WhatsApp threatened to leave the Netherlands due to controversial backdoor law(nrc.nl)
nrc.nl
WhatsApp threatened to leave the Netherlands due to controversial backdoor law
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2022/06/03/whatsapp-dreigde-te-vertrekken-om-aftapplicht-a4132175
126 comments
I heard a joke "Let's ban all men, because they have dicks which make them potential rapists" ) The only thing that makes original narrative not so absurdly ridiculous is the fact that "they" have the resources to execute a few example cases (of abuse, abduction, shootings, etc. etc.) to justify any restrictions. (
This is no bullshit, it's about feeling powerless.
Grapperhouse saw how hard it is to track down child abusers. He was touched by it and he wanted to fix this.
The best solution to track down child abusers fast is to track down their communications.
But I agree with you this might not be the best solution for the rest of the world.
Grapperhouse saw how hard it is to track down child abusers. He was touched by it and he wanted to fix this.
The best solution to track down child abusers fast is to track down their communications.
But I agree with you this might not be the best solution for the rest of the world.
> The best solution to track down child abusers fast is to track down their communications.
Right. Then as bad actors find out that WhatsApp is backdoored, they move on to some other network, the police agents go on to think "oh, cool, no more abusers on WhatsApp, good job!", leaving the backdoor only for the good people and a bunch of police agents thinking "Now that CP is no longer a threat, what else are we going to use as a reason to keep these powers we have"?
Right. Then as bad actors find out that WhatsApp is backdoored, they move on to some other network, the police agents go on to think "oh, cool, no more abusers on WhatsApp, good job!", leaving the backdoor only for the good people and a bunch of police agents thinking "Now that CP is no longer a threat, what else are we going to use as a reason to keep these powers we have"?
Of course that will happen.
The problem is people like Grapperhouse lack creativity. When they feel powerless they can't think of other solutions than the obvious.
The problem is people like Grapperhouse lack creativity. When they feel powerless they can't think of other solutions than the obvious.
I'd be very surprised any serious criminals use anything from webstores in the first place. maybe some low level foot soldiers at most.
Meanwhile Grapperhaus didn't want to appoint an independent team of researchers to investigate child sex abuse in connection with members of his own justice department.
Grapperhaus is a power-grabbing asshole, in broad daylight since the Helsema texts debacle. He doesn't give a fuck about kids.
Sommige Nederlandse mensen geloven dit? Ik weet het niet hoor.
Sommige Nederlandse mensen geloven dit? Ik weet het niet hoor.
[opinion]
I will eat my shoe in a tvshow if there's any evidence to confirm Whatsapp/Meta did this for privacy/moral reasons.
They simply fear this would lead people to leaving Whatsapp and turn to alternative ways of private communication which would mean less users and thus revenue.
[/opinion]
I think you overestimate the amount that the average person cares about their privacy.
> I think you overestimate the amount that the average person cares
about their privacy.
We should reword this nearly-true claim to avoid spreading a pernicious myth. Let's try:
"I think you overestimate the amount that the average person understands about their privacy."
People care. They don't understand. Indeed, they are actively misled. That is not a fair foundation for assertions like "people don't care about X".
We should reword this nearly-true claim to avoid spreading a pernicious myth. Let's try:
"I think you overestimate the amount that the average person understands about their privacy."
People care. They don't understand. Indeed, they are actively misled. That is not a fair foundation for assertions like "people don't care about X".
Very much this. The same people that feed large amounts of data to an ad network in exchange for videos of puppies can also be upset when they discover something about that same company that leads them to believe they’ve been harmed.
But lets also add, that so many of them will gladly believe everything an ad financed company tells them, just to have a bit of convenience and just so that they do not have to go against any network effect. All that, while people tell them, that they are being spied on. All that, while there is one personal data scandal after the other.
Many people are severly uninformed or have closed themselves off to information, that could disturb their comfort with FB and the likes (ha, pun not intended, but it works!). Many people are computer illiterates, addicted to their "drug of choice" and kept in place via network effect of "all their friends and family being on FB/WA/whatever" and they too are part of the problem, increasing the network effect.
I've had discussion with people, where I told them, that FB had the biggest personal data scandal in history (financially, in terms of what they had to pay), and that there is a new thing happening every month or so. Still these people do not want their way of being addicted shaken and continue regardlessly, dragging others down with them. I am sometimes at a loss what I can tell them, how I can explain to them what is happening. Telling them, that FB is running on ads, which are tailored to them, by spying on their behavior and mining that data. Nope, message not understood.
Many people are severly uninformed or have closed themselves off to information, that could disturb their comfort with FB and the likes (ha, pun not intended, but it works!). Many people are computer illiterates, addicted to their "drug of choice" and kept in place via network effect of "all their friends and family being on FB/WA/whatever" and they too are part of the problem, increasing the network effect.
I've had discussion with people, where I told them, that FB had the biggest personal data scandal in history (financially, in terms of what they had to pay), and that there is a new thing happening every month or so. Still these people do not want their way of being addicted shaken and continue regardlessly, dragging others down with them. I am sometimes at a loss what I can tell them, how I can explain to them what is happening. Telling them, that FB is running on ads, which are tailored to them, by spying on their behavior and mining that data. Nope, message not understood.
> But let's also add, that so many of them will gladly believe
everything an ad financed company tells them, just to have a bit of
convenience and just so that they do not have to go against any
network effect. All that, while people tell them, that they are
being spied on. All that, while there is one personal data scandal
after the other.
You are so right, I can't argue against that. It's the same psychology and social dynamics as why people continue to smoke or use harmful street drugs while seeing the people around them dying or getting sick, and being told every day that it's harmful.
I tried to make as clear, and sensitively as I could in Digital Vegan [1] why I think some digital technologies are a major public health issue, and that we are in the same territory as with tobacco 50 years ago.
One problem is that unlike heroin and tobacco, where the sickness of the victims is a net burden on governments, consumer capitalism, being a form of proxy mass-surveillance, traps governments in an uneasy "see no evil" alliance, if not outright support for digital harms.
Another is that digital harms can be remote, deferred in time and place, thus difficult to connect causally. As with many diseases or pollutants we are still in the early stages of understanding the effects of damage to privacy.
[1] https://digitalvegan.net
You are so right, I can't argue against that. It's the same psychology and social dynamics as why people continue to smoke or use harmful street drugs while seeing the people around them dying or getting sick, and being told every day that it's harmful.
I tried to make as clear, and sensitively as I could in Digital Vegan [1] why I think some digital technologies are a major public health issue, and that we are in the same territory as with tobacco 50 years ago.
One problem is that unlike heroin and tobacco, where the sickness of the victims is a net burden on governments, consumer capitalism, being a form of proxy mass-surveillance, traps governments in an uneasy "see no evil" alliance, if not outright support for digital harms.
Another is that digital harms can be remote, deferred in time and place, thus difficult to connect causally. As with many diseases or pollutants we are still in the early stages of understanding the effects of damage to privacy.
[1] https://digitalvegan.net
Privacy is often inconvenient. Understanding is inconvenient.
> Privacy is often inconvenient. Understanding is inconvenient.
You're so right. What else?
