Y'know, they've been pushing this shit for so long that I fear one of these days they'll actually end up actually making it, and it's not gonna be a fun experience when that happens.
Y'know, they've been pushing this shit for so long that I fear one of these days they'll actually end up actually making it, and it's not gonna be a fun experience when that happens.
Probably because I sadly don't expect the public outcry against to be that big. Outside my tech bubble, most people don't seem concerned at all. They have the mindset that they are not criminals...
Probably because I sadly don't expect the public outcry against to be that big. Outside my tech bubble, most people don't seem concerned at all. They have the mindset that they are not criminals and have nothing to hide, so they don't care. Politicians latch onto that and can use it to say they can solve more crimes with this tool, and sadly it seems to be working.
If it makes you feel better, laws are rarely pushed by the majority. It's pushed by the minority who take the time to vouch on behalf of the issue. Sometimes that can be rich billionaires with all...
If it makes you feel better, laws are rarely pushed by the majority. It's pushed by the minority who take the time to vouch on behalf of the issue.
Sometimes that can be rich billionaires with all the time in the world. Sometimes it's advocacy organizations that put themselves out there. So I wouldn't worry much about swaying the majority at the early stages. They will be swayed by the messaging either way.
What makes this extra ridiculous is that there's no real way to enforce it. So what you'll end up with is criminals having access to secure encryption and law abiding citizens not. Not to mention...
What makes this extra ridiculous is that there's no real way to enforce it. So what you'll end up with is criminals having access to secure encryption and law abiding citizens not. Not to mention that people will inevitably uncover and exploit any backdoor they put in place, leading to worse cybercrime.
That's the intended effect, I think. You'll have normal people using the mainstream apps, and people wanting to avoid surveillance using more niche apps with real cryptography. Then you can launch...
So what you'll end up with is criminals having access to secure encryption and law abiding citizens not.
That's the intended effect, I think. You'll have normal people using the mainstream apps, and people wanting to avoid surveillance using more niche apps with real cryptography. Then you can launch a PR campaign to brand those apps as being "for criminals" and push to make it a crime to have access to real cryptography.
After years and years of reading news about these initiatives, I still don't understand how they are planning to break encryption. Sure, they can force companies like Meta and Google to put...
After years and years of reading news about these initiatives, I still don't understand how they are planning to break encryption. Sure, they can force companies like Meta and Google to put backdoors in their apps, but why would people with something to hide use those and not one of the endless supply of open source apps that are provably secure?
And more importantly: Why is nobody asking them these questions?
Convenience has a cost. Legislation like this, if enforced in the US, would kill Signal, for example. That messenger is the only one I've found that hits the right balance of "easy enough a normie...
Convenience has a cost. Legislation like this, if enforced in the US, would kill Signal, for example. That messenger is the only one I've found that hits the right balance of "easy enough a normie can use it" and "secure enough I'm comfortable using it".
But, they are firmly US based. If the powers that be deign them to kill their business or their security, they'll keep riding the $400-500K salaries without a second thought. Maybe Moxie Marlinspike would quit on ethical grounds, but that's be the end of that for me.
Most criminals are admittedly rather dumb, so I'm sure you could catch plenty of common criminals with this. But yeah, law-abiding citizens would be in the greatest danger from it.
Most criminals are admittedly rather dumb, so I'm sure you could catch plenty of common criminals with this. But yeah, law-abiding citizens would be in the greatest danger from it.
The usual mixture probably. Ignorant of how any of this shit actually works and what it really means. "Laws are for them, not for me", as they sure as shit won't actually let any law enforcement...
The usual mixture probably.
Ignorant of how any of this shit actually works and what it really means.
"Laws are for them, not for me", as they sure as shit won't actually let any law enforcement look at THEIR dirty laundry
Piles of money thrown at them to get this done because others will benefit.
Seriously concerning implications on control and power.
Actually intending to stop things they think are bad (whiiich kinda rolls into the previous entries).
I've never seen a great deep dive on actual sourced motivations though as I think it's generally as shallow as "protection", and to be somewhat fair it IS a shitty line to tread. Do you want to be the person on the hook if something akin to 9/11 occurs and it comes out it could've been stopped if you'd only known X or Y? God knows people show how much of a hypocrite they are on rights when threats suddenly affect them, and politicians are very very aware of that.
Doubly so the whole "oh look what stopped on my watch" wins. I think those are the shallower/more popular reasons but its honestly just such a fucking mess from top to bottom its hard for me to only assign ignorance on these kinds of issues.
Re. point 2, you are far too cyncial, there is of course full transparency regarding the members of the high-level group working on this initiative. Article 3 of the Commission Decision setting up...
