1337shadow

> They often don't do what the majority wants or is best for them.

"The majority" doesn't want exactly the same things, they agreed on some thing or two that was prioritary and deserved the vote.

> * In most european states the government doesn't actually have >50% of the votes.

Really? How is that?

> There are things that are moral that the majority wants to be illegal (such as homosexual relationships until a few years ago).

That is simply not true, the majority just wants that puberty blockers don't be provided to children.

Didn't understand your last point sorry (non native)

Not afaik, people have just been sending screenshots of their QR codes to each others, and the people "validating" just have to "scan and see Valid".

Yes, but we can always revoke them and generate new ones?

Ahah! Exactly, you have figured what I would have requested to specify in this bill!

Who's the problem here? The government or the talibans? Sorry it's not really clear what you mean.

Because I know how state security works.

I disagree, I believe that we can still have encryption and catch criminals based on encrypted communications.

Well of course I'm engaged against shit countries like that, so obviously my answer is no: I do not want our companies to comply with them. But I want our companies to comply with us, and make, not only online security, but also outdoors security, a feature.

> The funny thing is that this is basically what this and any other anti-e2ee regulation is about.

Because you refuse to understand that we only want suspect communications, not all of them, and also that we don't want to break encryption to acheive that because the person might as well be innocent.

> Yet it is still illegal and people are still being arrested for ordering drugs and producing their own, how curious.

You won't until there is a problem that alerts the authority.

> Did that criminal use drugs or end-to-end-encryption?

Yes and yes, add much more.

> We both know that this is simply not true.

I disagree.

Anyway, I've been prosecuted on wrong basis myself, and got out winner, I'm not affraid this is going to change. I trust my state, my police, my judges, who are independent and who will have to issue a mandate based on serious suspicious before they read my communications.

Because, that's how present reality works.

I'm always truthful unless I'm saying something so stupid that I'm expecting nobody to take it seriously ... which is pretty french, irony is a bet you take on your audience's intelligence, that does not always go as planned as you might notice in a comment ...

Long live Canada! Or Quebec whatever side you're on xD

But are you really off-topic or are you actually much deeply in topic?

After all, why wouldn't it be the case here: making our own states weaker because "we the public will not negociate our privacy!" ? Is the public in question, strongly expressing their opinion here, really going to benefit from having a weaker state ? Is there no limit about how weak we want our state ? At what point does it starts benefiting forces which are hostile to our civilisation ? Has it even started already ? I think I figured your answer to that last one!

What makes our state weaker is not this public, it's whatever forces weaponizing this public against our states, and indeed I'm aware about them, but the public is in the middle, we must win with arguments, by talking about reality, I beleive that's how we can wake up and face reality and actually debate solutions instead of hiding behind distopian scifi scenarios like we are doing here.

"by the state"! Which can also, have a cryptographic key, not with 123password

I see it's off topic but I appreciate discussing with you, because I don't think I understand your position correctly but I'm trying to!

McCarthyism was after people with an opinion, I don't believe that's a good thing and that it's going to happen again in western countries.

The current threat here is a rise of criminality, having more evidence would secure more people, this bill was actually a try to "adapt to the current threats".

But there is never going to be a silver bullet, it's always going to be a cat and mouse chase, does that mean we should quit playing at all?

> End-to-end encryption is a system of communication where the only people who can read the messages are the people communicating.

That is not a technical explanation.

We can still have encryption on both ends of a communication, and at the same time have suspects using two keys instead of one to encrypt. We can encrypt a message for multiple users with GPG, why couldn't we here? As far as I understand E2EE still works, except that users suspected of a felony would also have the state key in their encryption, that doesn't mean removing other keys!! Which we should definitely not do because we do not want to compromise the privacy of innocent people!!

This is not against encryption, this is about decryption of encrypted data upon request by the authorities.

If a foreigner has an argument I believe we want to ear it, maybe we refutate it, maybe it improves our understanding.

It is happening here in France, the woke totalitarism has penetrated our universities, we're removing statues too, and soon will also be burning books just like on the other side of the Atlantic ... Unless next elections put a stop to that.

It's not "all encrypted transmissions" that were at stake here.

What makes you think that?

CC TVs are taken down.

When a 15 years old dealer does not take it down on his own:

https://www.letelegramme.fr/bretagne/a-vannes-le-dealer-de-1...

Then it's the mafia taking them all down:

https://www.leparisien.fr/seine-et-marne-77/chelles-77500/ch...

But it's actually pretty common:

https://twitter.com/alliancepolice/status/145008668020403814...

https://www.lyonmag.com/article/118297/bron-ils-scient-le-ma...

https://www.francebleu.fr/infos/faits-divers-justice/dijon-i...

But that's fine because they are "defending our privacy" ?

Or, do you want to try to make another suggestion ?

Meanwhile, criminality is thriving and we are powerless against it. Maybe we should try planting more trees and developing more socio cultural activities ?

Anyway, shouldn't you be against CCTVs because "if the state can see them streams then it means a hacker can see them too" ? I mean, I think that's the whole point being made here against this bill.

I think this reply was meant for another comment?

But you don't need that, you'd only get too much information you don't need. You need to intercept suspect network traffic only, otherwise you're most likely to fail to find anything useful at all.

> I guess I think of it as educating the politicians.

What about the other way around? What makes you think it's not police hackers who value privacy just like us, and who strive to protect us, who requested this to politicians? That seems more likely.

I disagree, I only master French democracy, and of that one I can say it is irreversible. As such, I disagree with your conclusion, even more so when it boils down to "let's leave some criminals running around just in case one day our democracy turns into an authoritarian regime like in scifi".

I am affected by the damage caused in the present reality, not by hypothetical damage in an highly unlikely reality, as such, I base my political opinion on facts that happen in the present, factual reality.

If you take drugs at your home and don't cause any incident, there is absolutely 0 chance that you get arrested. The idea is not to have a camera in everyone's home to send the police every time someone takes a drug, the idea is to punish people who get caught taking drugs because they are causing incidents, such as car accidents, or highly risking to, such as driving after consuming drugs.

Same with this law: if you're not seriously suspected of any felony then the state will not be able to request decryption of your data.

I'm sorry to say my children and myself have suffered from a criminal that took years to catch, I hope we will fully recover one day but sincerely doubt it, but I'm glad this makes you laugh at least that makes two people laughing about it.

What makes you think that?

Meanwhile, Belgium has a thriving terrorist community.

Why would you be arrested for taking drugs? Because you're driving on drugs perhaps?

The "think of the children" argument is based on personal experience, mind you, I sincerely hope for you that you will never understand the relation, ever.

A democratic state is elected by the majority, as such, the state should share the same definition as the majority. That's the deal we're taking when we decide to live in a democracy: that we will abide by the law of the majority. This doesn't mean we have to agree: it means we have to convince the majority if we want a change.

But a state that can't defend the majority because of an open letter signed by a hundred crypto anarchists seems pretty bad to have indeed!