That's why I consider the word convenience to be the modern form of the Greek work Thanatos, which is the "death drive" toward atrophy, stasis, forgetfulness and rigor mortis. Living is "Inconvenient", and because everything worth having costs something, convenience is "anti-life".
But that's a lot of beard-stroking philosophy. A more interesting question for hackers might be:
You're so right. What else?
- Safety is inconvenient
- Growth is inconvenient
- Success is inconvenient
- Long term happiness is inconvenient
That's why I consider the word convenience to be the modern form of the Greek work Thanatos, which is the "death drive" toward atrophy, stasis, forgetfulness and rigor mortis. Living is "Inconvenient", and because everything worth having costs something, convenience is "anti-life".
But that's a lot of beard-stroking philosophy. A more interesting question for hackers might be:
"Exactly when did we become the arse-wipers of the world, coddling
everyone in "convenience" lest their delicate brows produce a bead
of sweat or their minds be troubled by a moment of doubt?"
Political scientist Alexis De Toqueville writing in his 1840
Democracy in America [DeTocqueville35] questions the perils of
convenient systems so perfect in their pampering and coddling that
they render life pointless. Of what today we would call cybernetic
governance, he writes:
`` That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and
mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like
that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood;
but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual
childhood: it is well content that the people should
rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For
their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it
chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that
happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and
supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures,
manages their principal concerns, directs their industry,
regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their
inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care
of thinking and all the trouble of living?''They seem to react strongly to the scenes in The Lives of Others with the Stasi eavesdropping and covertly opening physical mail. But do it "on a computer", and the aversion seems to diminish.
Because after all, we don't talk about anything important on a computer - for that, we type up and send a physical letter.
Because after all, we don't talk about anything important on a computer - for that, we type up and send a physical letter.
> Because after all, we don't talk about anything important on a computer
Yeah, that's definitely a sentiment I've seen many times. I'm not sure if there's any scientific explanation/proof, but I see claims that the "vast majority of people are averse to [any] change" a lot in articles and books.
The problem is that the world doesn't care, and changes anyway. So we've moved financials and military to the digital world - which should be the very definition of "important" or "serious" - but people's perception of computers stayed mostly the same: tools for playing games, gossiping with friends, and watching funny cat videos. I think the general population will only catch up to the changes the IT revolution brought in a generation or two. By that time it'll be too late for any kind of regulation, I'm afraid.
Yeah, that's definitely a sentiment I've seen many times. I'm not sure if there's any scientific explanation/proof, but I see claims that the "vast majority of people are averse to [any] change" a lot in articles and books.
The problem is that the world doesn't care, and changes anyway. So we've moved financials and military to the digital world - which should be the very definition of "important" or "serious" - but people's perception of computers stayed mostly the same: tools for playing games, gossiping with friends, and watching funny cat videos. I think the general population will only catch up to the changes the IT revolution brought in a generation or two. By that time it'll be too late for any kind of regulation, I'm afraid.
Do you remember how Facebook howled and whined so loudly after Apple gave iPhone users the choice to be tracked by FB or not, and the majority decided “No”? Tell me again that people don't care.
Did they really decide? Default settings are a sort of a pre-decision made by someone else.
That has been intensely studied in behavioral economics and there is a lot of laws that addresses the fact that people actually tend to leave pre-made decisions in place. (This is used in, e.g. laws that regulate consent to organ donation.)
That has been intensely studied in behavioral economics and there is a lot of laws that addresses the fact that people actually tend to leave pre-made decisions in place. (This is used in, e.g. laws that regulate consent to organ donation.)
There was a prompt. Not a default position.
You could argue the wording was loaded or something, but it’s certainly not an “opt-in to tracking” situation.
You couldn’t proceed without picking one of the options.
You could argue the wording was loaded or something, but it’s certainly not an “opt-in to tracking” situation.
You couldn’t proceed without picking one of the options.
You're not wrong, but those who do have an oversized impact. My family don't care or understand, but if I announce were moving from a family Whatsapp group to a family telegram group they'll comply. They don't understand or care but they're happy to take my lead. You only need a small number of users to opt out and you lose a lot of other users with them...
People need to be educated about it before they care. Europe is a few years away from accomplishing that, possibly a decade or more.
Well, that'll be too late then. The EU is preparing to force chat app providers to build an unprecedented espionage and censorship infrastructure on their behalf. (Of course only to fight against terrorism and child abuse! /s)
The EU already allows governments to use spy on their citizens with stuff like Pegasus. They are just making it easier to buy and sell that kind of software.
this is a non sequitur.
Secret services are one thing, police operations and investigations are another, spying your own citizens for the sake of spying them and collecting their data is not allowed in EU, but it happened in US (we have proof) and when it happened in Europe it was US companies doing it (Cambridge Analytica data scandal, to name one, was made possible by Facebook).
There's that.
Secret services are one thing, police operations and investigations are another, spying your own citizens for the sake of spying them and collecting their data is not allowed in EU, but it happened in US (we have proof) and when it happened in Europe it was US companies doing it (Cambridge Analytica data scandal, to name one, was made possible by Facebook).
There's that.
Stuff like Pegasus is targeted espionage at least, not unapologetic, wanton mass surveillance.
You mean the same people who gave their address book to Facebook?
This is a nice example of the kind of thing that bothers me. I don't have a smartphone, my address book is mine. But given that probably 99.9% of all my contacts do have a smartphone with Android on it or a Facebook account there is a fair chance that my address book can be reconstructed from theirs. So I can't even opt out, no matter how much I would like to, my 'spot' in the social graph is defined anyway.
While I'm not a fan of WhatsApp or Meta, I don't think this has much relevance here. WhatsApp isn't that afraid of losing users due to privacy concerns. Their 'new privacy policy' debacle made them worry a bit, sure, but mostly they seem to be letting things go with the flow. Otherwise, they wouldn't be releasing 1.5 features a year.
If Facebook had to add a backdoor, so would all the competitors. I don't think anyone was going to switch any time soon were they to add the functionality. Any service worth their salt would switch to "oppressive government mode", either disabling access or ignoring the law and fighting the block when it eventually occurs.
Facebook has been under pressure for many years to allow government agencies to decrypt messages. I believe that their "no" is also an ideological one, because I can't imagine any of the staff being willing to disable security for their customers for government oversight.
Facebook has been under pressure for many years to allow government agencies to decrypt messages. I believe that their "no" is also an ideological one, because I can't imagine any of the staff being willing to disable security for their customers for government oversight.
Agree, but in this case I think it might be a positive. I don't want to rely on the morals of Meta. I much prefer for there to be enough pressure to force them into acting morally.
[deleted]
It's a distinction that is completely irrelevant in my opinion.
Obviously, privacy is a selling point. And everyone who advertise for privacy will lose users and therefore revenue if they stop being private. They wouldn't advertise for it if it wasn't the case.
And sure, some companies do privacy only as a selling point, Apple, I think, is the best example. Is it a problem? Absolutely not.
And sure, some companies do privacy only as a selling point, Apple, I think, is the best example. Is it a problem? Absolutely not.