I've walked around Shanghai on a pretty miserable autumn day (as in, dim light, low visibility) and felt perfectly safe at all times, because every other lamppost I passed wasn't actually for lights, it rather held around a dozen or more CCTV cameras, along with little police platforms (replete with quite obnoxious constantly flashing red/blue lights, that the one I linked doesn't seem to have) and there were more policemen than I've ever seen in my life (in 3s and 4s, not all at once). I'm sure I saw a peak, given I was there around a mid-autumn festival, but it was too much, imo. But I suppose that's a trade-off - I felt (and I'm sure was) super safe, but I was incredibly surveilled too.
I mean, I felt super safe walking around Shanfhai, but I've also walked around Berlin in similarly low-visibility conditions and felt perfectly safe at all times, despite the type of surveillance...
I've walked around Shanghai on a pretty miserable autumn day (as in, dim light, low visibility) and felt perfectly safe at all times
I mean, I felt super safe walking around Shanfhai, but I've also walked around Berlin in similarly low-visibility conditions and felt perfectly safe at all times, despite the type of surveillance you describe being broadly illegal here. While surveillance can contribute to things that make you feel subjectively safer, I don't think it's reasonable to present something as simple as "feeling safe walking around in a city when there's poor lighting" as only being possible with widespread surveillance.
Terrorism, and CSAM. Case in point for the latter: https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/19/24181214/eu-chat-control-law-propose-scanning-encrypted-messages-csam
EU law enforcement bodies could be capable of decrypting your private data by 2030.
This is one of the ambitious goals the EU Commission presented in its Roadmap on June 24, 2025. A plan on how the bloc intends to ensure police officers' "lawful and effective" access to citizens' data.
Experts have long warned against proposed plans to break encryption, meaning the technology responsible for scrambling data into an unreadable form to prevent unauthorized access.
Now, according to Internet Society's Senior Director, Robin Wilton, another move towards the decryption of private data is concerning.
"Efforts to develop decryption techniques almost inevitably introduce new vulnerabilities that could be exploited by anyone with the motivation and know-how; they may also encourage the 'hoarding' of vulnerabilities, which is contrary to good cybersecurity practice," Wilton told TechRadar.
We need encryption protections enshrined more deeply into our founding government documents - constitutions, whatever. Police can access this data other ways it just requires more effort.
We need encryption protections enshrined more deeply into our founding government documents - constitutions, whatever. Police can access this data other ways it just requires more effort.
I see it as if I gave key to my house to authorities. My house is my private space, they have no reason to have the key. Now, if police comes at my door and they have all the papers needed to...
I see it as if I gave key to my house to authorities. My house is my private space, they have no reason to have the key. Now, if police comes at my door and they have all the papers needed to enter my house (like court ruling or whatever), I will let them in.
The same should be for encryption - it's my private space and there is no reason for anybody to be able to enter it. And if they have rightful reason, I will comply.
It is THAT simple.
Criminals will not abide by the set rules, they will have their own encrypted channels if they need them. And public won't care at all because Average Joes don't care if they have gestapo behind them everywhere they go - because they don't realize it's like having officer at their tail all the time watching everything they do. If it was like that - being physically tailed all day long - they wouldn't be that careless, would they?
I hate this move, but that statement is ridiculous to an extreme. There is so much difference between china and the EU. For the simplest, most obvious example: did the UK leave the EU? Has Taiwan...
I hate this move, but that statement is ridiculous to an extreme. There is so much difference between china and the EU. For the simplest, most obvious example: did the UK leave the EU? Has Taiwan left China?
Y'know, they've been pushing this shit for so long that I fear one of these days they'll actually end up actually making it, and it's not gonna be a fun experience when that happens.
Probably because I sadly don't expect the public outcry against to be that big. Outside my tech bubble, most people don't seem concerned at all. They have the mindset that they are not criminals and have nothing to hide, so they don't care. Politicians latch onto that and can use it to say they can solve more crimes with this tool, and sadly it seems to be working.
If it makes you feel better, laws are rarely pushed by the majority. It's pushed by the minority who take the time to vouch on behalf of the issue.
Sometimes that can be rich billionaires with all the time in the world. Sometimes it's advocacy organizations that put themselves out there. So I wouldn't worry much about swaying the majority at the early stages. They will be swayed by the messaging either way.
What makes this extra ridiculous is that there's no real way to enforce it. So what you'll end up with is criminals having access to secure encryption and law abiding citizens not. Not to mention that people will inevitably uncover and exploit any backdoor they put in place, leading to worse cybercrime.
