France is about to pass the worst surveillance law in the EU. We must stop them now! | Tuta
tuta.com
An amendment to the “Narcotrafic” law is moving to the French National Assembly. Remind your legislators that a backdoor for the good guys only is not possible.
  • RegalPotoo@lemmy.worldEnglish
    613·
    14 hours ago

    So I’m going to get down voted to hell for this, but: this kind of legislation is a response to US tech companies absolutely refusing to compromise and meet non-US governments half-way.

    The belief in an absolute, involute right to privacy at all costs is a very US ideal. In the rest of the world - and in Europe especially - this belief is tempered by a belief that law enforcement is critical to a just society, and that sometimes individual rights must be suspended for the good of society as a whole.

    What Europe has been asking for is a mechanism to allow law enforcement to carry out lawful investigation of electronic communications in the same way they have been able to do with paper, bank records, and phone calls for a century. The idea that a tech company might get in the way of prosecuting someone for a serious crime is simply incompatible with law in a lot of places.

    The rest of the world has been trying to find a solution to the for a while that respects the privacy of the general public but which doesn’t allow people to hide from the law. Tech has been refusing to compromise or even engage in this discussion, so now everyone is worse off.

    • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      4·
      9 hours ago

      It sounds like you haven’t observed the conversation.

      And it’s not the tech companes so much as the Linux community who have pushed for e2e.

      Considering how many abuses (pretty clear violations of the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States) have been carved out by SCOTUS during mob investigations and the International War on Terror, no, the people of the US want secure communication. The law enforcement state wants back doors and keep telling tech folk to nerd harder to make back doors not already known to industrial spies, enthusiast hackers and foreign agents.

      You’re asking for three perpendicular lines on a plane. You’re asking for a mathematical impossibility.

      And remember industrial spies includes the subsets of industries local and foreign, and political spies behind specific ideologies who do not like you and are against specifically your own personhood.

      • RegalPotoo@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        5 hours ago

        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”.

    • Steve Dice@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      10·
      14 hours ago

      I can invite someone over to my house and talk about anything I want with no risk of government meddling. Why should it be any different in online communication regardless of the country?

      • SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        4·
        13 hours ago

        Continuing the analogy, government agencies can absolutely eavesdrop on in-person conversations unless you expend significant resources to prevent it. This is exactly what I believe will happen - organized crime will develop alternate methods the government can’t access while these backdoors are used to monitor less advanced criminals and normal people.

        • Steve Dice@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          1·
          6 hours ago

          Spending significant resources to prevent it is exactly what encryption is. What the government wants is to completely eliminate online private communication. Continuing with the analogy: you want telescreens.