>Grapperhaus wanted to prevent the distribution of photos of the sexual abuse of children
and if someone gets arrested for a thoughtcrime or hatespeak offense, the evidence obtained from their chat logs will be inadmissible in court, right? :)
and if someone gets arrested for a thoughtcrime or hatespeak offense, the evidence obtained from their chat logs will be inadmissible in court, right? :)
of course, unless the wire tapping was authorized by a court.
The system has been.in place for decades and the same procedures must be followed for every private conversation
Besides: do you know someone that was arrested for a thoughtcrime in the Netherlands?
The system has been.in place for decades and the same procedures must be followed for every private conversation
Besides: do you know someone that was arrested for a thoughtcrime in the Netherlands?
Yes, they still have lese-majeste laws. And it's not like they never used them, people still go to jail over insulting the king. They reformed the laws in 2018 but it's still punishable by up to one year of jail
>A court in the Netherlands has sentenced a man to 30 days in jail for insulting the king on Facebook.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36799639?
Plus, The Netherlands has quite a few restrictions on free speech in general. But I guess it depends on how you define "thought crimes"
>A court in the Netherlands has sentenced a man to 30 days in jail for insulting the king on Facebook.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36799639?
Plus, The Netherlands has quite a few restrictions on free speech in general. But I guess it depends on how you define "thought crimes"
> to 30 days in jail for insulting the king on Facebook.
That's not tough crime.
You can't insult the President of Republic here in Italy too, because it represent Italy, you're insulting the institution, it's against the law.
A though crime, as per Orwell - who invented the term - definition. is someone who goes against the status quo and get punished for expressing an unorthodox idea or doubting the system. You don't get a sentence usually, you simply disappear. Or get hunged in public as an example.
What you just reported is a plain straight law infringement. Just like a robbery.
A though crime would be being arrested for protesting against the US Supreme court and their vote to cancel abortion rights.
That's not tough crime.
You can't insult the President of Republic here in Italy too, because it represent Italy, you're insulting the institution, it's against the law.
A though crime, as per Orwell - who invented the term - definition. is someone who goes against the status quo and get punished for expressing an unorthodox idea or doubting the system. You don't get a sentence usually, you simply disappear. Or get hunged in public as an example.
What you just reported is a plain straight law infringement. Just like a robbery.
A though crime would be being arrested for protesting against the US Supreme court and their vote to cancel abortion rights.
I think that's a distinction that can make sense and I agree that the definition of the word has been a bit diluted. You obviously don't get disappeared in the NL.
But I don't get your last point. If it was illegal to protest/criticize the Supreme court, and someone did, wouldn't that be straight law infringement too? I don't think they are mutually exclusive.
Insulting an institution, especially that of the Crown, is a form of protest and can be a way to express an unorthodox idea or a rejection of the system.
It's akin to going to jail for insulting Trump, Biden or Bush because you insulted the American presidency. To me that's just unsettling.
But I don't get your last point. If it was illegal to protest/criticize the Supreme court, and someone did, wouldn't that be straight law infringement too? I don't think they are mutually exclusive.
Insulting an institution, especially that of the Crown, is a form of protest and can be a way to express an unorthodox idea or a rejection of the system.
It's akin to going to jail for insulting Trump, Biden or Bush because you insulted the American presidency. To me that's just unsettling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country#Ne...
the nebulous laws are in place, like in every other country that had suddenly become very concerned about "protecting the children" in recent years
the nebulous laws are in place, like in every other country that had suddenly become very concerned about "protecting the children" in recent years
Translation of the original Dutch article: https://www-nrc-nl.translate.goog/nieuws/2022/06/03/whatsapp...
‘Justice [Department] keeps looking for the holy grail: a “secure” backdoor to WhatsApp’
I wonder, at what point will they stop caring that there's no such thing as a “secure” backdoor?
I wonder, at what point will they stop caring that there's no such thing as a “secure” backdoor?
Define secure. Because if you were trying to bring up a technological argument, please stop. It weakens our position. Cryptographically you absolutely can have asymmetric systems with a privileged master key that are secure to anyone not knowing the master key. You might argue that the key could leak, and they'll come right back with ephemerally rotating master keys signed by the backdoor agency. Legally enforced secure backdooring is not a technology issue, it is a social one.
Simply put, we don't want mass surveillance. We don't want authorities snooping in our private communications, period. That is more than sufficient, and does not require building on technological arguments that will only wear down.
Simply put, we don't want mass surveillance. We don't want authorities snooping in our private communications, period. That is more than sufficient, and does not require building on technological arguments that will only wear down.
That's not a backdoor. That's just a front door.
A front door is simply a back door hiding in plain sight.
key rotation still gives windows of oppertunity
Wonder what they will do with https://chatcontrol.eu then.
Not going to happen anyway... (in German): https://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/chatkontrolle-me...
"Federal Minister of the Interior Faeser has changed her mind about the EU Commission's plan: "I don't think it's compatible with our civil liberties to check every private message without any reason."
"Federal Minister of the Interior Faeser has changed her mind about the EU Commission's plan: "I don't think it's compatible with our civil liberties to check every private message without any reason."
Maybe. Germany and Netherlands were the only countries with some real opposition in the parliamentary vote last year.
https://mepwatch.eu/9/vote.html?v=134463#
https://mepwatch.eu/9/vote.html?v=134463#
Well they’re already scanning the images that you send so obviously they have a more nuanced position on the topic.
Do you have a source/writeup about this?
Wow this is amazing. How did whatsapp react to that Australian law about backdoors?
afaik they only have key disclosure. which you can reveal yourself on clientside?
afaik they dont have a backdoor law? can you point to a link? tia
afaik they dont have a backdoor law? can you point to a link? tia
There's this recent news: https://fee.org/articles/australia-s-unprecedented-encryptio...
The existing law is already quite extensive: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/09/australian-government-...
Theoretically, any Australian could be compelled by the government to sneak backdoors into their bos's software, though I haven't seen any indication that such extreme measures were taken.
Australia is quite extreme in their anti encryption laws. Their government's stance has made me distrust Australian software dealing in security, and even Australian developers working on encryption technology. Not because I don't trust Australians per se, but because their government can force good people to do bad things.
Were this law to strike in the Netherlands, I'd expect other countries to shun Dutch security software immediately as well.
The existing law is already quite extensive: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/09/australian-government-...
Theoretically, any Australian could be compelled by the government to sneak backdoors into their bos's software, though I haven't seen any indication that such extreme measures were taken.
Australia is quite extreme in their anti encryption laws. Their government's stance has made me distrust Australian software dealing in security, and even Australian developers working on encryption technology. Not because I don't trust Australians per se, but because their government can force good people to do bad things.
Were this law to strike in the Netherlands, I'd expect other countries to shun Dutch security software immediately as well.
English translation: https://www-nrc-nl.translate.goog/nieuws/2022/06/03/whatsapp...
[deleted]
Can a government demand the same from Telegram and Signal? And if that is the case, how easy would be to circumvent an IP block without users having to use VPNs or tunelling?
Would the law have been passed, all chat clients would have to implement backdoors or leave the country.
Circumventing the block would be trivial, so the next step would be to go after VPNs, TOR, decentralised messengers, and any other technology that would keep your private days out of the hands of the government.
Circumventing the block would be trivial, so the next step would be to go after VPNs, TOR, decentralised messengers, and any other technology that would keep your private days out of the hands of the government.
