France is about to pass the worst surveillance law in the EU.
-
Huh? I don't think you understand my comment. You're just agreeing with me and I'm already agreeing with you.
-
It is not different and both are done. If you've met people of that worldview (thieves, relatives of bureaucrats, bureaucrats themselves), they really have nothing to say directly, they talk in subtle (they think) hints and subtle (they think) threats.
-
They only thing that can stop a bad guy with surveillance fetish is the same bad bad guy with suddenly found exhibitionism fetish. OK, that's not new, see "Enemy of the state movie". Doesn't work quite like that IRL, of course.
-
This is exactly the sort of argument I was talking about
- The forth amendment counts for less than the paper it is written on outside the bounds of the US
- Most of the rest of the world has laws requiring companies that operate in their jurisdiction - even if they aren't based in that country - to prove access to law enforcement if requested
- If complying with the law is truly actually impossible, then don't be surprised if a country turns around and says "ok, you can't operate here". Just because you are based in the US and have a different set of cultural values, doesn't mean you get to ignore laws you don't like
To illustrate the sort of compromise that could have been possible, imagine if Apple and Google had got together and proposed a scheme where, if presented with:
- A physical device
- An arrest warrant aledging involvement in one of a list of specific serious crimes (rape, murder, csam etc)
They would sign an update for that specific handset that provided access for law enforcement, so long as the nations pass and maintain laws that forbid it's use outside of a prosecution. It's not perfect for anyone - law enforcement would want more access, and it does compromise some people privacy - but it's probably better than "no encryption for anyone".
-
That's a comment I was hoping for, thanks
-
Correction. The worst surveillance law in the EU so far
-
a crosspost from privacy cross posted from Europa -
Tuta would also be required to implement a backdoor in their encryption if this law passes. In this post they've stated they will refuse to do so, because it's not possible.
-
I don't agree with you.
-
So then you're in favor of these government backdoors? Because your comment suggests the opposite.
-
Ah yes, for the upcoming Ministry of Love.
-
I think you do, you just misread their comment.
-
What happened with Signal?
-
Nope. I didn't and I don't.
-
No, I don't agree that a want of privacy is an American thing.
-
So you misread my comment but you're one of those types who can't admit when they're wrong. I'd say it's our little secret but I see someone else pointed it out too.
-
Isn't that the CIA app?
-
Nope. You're the one refusing to admit being wrong.
-
Telling someone who says government access will be used to spy on citizens but will be useless for combating serious crime that they want telescreens doesn't make any sense. Either you don't know what a telescreen is, you have poor reading comprehension, or you're a fairly clever troll. Maybe some of all the above.
