←back to thread

1121 points xyzal | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
ManBeardPc ◴[] No.45209514[source]
Glad we could delay it for now. It will come back again and again with that high of support though. Also the German Bundestag is already discussing a compromise: https://www.bundestag.de/presse/hib/kurzmeldungen-1108356. They are only unhappy with certain points like breaking encryption. They still want to destroy privacy and cut back our rights in the name of "safety", just a little less.
replies(8): >>45209583 #>>45209689 #>>45209691 #>>45210026 #>>45210110 #>>45210215 #>>45210343 #>>45210669 #
kebman ◴[] No.45210669[source]
Is this a good time to plug the creation of chat protocols running over distributed hash tables (DHT) (essentially a decentralized way of creating mini message servers) and with forward security and end-to-end encryption? I made a POF in Rust but I don't have time to dev this right now. (Unless angel investors to help me shift priorities lol...)
replies(4): >>45210893 #>>45212209 #>>45212511 #>>45213632 #
_aavaa_ ◴[] No.45210893[source]
It’s not. This is a political problem, not a technical one.
replies(3): >>45211152 #>>45211360 #>>45212527 #
const_cast ◴[] No.45211360[source]
Its both, ultimately politics is not all-knowing and you can't stamp out all technical solutions.

Like, breaking encryption is just not possible if the encryption is set using a proper algorithm. Governments try, and they try to pass laws, but it's literally impossible. No amount of political will can change that. Ultimately I can write an encryption algorithm or use GPG or something and nobody on Earth, no matter how motivated or how rich, can read what I encrypted, provided I do not let out the key. If I just keep the password in my head, it's impossible.

So, until we invent technology to extract secrets from a human brain, you cannot universally break encryption. Its just not possible. Doesn't matter if 7 billion people worldwide vote for that. Doesn't matter if Elon Musk wants it. Doesn't matter if the FBI, CIA, and the NSA all work together.

replies(2): >>45211372 #>>45211427 #
dns_snek ◴[] No.45211427[source]
It's not a technical problem. Chat Control wasn't about breaking encryption, it would bypass encryption with client-side scanning. It targets the apathetic 99% of the population who won't have the energy or knowledge to do anything about it.

It's also not a technical problem because technical solutions (like GPG) already exist. The problem is political (stopping these authoritarian laws) or should that fail, social (convincing people to inconvenience themselves with alternative communication apps that aren't available on app stores)

replies(2): >>45211745 #>>45214031 #
Gormo ◴[] No.45211745[source]
> It targets the apathetic 99% of the population who won't have the energy or knowledge to do anything about it.

That's the same 99% of the population whose motivations and priorities define the incentive structures applicable to politics. If 99% of the population don't care about your issue, you're not going to win the political fight without quite a lot of leverage attached to entirely unrelated issues.

So the choice is between creating impediments to the enforcement of this bad policy, and at minimum using technology to establish a frontier beyond which it can't reach -- one that is at least available to those motivated to seek it out -- or instead surrendering completely to politics controlling everything, with it being almost a certainty that the political process will be dominated by adverse interests.

replies(2): >>45212097 #>>45213294 #
dns_snek ◴[] No.45212097[source]
> If 99% of the population don't care about your issue, you're not going to win the political fight

Indeed, that's why I'm not very hopeful about the future of our privacy.

We will need technical solutions to Chat Control of course, but that's just the last step. First we need to crack open iOS and Android with anti-trust enforcement. An uncensored chat app is useless if we can't install it on our devices without government approval.

Unfortunately a significant portion of the tech community is in favor of these walled ~~prisons~~ gardens. Anything we try to do is doomed to fail without freedom to do what we want with devices we own, so until we get past that hurdle I'm hopeless that we'll be able to do anything about Chat Control.

replies(1): >>45212174 #
Gormo ◴[] No.45212174[source]
> Indeed, that's why I'm not very hopeful about the future of our privacy.

I'm not very hopeful about politics generally, for that very reason. The obvious solution is to work to make politics less of a determinant of outcomes.

> First we need to crack open iOS and Android with anti-trust enforcement.

Another political solution? Not going to happen. We need to work towards a functional mobile OS ecosystem that isn't controlled by Apple, Google, or the government. That won't be easy, and won't offer any immediate short-term options, but work is already in progress, and will in the long run be far more effective than waiting for politics to save us.

replies(3): >>45212410 #>>45212508 #>>45213410 #
1. dylan604 ◴[] No.45212508[source]
Nobody has the resources like an Apple or a Google to develop an open mobile OS that will be able to run on any hardware
replies(1): >>45215776 #
2. Gormo ◴[] No.45215776[source]
If anything, I'd say it's the other way around. Apple and Google themselves don't seem to have the resources to do that -- iOS and Android are layers built on top of BSD and Linux, respectively -- whereas it's FOSS projects that are the most dominant and pervasive ones in even far more complex use cases than mobile OSes.
replies(1): >>45216223 #
3. dylan604 ◴[] No.45216223[source]
Huh? Apple absolutely does not want this to happen. That's why it doesn't happen. It's not that they do not have the resources to do it. Not really sure how you think that 2 of the most valuable companies on the planet do not have the resources.
replies(1): >>45249709 #
4. Gormo ◴[] No.45249709{3}[source]
> Huh? Apple absolutely does not want this to happen. That's why it doesn't happen.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here -- how does Apple merely not wanting a competing product ecosystem to emerge explain why it hasn't? Especially considering that it is happening, though slowly and haphazardly.

> Not really sure how you think that 2 of the most valuable companies on the planet do not have the resources.

I mean, it seems observably true that the foundation layer of both of their products comes directly from FOSS projects. Claiming that the FOSS world doesn't have the resources to develop an alternative product ecosystem, given that the proprietary solutions are already based on that ecosystem, seems a bit incorrect.