Is the server hugged to death? The moment I tap it says can't connect to the server, immediately.
Any archive links?
Any archive links?
For me it still works, but here’s an archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20220604110604/https://www.nrc.n...
This is a PR plant that Meta (and its acolytes) routinely stress the importance of "E2EE" - while skimming off the generated metadata which reveals even more. E2EE is closed source implementation and it is hard to determine what happens in the background. I am not denouncing E2EE- just WhatsApp.
Good
They were right to do this
It is a bit naive of some companies to think all they need is to "pay or comply" with some regulations and not push back when it is merited. It might come back later to bite them
They were right to do this
It is a bit naive of some companies to think all they need is to "pay or comply" with some regulations and not push back when it is merited. It might come back later to bite them
Do it
I realised recently China has a population of 1 billion and 400 million. That's more than a billion more people than the U.S.
And they dont have democracy. They cant french revolution on their CCP thing. Im no expert but this is mostly due to surveillance right? Dont say culture please, nobody prefer autocracy to democracy but the autocrate.
This convinced me surveillance is bad.
Edit: some of you disagree. Id like the opportunity to convince you. I get it that many chinese are just happy with the regime. And actually, I dont judge that. Its certainly a cool regime in some ways. But democracy grows like weed, there is no stopping it. But with surveillance. Remove surveillance, there is democracy in China tomorrow.
And they dont have democracy. They cant french revolution on their CCP thing. Im no expert but this is mostly due to surveillance right? Dont say culture please, nobody prefer autocracy to democracy but the autocrate.
This convinced me surveillance is bad.
Edit: some of you disagree. Id like the opportunity to convince you. I get it that many chinese are just happy with the regime. And actually, I dont judge that. Its certainly a cool regime in some ways. But democracy grows like weed, there is no stopping it. But with surveillance. Remove surveillance, there is democracy in China tomorrow.
> And they dont have democracy. They cant french revolution on their CCP thing. Im no expert but this is mostly due to surveillance right? Dont say culture please, nobody prefer autocracy to democracy but the autocrate.
Of course culture has a part in it. Believe it or not, most people have never experienced democracy, and a sizeable amount do not believe that it is a superior society model. Some cultures will never be democratic in their current form, starting with the ones where religion is deeply intertwined with politics.
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/02/27/democratic-rig...
Of course culture has a part in it. Believe it or not, most people have never experienced democracy, and a sizeable amount do not believe that it is a superior society model. Some cultures will never be democratic in their current form, starting with the ones where religion is deeply intertwined with politics.
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/02/27/democratic-rig...
I believe the Greeks had democracy in a number of their city states, but some also had war, slavery, and a fairly pervasive misogyny.
There's an old saying I remember: "The best form of government is an absolute monarchy. The worst form of government is an absolute monarchy."
It all depends who's on top of the heap. Democracy tends to dilute the damage done by bad actors, but also hobbles really good ones.
No system is perfect.
There's an old saying I remember: "The best form of government is an absolute monarchy. The worst form of government is an absolute monarchy."
It all depends who's on top of the heap. Democracy tends to dilute the damage done by bad actors, but also hobbles really good ones.
No system is perfect.
> There's an old saying I remember: "The best form of government is an absolute monarchy. The worst form of government is an absolute monarchy."
Constitutional monarchy seems to rank highly:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#By_country
Constitutional monarchy seems to rank highly:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#By_country
Remember that this list is from the PoV of the anglo world. Them classifying France, Italy, Belgium or Spain as a flawed democracy while the UK would be "full" is hilarious. Strange, they're all latin countries. The Economist has been dunking on France with absurd claims for decades, for whatever reasons that is, so I am not really surprised.
> Believe it or not, most people have never experienced democracy, and a sizeable amount do not believe that it is a superior society model.
Ask them if they'd like to get rid of corruption though: I would guess that most people would like to get rid of that from where they live, and you're more likely to remove it under democratic regimes.
> Some cultures will never be democratic in their current form, starting with the ones where religion is deeply intertwined with politics.
Religion or tribalism/clans? You'll find places that are democratic are less likely to be tribal/clanish (which often leads to less corruption), and there's a high level of modern secularism as well. You'll also find that these traits also tend to correlate highly with (historically) Christian cultures:
* https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/10/joseph-...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_WEIRDest_People_in_the_Wor...
* https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/nov/21/dominion-makin...
Ask them if they'd like to get rid of corruption though: I would guess that most people would like to get rid of that from where they live, and you're more likely to remove it under democratic regimes.
> Some cultures will never be democratic in their current form, starting with the ones where religion is deeply intertwined with politics.
Religion or tribalism/clans? You'll find places that are democratic are less likely to be tribal/clanish (which often leads to less corruption), and there's a high level of modern secularism as well. You'll also find that these traits also tend to correlate highly with (historically) Christian cultures:
* https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/10/joseph-...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_WEIRDest_People_in_the_Wor...
* https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/nov/21/dominion-makin...
> Ask them if they'd like to get rid of corruption though: I would guess that most people would like to get rid of that from where they live, and you're more likely to remove it under democratic regimes.
Yes. In the above poll, pretty much every culture was advocating for a "fair justice system". But what justice? You'll find that the definition of justice varies wildly between places like, say, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and Iceland. The kind of justice the people want in some places has nothing to do with democracy. What constitutes "corruption" also varies wildly. If you ask someone from Uganda what sort of corruption he refers to, you might be surprised of the answer.
> Religion or tribalism/clans? You'll find places that are democratic are less likely to be tribal/clanish (which often leads to less corruption), and there's a high level of modern secularism as well. You'll also find that these traits also tend to correlate highly with (historically) Christian cultures:
You are taking the problem from the wrong end. Tribalist/clanic cultures cannot easily move towards democracy, it is not democratics states that are less likely to be tribal/clanic.
Yes. In the above poll, pretty much every culture was advocating for a "fair justice system". But what justice? You'll find that the definition of justice varies wildly between places like, say, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and Iceland. The kind of justice the people want in some places has nothing to do with democracy. What constitutes "corruption" also varies wildly. If you ask someone from Uganda what sort of corruption he refers to, you might be surprised of the answer.
> Religion or tribalism/clans? You'll find places that are democratic are less likely to be tribal/clanish (which often leads to less corruption), and there's a high level of modern secularism as well. You'll also find that these traits also tend to correlate highly with (historically) Christian cultures:
You are taking the problem from the wrong end. Tribalist/clanic cultures cannot easily move towards democracy, it is not democratics states that are less likely to be tribal/clanic.
Chinese people are happy to trade their privacy and freedoms if it means guaranteed prosperity and security.
As long as they and their children are certain to get a job that pays for basic life and a few amenities for them and their family they don't care.
One of the problems the CCP is facing is that the moment a regression comes and this security is not guaranteed the people supposedly will stop accepting the compromise
> Chinese people are happy to trade their privacy and freedoms if it means guaranteed prosperity and security.