Indeed, if you put in a backdoor, bad guys will find it. Quite famously with US ISPs being mega hacked and wormed to this day by the Chinese.
https://reason.com/2024/10/11/chinese-hackers-used-u-s-government-mandated-wiretap-systems/
That's the intended effect, I think. You'll have normal people using the mainstream apps, and people wanting to avoid surveillance using more niche apps with real cryptography. Then you can launch a PR campaign to brand those apps as being "for criminals" and push to make it a crime to have access to real cryptography.
After years and years of reading news about these initiatives, I still don't understand how they are planning to break encryption. Sure, they can force companies like Meta and Google to put backdoors in their apps, but why would people with something to hide use those and not one of the endless supply of open source apps that are provably secure?
And more importantly: Why is nobody asking them these questions?
Convenience has a cost. Legislation like this, if enforced in the US, would kill Signal, for example. That messenger is the only one I've found that hits the right balance of "easy enough a normie can use it" and "secure enough I'm comfortable using it".
But, they are firmly US based. If the powers that be deign them to kill their business or their security, they'll keep riding the $400-500K salaries without a second thought. Maybe Moxie Marlinspike would quit on ethical grounds, but that's be the end of that for me.
Most criminals are admittedly rather dumb, so I'm sure you could catch plenty of common criminals with this. But yeah, law-abiding citizens would be in the greatest danger from it.
Then again, I wonder if breaking encryption is really necessary to catch the "dumb" ones
Any deep dives into why some of the EU politicians are so hell bent on this? Is it paranoia over terrorism?
The usual mixture probably.
I've never seen a great deep dive on actual sourced motivations though as I think it's generally as shallow as "protection", and to be somewhat fair it IS a shitty line to tread. Do you want to be the person on the hook if something akin to 9/11 occurs and it comes out it could've been stopped if you'd only known X or Y? God knows people show how much of a hypocrite they are on rights when threats suddenly affect them, and politicians are very very aware of that.
Doubly so the whole "oh look what stopped on my watch" wins. I think those are the shallower/more popular reasons but its honestly just such a fucking mess from top to bottom its hard for me to only assign ignorance on these kinds of issues.
Re. point 2, you are far too cyncial, there is of course full transparency regarding the members of the high-level group working on this initiative.
Article 3 of the Commission Decision setting up a high-level group on access to data for effective law enforcement is about as close as I could get to the actual members. I don't think citizens need to look any further into this matter.
I've walked around Shanghai on a pretty miserable autumn day (as in, dim light, low visibility) and felt perfectly safe at all times, because every other lamppost I passed wasn't actually for lights, it rather held around a dozen or more CCTV cameras, along with little police platforms (replete with quite obnoxious constantly flashing red/blue lights, that the one I linked doesn't seem to have) and there were more policemen than I've ever seen in my life (in 3s and 4s, not all at once). I'm sure I saw a peak, given I was there around a mid-autumn festival, but it was too much, imo. But I suppose that's a trade-off - I felt (and I'm sure was) super safe, but I was incredibly surveilled too.
I mean, I felt super safe walking around Shanfhai, but I've also walked around Berlin in similarly low-visibility conditions and felt perfectly safe at all times, despite the type of surveillance you describe being broadly illegal here. While surveillance can contribute to things that make you feel subjectively safer, I don't think it's reasonable to present something as simple as "feeling safe walking around in a city when there's poor lighting" as only being possible with widespread surveillance.
Terrorism, and CSAM. Case in point for the latter:
https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/19/24181214/eu-chat-control-law-propose-scanning-encrypted-messages-csam
We need encryption protections enshrined more deeply into our founding government documents - constitutions, whatever. Police can access this data other ways it just requires more effort.
I see it as if I gave key to my house to authorities. My house is my private space, they have no reason to have the key. Now, if police comes at my door and they have all the papers needed to enter my house (like court ruling or whatever), I will let them in.
The same should be for encryption - it's my private space and there is no reason for anybody to be able to enter it. And if they have rightful reason, I will comply.
It is THAT simple.
Criminals will not abide by the set rules, they will have their own encrypted channels if they need them. And public won't care at all because Average Joes don't care if they have gestapo behind them everywhere they go - because they don't realize it's like having officer at their tail all the time watching everything they do. If it was like that - being physically tailed all day long - they wouldn't be that careless, would they?
Every now and then, the EU shows it's got that one thing in common with China, and it won't take a lot to shift it in that direction.
I hate this move, but that statement is ridiculous to an extreme. There is so much difference between china and the EU. For the simplest, most obvious example: did the UK leave the EU? Has Taiwan left China?
When will they learn