) are pretty awesome people, but they don't seem to be particularly security conscious qua electronic security.
Else the police chiefs would (for one) realize that they need that end-to-end encryption themselves. It's a fairly basic building block, you'd think.
OTOH, maybe my impression is wrong, and there are exceptionally skilled police people who I've just never met? But why would they be advising their chiefs so badly then?
> police are late to this particular arms race and don't realize
It is smarter and simpler than that: Once the use of encryption keys is banned, everyone using one will label himself "I am a terrorist" and will be at least annoyed endlessly by the judicial system.
It's not a bug, it's a feature. In other words, I don't think they're being ignorant at all. They've been pushing this angle from different places in the EU and this is one more. They won't stop until it's a reality.
They are trying to maximize their power to their own advantage, just like everyone else. (Un)fortunately it’s way too late to ban e2e encryption for anyone who really wants it (i.e. nerds and criminals), but they might end up banning it for the general public out of spite.
I've met some very nice literal communists, who wanted to abolish money.
I think that's about the same level of wrong as cops trying to abolish encryption — I can see what they're saying and why, but the world can't be as they want it to be.
The aim might actually be innocent, but it leads to abuse of power.
The imbalance of power is common and inevitable, the abuse of power needs some prerequisites. One of those is knowing so much that you know you can get away with the abuse.
> Europol’s Executive Director Catherine De Bolle, said:
> Our homes are becoming more dangerous than our streets as crime is moving online. To keep our society and people safe, we need this digital environment to be secured.
Well yeah, as per the traditional definition of "to be secured", that's exactly what stuff like end-to-end encryption is for. Seems like the problem is just that the European Police Chiefs apparently have a different definition of "to be secured".
So tell me, dear European Police Chiefs, whom do you think I should want my communications to be secured from? Aha, not you, you say? Well, sorry, I beg to differ.
anonzzzies|1 year ago
ben_w|1 year ago
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Well, organised criminals for one, that way they know what they can get away with.
I know where I want to end up, but not how to get there from here: The Culture (Iain M Banks) is a surveillance anarchy where everyone is able to watch anyone at any time, and yet nobody really cares what you do.
anonzzzies|1 year ago
gmerc|1 year ago
Doesn’t mean they should get it either.
London has more cameras than any other city in the west but leads crime significantly.
kmlx|1 year ago
any link for the crime claim?
i checked multiple websites, and while hard to measure, London as a whole is not even in the top 10 european cities when it comes to crime.
blackeyeblitzar|1 year ago
JPLeRouzic|1 year ago
https://www.laquadrature.net/en/censorship/
Refusing to disclose encryption keys could lead you to be prosecuted for “terrorist criminal association”.
https://www.laquadrature.net/en/2023/12/15/encryption-discus...
BSDobelix|1 year ago
We have to fight that, bring crime back to the streets i say!! So we can stay at home and feel safe.
torginus|1 year ago
Kim_Bruning|1 year ago
I mean, I don't even mean it to be insulting or anything. People can't be good at everything. It seems that police I've met so far (n<10) are pretty awesome people, but they don't seem to be particularly security conscious qua electronic security.
Else the police chiefs would (for one) realize that they need that end-to-end encryption themselves. It's a fairly basic building block, you'd think.
OTOH, maybe my impression is wrong, and there are exceptionally skilled police people who I've just never met? But why would they be advising their chiefs so badly then?
JPLeRouzic|1 year ago
It is smarter and simpler than that: Once the use of encryption keys is banned, everyone using one will label himself "I am a terrorist" and will be at least annoyed endlessly by the judicial system.
https://www.laquadrature.net/en/2023/12/15/encryption-discus...
pyuser583|1 year ago
The problem is a very futuristic vision of what surveillance should look like.
outime|1 year ago
zarzavat|1 year ago
ben_w|1 year ago
I think that's about the same level of wrong as cops trying to abolish encryption — I can see what they're saying and why, but the world can't be as they want it to be.
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
xchip|1 year ago
zx8080|1 year ago
loa_in_|1 year ago
The imbalance of power is common and inevitable, the abuse of power needs some prerequisites. One of those is knowing so much that you know you can get away with the abuse.
protocolture|1 year ago
snowpid|1 year ago
CRConrad|1 year ago
> Europol’s Executive Director Catherine De Bolle, said:
> Our homes are becoming more dangerous than our streets as crime is moving online. To keep our society and people safe, we need this digital environment to be secured.
Well yeah, as per the traditional definition of "to be secured", that's exactly what stuff like end-to-end encryption is for. Seems like the problem is just that the European Police Chiefs apparently have a different definition of "to be secured".
So tell me, dear European Police Chiefs, whom do you think I should want my communications to be secured from? Aha, not you, you say? Well, sorry, I beg to differ.
LunaSea|1 year ago
If you can't correctly encrypt messages on disk and in transit you can't guarantee that you secured user's personal data.
lelijke|1 year ago
[deleted]