One historical observation that was published a few years ago:
> It must be understood that liberalism and nationalism developed in China in lockstep, with one, in a sense, serving as means to the other. That is, liberalism was a means to serve national ends — the wealth and power of the country. And so when means and end came into conflict, as they inevitably did, the end won out. Nationalism trumped liberalism. Unity, sovereignty, and the means to preserve both were ultimately more important even to those who espoused republicanism and the franchise.
> China’s betrayal at Versailles did not help the cause of liberalism in China. After all, it was the standard bearers of liberalism — the U.K., France, and the United States — that had negotiated secret treaties to give Shandong to the Japanese.
> Former liberals gravitated toward two main camps, both overtly Leninist in organization, both unapologetically authoritarian: the Nationalists and the Communists. By the mid-1920s, the overwhelming majority of Chinese intellectuals believed that an authoritarian solution was China’s only recourse.
* https://supchina.com/2019/07/22/why-do-chinese-people-like-t...
* https://kottke.org/19/08/why-do-chinese-people-like-their-go... (via)
One historical observation that was published a few years ago:
> It must be understood that liberalism and nationalism developed in China in lockstep, with one, in a sense, serving as means to the other. That is, liberalism was a means to serve national ends — the wealth and power of the country. And so when means and end came into conflict, as they inevitably did, the end won out. Nationalism trumped liberalism. Unity, sovereignty, and the means to preserve both were ultimately more important even to those who espoused republicanism and the franchise.
> China’s betrayal at Versailles did not help the cause of liberalism in China. After all, it was the standard bearers of liberalism — the U.K., France, and the United States — that had negotiated secret treaties to give Shandong to the Japanese.
> Former liberals gravitated toward two main camps, both overtly Leninist in organization, both unapologetically authoritarian: the Nationalists and the Communists. By the mid-1920s, the overwhelming majority of Chinese intellectuals believed that an authoritarian solution was China’s only recourse.
* https://supchina.com/2019/07/22/why-do-chinese-people-like-t...
* https://kottke.org/19/08/why-do-chinese-people-like-their-go... (via)
> I realised recently China has a population of 1 billion and 400 million. That's more than a billion more people than the U.S.
That's funny because India has also over a billion more people than the U.S., but the U.S is ranked 3rd by population. This means that even if US got 1 billion more people, they would still be the ranked 3rd by population
That's funny because India has also over a billion more people than the U.S., but the U.S is ranked 3rd by population. This means that even if US got 1 billion more people, they would still be the ranked 3rd by population
> And they dont have democracy. They cant french revolution on their CCP thing. [...] Dont say culture please, nobody prefer autocracy to democracy but the autocrate
But it is mostly cultural. Individualism isn't nearly as important in China (and most of Asia) as it is in the West. And of course that translates to preferences and level of (un)happiness with the government and forms of governance. The west often operates under the false assumption that our way is the only right way and we easily dismiss these essential cultural differences.
> Im no expert but this is mostly due to surveillance right?
I don't think this is a logical conclusion. It certainly helps them in a way, but there was also no French revolution in China before modern surveillance was a thing. From a Chinese perspective many might be happy with their rise in importance and economic strength and the population grows wealthier each year.
But it is mostly cultural. Individualism isn't nearly as important in China (and most of Asia) as it is in the West. And of course that translates to preferences and level of (un)happiness with the government and forms of governance. The west often operates under the false assumption that our way is the only right way and we easily dismiss these essential cultural differences.
> Im no expert but this is mostly due to surveillance right?
I don't think this is a logical conclusion. It certainly helps them in a way, but there was also no French revolution in China before modern surveillance was a thing. From a Chinese perspective many might be happy with their rise in importance and economic strength and the population grows wealthier each year.
> nobody prefer autocracy to democracy but the autocrate
they've been a unified entity for over 3 thousand years, of course culture has a big part in it.
Besides, I'm not sure US (specifically) democracy is much better than Chinese system.
It's simply a different way of exercising power.
The average Chinese citizen is probably as content as the average American citizen.
they've been a unified entity for over 3 thousand years, of course culture has a big part in it.
Besides, I'm not sure US (specifically) democracy is much better than Chinese system.
It's simply a different way of exercising power.
The average Chinese citizen is probably as content as the average American citizen.
> they've been a unified entity for over 3 thousand years
If you look at China's history a little bit deeply, you will notice a rhythmic pattern of unification and fragmentation.
I know this because I was told a by friend who is a History PhD, and gave me several resources to read.
China has not been politically unified, or even culturally similar for the past three thousand years.
There is a homogenous "Chinese culture" to westerners, because, honestly, westerners do not know much about China.
If you look at China's history a little bit deeply, you will notice a rhythmic pattern of unification and fragmentation.
I know this because I was told a by friend who is a History PhD, and gave me several resources to read.
China has not been politically unified, or even culturally similar for the past three thousand years.
There is a homogenous "Chinese culture" to westerners, because, honestly, westerners do not know much about China.
that's the issue: people make assumptions based on data that do not account for what does it mean to be cultural homogeneous.
For example USA are much less homogeneous than China.
And they actually do not exist outside of the political entity we call the United States of America.
But let's be clear, the fact that Italy - my country - has been fragmented more than it was unified doesn't justify the argument that Italians haven't existed for more than 2 thousand years.
For example USA are much less homogeneous than China.
And they actually do not exist outside of the political entity we call the United States of America.
But let's be clear, the fact that Italy - my country - has been fragmented more than it was unified doesn't justify the argument that Italians haven't existed for more than 2 thousand years.
> But let's be clear, the fact that Italy - my country - has been fragmented more than it was unified doesn't justify the argument that Italians haven't existed for more than 2 thousand years.
Totally agree with that.
My focus is on the earlier part of your comment. People from the West see China, a single color, India, a single color, Vietnam, a single color- and think all the thoughts of the people (not even on a micro scale), all the philosophies and ways of life, are similar.
That is very very far from the truth.
Totally agree with that.
My focus is on the earlier part of your comment. People from the West see China, a single color, India, a single color, Vietnam, a single color- and think all the thoughts of the people (not even on a micro scale), all the philosophies and ways of life, are similar.
That is very very far from the truth.
> Besides, I'm not sure US (specifically) democracy is much better than Chinese system.
See also:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#By_country
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World#Country_r...
> The average Chinese citizen is probably as content as the average American citizen.
Ask the minorities how they're treated in each (or in any country really).
See also:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#By_country
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World#Country_r...
> The average Chinese citizen is probably as content as the average American citizen.
Ask the minorities how they're treated in each (or in any country really).
> The Democracy Index is an index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), the research division of the Economist Group, a UK-based private company which publishes the weekly newspaper The Economist
> Freedom in the World is a yearly survey and report by the U.S.-based[2] non-governmental organization Freedom House
I'm not saying their data is wrong, but as always when it comes to data, it'd be great to have resources/data to read/interpret coming from "the other side" as well.
What do Asia-based/China-based organizations say about "democracy" and "freedom" in the US and Europe? Would they agree with the assessment from their US/Europe-based equivalents?
> Freedom in the World is a yearly survey and report by the U.S.-based[2] non-governmental organization Freedom House
I'm not saying their data is wrong, but as always when it comes to data, it'd be great to have resources/data to read/interpret coming from "the other side" as well.
What do Asia-based/China-based organizations say about "democracy" and "freedom" in the US and Europe? Would they agree with the assessment from their US/Europe-based equivalents?
> What do Asia-based/China-based organizations say about "democracy" and "freedom" in the US and Europe? Would they agree with the assessment from their US/Europe-based equivalents?
Of course the score depends on the what is measured and the metrics.
But an interesting yet simple 'practical metric' is/could be: from which countries are people emigrating from, and to which are they immigrating to (or wish to immigrate to, if there were fewer restrictions).
Where do people see that they can 'have a future' for themselves and possibly for their children?
Of course the score depends on the what is measured and the metrics.
But an interesting yet simple 'practical metric' is/could be: from which countries are people emigrating from, and to which are they immigrating to (or wish to immigrate to, if there were fewer restrictions).
Where do people see that they can 'have a future' for themselves and possibly for their children?
The Democracy Index is an index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), the research division of the Economist Group, a UK-based private company which publishes the weekly newspaper The Economist.
not the best of sources.
Anyway the minority issues aren't worse in China than on US in my opinion.
If we think of women rights and children rights, they are worse in US than China, kids get shot in school over the right to own arms, women are stripped of the right to control their bodies over political vengeance from a former, bitter, undemocratic president.
not the best of sources.
Anyway the minority issues aren't worse in China than on US in my opinion.
If we think of women rights and children rights, they are worse in US than China, kids get shot in school over the right to own arms, women are stripped of the right to control their bodies over political vengeance from a former, bitter, undemocratic president.
> If we think of women rights and children rights, they are worse in US than China, kids get shot in school over the right to own arms […]
Which seems to be why the US ranks so low in the 'Freedom Index': if you look at the "Safety and Security" metric is is ridiculously bad.
Which seems to be why the US ranks so low in the 'Freedom Index': if you look at the "Safety and Security" metric is is ridiculously bad.
They like to tell all these stories, none of it is true.
I propose that burden of proof is on the parent poster. Also don't forget Tibetans and Ouigours
Who is "they"? The Mongolians? Sogdians (Persians)? Uyghurs (Turks)? Shu? Yue?
Unified for three thousand years is a ridiculous claim. I find it amazing that this Communist Party propaganda idea (they claim 5000 years actually) of a millennia old continuous "Chinese" state gets repeated by so many people abroad as well. Just spending a few minutes on Wikipedia reading up on East Asian history would would help.
Btw something that few people know even among those who read before commenting and among Chinese themselves: The idea of a Han people didn't exist before Qing Dynasty, not to speak of thousands of years earlier. It's a modern invention by Qing intellectuals, mirroring similar developments in Western countries. There was no concept of nation states prior to our modern times, there were many large states covering similar territories in the past of course, but they weren't necessarily "Chinese". The same way English people aren't Romans and just because Vietnam uses the Latin alphabet, it doesn't make them Latin.
Unified for three thousand years is a ridiculous claim. I find it amazing that this Communist Party propaganda idea (they claim 5000 years actually) of a millennia old continuous "Chinese" state gets repeated by so many people abroad as well. Just spending a few minutes on Wikipedia reading up on East Asian history would would help.
Btw something that few people know even among those who read before commenting and among Chinese themselves: The idea of a Han people didn't exist before Qing Dynasty, not to speak of thousands of years earlier. It's a modern invention by Qing intellectuals, mirroring similar developments in Western countries. There was no concept of nation states prior to our modern times, there were many large states covering similar territories in the past of course, but they weren't necessarily "Chinese". The same way English people aren't Romans and just because Vietnam uses the Latin alphabet, it doesn't make them Latin.
> Im no expert but this is mostly due to surveillance right? Dont say culture please, nobody prefer autocracy to democracy but the autocrate.
I know it's hard to believe but ask people who have lived in China. Most Chinese people do have a favorable view of the CCP and don't seem to mind the surveillance that much (or they welcome it).
Source: lived in China for ~10 years.
I know it's hard to believe but ask people who have lived in China. Most Chinese people do have a favorable view of the CCP and don't seem to mind the surveillance that much (or they welcome it).
Source: lived in China for ~10 years.
I've lived in China longer than you and disagree.
As a general rule: Anyone who speaks for hundreds of millions of people is either a demagogue or simply stereotyping. With the way things are at this point, you can't even know what Chinese people really think without being very close friends with them. Under Hu when the internet still wasn't as insanely censored, public opinion online was largely negative of the party and in the general population including older folks I'd guesstimate somewhere around 50/50.
Keep in mind that was right at the height of the economic boom, so finance wise people couldn't have been more happy. But like OP says, no one wants to be unfree. The assumption that people in certain parts of the world are more predisposed to support totalitarianism strikes me as (unconsciously) racist.
As a general rule: Anyone who speaks for hundreds of millions of people is either a demagogue or simply stereotyping. With the way things are at this point, you can't even know what Chinese people really think without being very close friends with them. Under Hu when the internet still wasn't as insanely censored, public opinion online was largely negative of the party and in the general population including older folks I'd guesstimate somewhere around 50/50.
Keep in mind that was right at the height of the economic boom, so finance wise people couldn't have been more happy. But like OP says, no one wants to be unfree. The assumption that people in certain parts of the world are more predisposed to support totalitarianism strikes me as (unconsciously) racist.
And generally PRC citizens don't believe they're living under totalitarianism either. Most drank the koolaid that CCP is whole process democracy that kind of works, and democratic perception index or other surveys consistently reinforce this notion. Sometimes groups of people simply don't see the virtue or recognize charade of multi party indirect elections that allows any incompetent candidate to run. Expanding on "real thoughts", reoccuring theme is PRC diasphora in "democractic" countries with "free elections" are not particularly impressed by what they see in terms of state capcity versus PRC system. Nor the millions of PRC citizens that travel abroad to these countries and returns to China freely.
Sure, no one wants to be unfree, but majority prioritize things like wealth or security while actual freedoms have also dramatically increased since the 90s - even accounting for Xi's rollbacks. People bitching about politics online is like par for the course for any system, the very fact that people can bitch including IRL about politics is sign of how free PRC has gotten vs pre 90s. Granted it's lowkey like it's always been, including under Hu. Reality is for most people from develping countries, which PRC still straddles, "freedom" is fine, but other things are finer and worth putting up with autocracy for.
Sure, no one wants to be unfree, but majority prioritize things like wealth or security while actual freedoms have also dramatically increased since the 90s - even accounting for Xi's rollbacks. People bitching about politics online is like par for the course for any system, the very fact that people can bitch including IRL about politics is sign of how free PRC has gotten vs pre 90s. Granted it's lowkey like it's always been, including under Hu. Reality is for most people from develping countries, which PRC still straddles, "freedom" is fine, but other things are finer and worth putting up with autocracy for.
I'm not speaking for anyone. I'm just relating my own experience from talking with hundreds of Chinese people over the years including my wife, her family members, my friends, etc. A pretty large sample overall.
This research seems to mirror my experience: https://ash.harvard.edu/files/ash/files/final_policy_brief_7...
> The assumption that people in certain parts of the world are more predisposed to support totalitarianism strikes me as (unconsciously) racist.
Oh boy...
This research seems to mirror my experience: https://ash.harvard.edu/files/ash/files/final_policy_brief_7...
> The assumption that people in certain parts of the world are more predisposed to support totalitarianism strikes me as (unconsciously) racist.
Oh boy...
Xi's China is a totalitarian state. Your anecdotal evidence of "speaking to hundreds of people" means nothing. I've been to North Korea and everyone told me they lover their dear leader. That clearly proves North Koreans are happy with their leadership by your logic. In fact, I don't think you'll find any totalitarian state where people aren't satisfied. Ergo totalitarianism is great.
I've linked to serious research that matches my anecdotal evidence. I disagree that level of support or satisfaction indicates that a political system is superior to another. It's possible to be satisfied for many reasons including not knowing better, apathy, brainwashing, etc. As a fellow "anti-authoritarian", I believe you are doing yourself a disservice by dismissing those facts. For change to become more likely, you first have to win the hearts and minds of the people.
Just think about this logically. Why does CCP run the largest censorship operation in the world? Why does a student get arrest and torutured for splashing ink on a Xi poster? Why do people get visited by the police for sharing a meme on Wechat? In the US we know that most people do not agree with the government and even there they don't resort to such extreme measures.
I have a hard time believing someone has lived in China for 10 years, has a Chinese wife and is still that naive when it comes to dictatorships. Not even the party member I know believe this.
I have a hard time believing someone has lived in China for 10 years, has a Chinese wife and is still that naive when it comes to dictatorships. Not even the party member I know believe this.
"nobody prefer autocracy to democracy but the autocrate."
But most people prefer stability and prosperity over chaos and civil war, of which china had plenty of. And economically china is quite good, this is the main reason, the CCP is still in power.
But most people prefer stability and prosperity over chaos and civil war, of which china had plenty of. And economically china is quite good, this is the main reason, the CCP is still in power.
>they dont have democracy
Whatever system PRC is, rigourous surveys have consistently shown they overwhelmingly approve of it. And according to democracy perception index, significantly more Chinese view their system as democratic and democracy was important vs democratic decline in west. Democracy in this case being full process democracy - CCPs Democracy with Chinese characteristics. Regardless, flip side of whatever role of surveilliance in mediating speech is made up in improving security and enforcing laws that has vastly improved QoL. Pre mass survelliance PRC cities were chaotic as fuck, it's fun wild west if you're an expat, but most people prefer order.
>But democracy grows like weed
I would say most of human history demonstrates power aggregates towards some for of authoritarianism, especially in risky geopolitical enviroments.
Whatever system PRC is, rigourous surveys have consistently shown they overwhelmingly approve of it. And according to democracy perception index, significantly more Chinese view their system as democratic and democracy was important vs democratic decline in west. Democracy in this case being full process democracy - CCPs Democracy with Chinese characteristics. Regardless, flip side of whatever role of surveilliance in mediating speech is made up in improving security and enforcing laws that has vastly improved QoL. Pre mass survelliance PRC cities were chaotic as fuck, it's fun wild west if you're an expat, but most people prefer order.
>But democracy grows like weed
I would say most of human history demonstrates power aggregates towards some for of authoritarianism, especially in risky geopolitical enviroments.
no freedom of speech. no freedom of press. no right to assemble. and most importantly - no guns
it could happen here
it could happen here
[deleted]
This is why decentralised apps and protocols like Tox and Jami have to be pushed forward.
They can’t “leave” a country.
They can’t “leave” a country.
If encryption algorithms get backdoored, it won't matter much in what context you use them. Once we started down the slippery slope, where will it end?
that's why they will be eventually outlawed, either outright by the government or by its corporate proxies who own and control the whole stack of communication technology and don't have to respect our outdated constitutional rights
the future of the internet in the West is even more grim than its present in China, Russia, Iran and all the other countries we had criticized for it up until a few years ago. now we're setting up our own Great Firewalls to protect our dumb gray masses from disinformation and telescreens to protect our ever-threatened democracies
freedom of speech is explicitly on the list of "a range of human rights" that need to be "recalibrated", and our young global leaders feel comfortable enough to say that bluntly. when it goes, anything goes
the future of the internet in the West is even more grim than its present in China, Russia, Iran and all the other countries we had criticized for it up until a few years ago. now we're setting up our own Great Firewalls to protect our dumb gray masses from disinformation and telescreens to protect our ever-threatened democracies
freedom of speech is explicitly on the list of "a range of human rights" that need to be "recalibrated", and our young global leaders feel comfortable enough to say that bluntly. when it goes, anything goes
>outdated constitutional rights
? surely you are joking?
? surely you are joking?
That's obviously not their own opinion, but a view they're arguing against.
sadly, I'm not. these are very common arguments against the both 1A and 2A
- 1A was written at the time of pen and printing press. now there's the Internet
- 2A was written at the time of sword and musket. now there are fully semi-automatic assault rifles
- 1A was written at the time of pen and printing press. now there's the Internet
- 2A was written at the time of sword and musket. now there are fully semi-automatic assault rifles
- 1A was written to make sure citizens beliefs, ideas and thoughts cannot be suppressed and controlled by the state.
- 2A was written to allow citizens possess the same tools as any other powerful imperial force of the day.
How is any of these concepts outdated?
You really think people who drafted those wrote them specifically about the tech of the day, and were smart enough to form a great nation, but too dumb to anticipate advances in technology, and were illiterate w.r.t history of civilizations and how technology advanced through the ages?
>fully semi-automatic
OK. You likely never held a gun in your hands. Makes sense.
Reminder: The nation with oldest gun culture in the world, Czech Republic, issued guns like candy to everyone that asked after Soviets pulled out in 1991. There were only two periods in Czechia that had prohibitions on gun ownership: 1. Occupation by Soviets. 2. Occupation by Germans. For the other 500 years Czechs owned and carried weapons, and still remain the only shall issue country in Europe, with rights secured by the constitution to carry and to use of deadly force in self defence.
(FYI: Gun homicides rates in Czechia are on par with much vaunted entirely gunless Asia.)
Afghans fought off the US with nothing but goats and AKs, while hiding in caves.
Seems these things are still quite relevant in 1991 and 2021.
- 2A was written to allow citizens possess the same tools as any other powerful imperial force of the day.
How is any of these concepts outdated?
You really think people who drafted those wrote them specifically about the tech of the day, and were smart enough to form a great nation, but too dumb to anticipate advances in technology, and were illiterate w.r.t history of civilizations and how technology advanced through the ages?
>fully semi-automatic
OK. You likely never held a gun in your hands. Makes sense.
Reminder: The nation with oldest gun culture in the world, Czech Republic, issued guns like candy to everyone that asked after Soviets pulled out in 1991. There were only two periods in Czechia that had prohibitions on gun ownership: 1. Occupation by Soviets. 2. Occupation by Germans. For the other 500 years Czechs owned and carried weapons, and still remain the only shall issue country in Europe, with rights secured by the constitution to carry and to use of deadly force in self defence.
(FYI: Gun homicides rates in Czechia are on par with much vaunted entirely gunless Asia.)
Afghans fought off the US with nothing but goats and AKs, while hiding in caves.
Seems these things are still quite relevant in 1991 and 2021.
like the other comment above had pointed out, those aren't the views I hold
What's most disturbing to me is that these people without any technical knowledge are pushing for these things while largely ignoring expert opinions.
Imo it's fine to explore such options as you should consider everything, but just give up, accept reality, and go look for alternative options when literally everyone with knowledge about the topic says it's a bad idea and impossible to do in a secure way.
They should spend that time on finding solutions that actually work.
Imo it's fine to explore such options as you should consider everything, but just give up, accept reality, and go look for alternative options when literally everyone with knowledge about the topic says it's a bad idea and impossible to do in a secure way.
They should spend that time on finding solutions that actually work.
The experts could come forward and propose solutions that actually work. Like the CCC did with their talking points at the last major election. I always hear the arguments against but not even once is someone bringing alternatives up. Just like you did in your comment.
There’s no need for a technical solution to this problem, anymore than there is a technical need to solve the problem of two people being able to have a conversation privately behind closed doors. Law enforcement has a lot of options and users having to have their devices treat them like a potential criminal wouldn’t be worth a moderate improvement in solving cases, less the negligible improvement that it would actually yield.
If criminals were actually super advanced and air tight, you would not need to worry about backdooring chat apps. They just wouldn’t use them. But since criminals tend to be flawed humans, there is a lot of room to find other avenues. Just like in real life, where cases are routinely solved even though we can’t actually hear every private conversation that occurred behind closed doors.
I do understand that E2EE chat is more powerful than conversation behind closed doors, but so is government dragnets, 0day exploit kits, etc. Ironically, extracting digital communications off of devices has actually become a cornerstone of court cases, even when encrypted chat is used.
If criminals were actually super advanced and air tight, you would not need to worry about backdooring chat apps. They just wouldn’t use them. But since criminals tend to be flawed humans, there is a lot of room to find other avenues. Just like in real life, where cases are routinely solved even though we can’t actually hear every private conversation that occurred behind closed doors.
I do understand that E2EE chat is more powerful than conversation behind closed doors, but so is government dragnets, 0day exploit kits, etc. Ironically, extracting digital communications off of devices has actually become a cornerstone of court cases, even when encrypted chat is used.
It's a very difficult problem, I don't have a solution, I don't know if there is a perfect solution, that doesn't mean that we should go with a really bad idea that will likely have many really dangerous consequences.
As I did mention: I think it's good to consider all options, including this one, just move past it if it turns out that it's not a good solution. I think it would be great if the minister organized a panel of experts to find ways to combat these issues instead of insisting on his bad idea that even his own justice department disagrees with.
I vote for parties that suggest changes to how our police is structured, I believe that will be much more effective at increasing their capacity and ability to most importantly prevent crimes and otherwise investigate and prosecute.
To conclude, I think we fully agree; the focus should be on actual solutions, so let's get past this bad idea and let experts focus on solving the actual problems instead of fighting this bad idea.
As I did mention: I think it's good to consider all options, including this one, just move past it if it turns out that it's not a good solution. I think it would be great if the minister organized a panel of experts to find ways to combat these issues instead of insisting on his bad idea that even his own justice department disagrees with.
I vote for parties that suggest changes to how our police is structured, I believe that will be much more effective at increasing their capacity and ability to most importantly prevent crimes and otherwise investigate and prosecute.
To conclude, I think we fully agree; the focus should be on actual solutions, so let's get past this bad idea and let experts focus on solving the actual problems instead of fighting this bad idea.
What if the desire of the government (“listen in on all communication without weakening security”) has no solution?
Just because someone has a ridiculous idea, doesn’t always mean “experts should just propose a better alternative”. It may as well mean that the whole goal is flawed.
Just because someone has a ridiculous idea, doesn’t always mean “experts should just propose a better alternative”. It may as well mean that the whole goal is flawed.
This isn’t a good faith comment. You assume that there is actually a problem with the authorities not having perfect access to criminal communications. We’ve gone the entirety of human history with ridiculously simple methods of analysis for crime etc., and the world is doing just fine. There will always be some crime, stomping out .1% more crime at great expense to the public isn’t even something that everyone would agree is necessary.
People like you always pretend like you are not voting for your government or you are not part of the society you live in. There is a problem with rampart criminal activity on the net and there is atm no solution to it. Pretending that the world doesn't change has never done any good or why you are not writing this on your C64...
What do you mean come forward?
Netherlands government is payed $71 billion every year by the people to serve them. That's quite enough to pay the best security experts and software engineer in the world to increase digital security of the country, and still have plenty of money left to do everything else.
Netherlands government is payed $71 billion every year by the people to serve them. That's quite enough to pay the best security experts and software engineer in the world to increase digital security of the country, and still have plenty of money left to do everything else.
If the experts have better solutions than the one proposed by the government for a problem they care about they can just tell the government about their solutions. Like the CCC in Germany does.These proposals are steered by consultancies like McKinsey and other nefarious actors don't pretend that these politicians just talk out of their ass.
A law enforcement backdoor into encrypted messaging is a good thing for society overall, and it's not unreasonable for Dutch lawmakers such as Grapperhaus to push for this as a long-term solution.
Fortunately, there are plenty of alternative approaches to this right now that effectively give law enforcement the equivalent of backdoor access, often not just to encrypted messaging applications like WhatsApp but the entire device too.
Reading between the lines, this is likely why plans to legislate for encrypted messaging backdoors were quietly shelved, for now. But it's coming eventually.
Fortunately, there are plenty of alternative approaches to this right now that effectively give law enforcement the equivalent of backdoor access, often not just to encrypted messaging applications like WhatsApp but the entire device too.
Reading between the lines, this is likely why plans to legislate for encrypted messaging backdoors were quietly shelved, for now. But it's coming eventually.
Considering the technical and moral illiteracy of police and the judicial branch in many western European countries, this would be extremely prone to abuse, which is why it is not a good idea to enable it by law.
Not only that, it's also just useless. Criminals and child predators don't use commercial services to share their offerings and material, they use private forums. Placing all citizens under suspicion and privatizing criminal justice is not the right way.
Not only that, it's also just useless. Criminals and child predators don't use commercial services to share their offerings and material, they use private forums. Placing all citizens under suspicion and privatizing criminal justice is not the right way.
> A law enforcement backdoor into encrypted messaging is a good thing for society overall,
Is that why you created a throwaway? Privacy for thee but not for other people?
I definitely would want a backdoor on the communications of every politician pushing for those kind of backdoors, that would be a net benefit to society
Is that why you created a throwaway? Privacy for thee but not for other people?
I definitely would want a backdoor on the communications of every politician pushing for those kind of backdoors, that would be a net benefit to society
[deleted]
> A law enforcement backdoor into encrypted messaging is a good thing for society overall
You state this as fact, yet almost no one agrees with you.
You state this as fact, yet almost no one agrees with you.
> A law enforcement backdoor into encrypted messaging is a good thing for society overall
Why?
Why?
Prove it, publish all your messages and tell us your bank details and your pin number and your passwords and your home address and name.
It’s not a good thing. A back door to encryption is oxymoronic.
Ah yes, the "think about the children" narrative again.
This argument is as valid as banning knives because some percentage of knife owners commit crimes with them.
I'm really getting tired of this and hope larger groups of population start seeing through this bullshit.