[timonv]

This statement was made early December. And I think it does deserve some nuance:

Minister Steur (Security and Justice) this monday said, representing the second chamber, that "laws that prohibit encryption are not desirable at this time". That doesn't retract their early statement, but I think it's an important nuance. Arguably, it might also just be political play to get some douchebag rightwing parties over the line. (dutch source http://tweakers.net/nieuws/107104/kabinet-beperking-van-encr...)

Similarly, in december, a law was passed that allows authorities to hack 'criminals' without a warrant. In many countries, (liberty) activists are criminals too.

That said, I still appreciate where things are going. Privacy is a very tough political climate and I think it's solid that we (the Dutch) take this standpoint. Baby steps.

[dkural]

Someone who disagrees with your policy does not make them a douche. This is the beginning of illiberal politics: If you are not with me, I will denigrate your person and declare you an enemy. The left wing of Europe was running at full speed towards Stalin / USSR for most of 2nd half of 20th century. It's easier to name-call than to govern.

[vanderZwan]

> Someone who disagrees with your policy does not make them a douche.

Devil's advocate: he never said the parties in question were douches because they disagree with the privacy policy (although in this context it's certainly reasonable to assume it was implied). There's plenty of valid reasons to call the members of the PVV a bunch of douchebags, for example; especially the part where it's a populist party that thrives on insulting everyone else.

[borispavlovic]

You're doing exactly the thing that you're accusing of -- labeling. Just because you disagree with left parties' policies you're labeling them they were running towards Stalin and USSR, which is also not very logical since Stalin died in 1952.

[dkural]

TL;DR version: I use it as an example to illustrate why it's bad to generalize.

More: I don't disagree with left parties policies - I am a Democrat, and would most likely for left-wing parties in most of Europe (or whoever is less xenophobic). I am against tyranny on the left or on the right. I don't like people who support the denigration / dehumanization / oppression of those who they disagree with and marginalize an entire group of people. I can cite you dozens of statements made by the likes of Jean-Paul Sartre, Arthur Scargill, Jan Myrdal, Doris Lessing, Andre Gide, Bertold Brecht, and other lesser known political leaders intellectuals in Western Europe (that is, the part not invaded by Soviets thanks to US intervention), that is supportive of Stalin / supportive of USSR. I am stating a fact, not using slurs.

I am also critical of the right (or anyone, really) that support dictatorial/oppressive governments in Latin America and the Middle East. I am pro individual freedom, liberty, and dignity. I am against people being enslaved either by their own state, or by an exploitative economy through the invisible chains of debt.

[Someone]

For those who have history exam tomorrow: 1953.

[pyre]

Well, the USSR is dead and gone too. Maybe that statement would have been better as the idiom "going the way of the do-do bird?" </sarcasm>

[unethical_ban]

He used an example. He didn't call every left-wing party literally Communist. Classic HN pedantry.

[timonv]

There are some parties / persons in Dutch politics who refrain from healthy discussions and just money grab with popular and sometimes hate inducing statements. It so happens that they disregard any privacy, as well. I call them douches, and I'm very happy and confident to do so.

[vincentkriek]

I think this needs a whole lot more nuance. Minister Steur said that the laws are not desirable at this time, after other cabinet members said it will hurt economic relations. This is not a statement saying we don't want this, this is a statement saying we can't do this right now.

Also, the money going to OpenSSL and others is completely unrelated to the current encryption banning talks going on in the Netherlands. This is a great initiative that should be applauded.

I agree with your conclusion though, but I am very weary of the dutch MoD.

[Confiks]

It is indeed a statement that "we can't do this right now". You don't need the implication you're making; it can literally be found in the 'cabinet's standpoint' (see below for a translation). I have the suspicion that it has something to do with the 'utopic' outlooks that other nations and their presidential candidates have come to suggest: "technologists will find a way to have both security and access".

"At this time, there is no outlook on the general possibility to, for example via standards, weaken encryption products without compromising the security of digital systems relying on encryption. By for example introducing a technical point of access into a encryption product which would enable intelligences agencies to view encrypted files, digital systems could be rendered vulnerable to for example criminals, terrorists and foreign intelligence agencies. This would have negative consequences for the security of communicated or saved information, and the integrity of ICT-systems, which are increasingly of importance in the functioning of society." (second paragraph of 'Afweging en conclusie')

(in these debates, there is always an important question: what would Ivo have said? Luckily, somebody has already provided an answer: http://tinyurl.com/whatwouldivohavesaid)

[Freak_NL]

The money going to OpenSSL might be related to the issue the Dutch government ran into in 2011 with the Diginotar (a certificate authority) hack; the TLS certificates for Dutch government websites were compromised at that time. While this hack was not related to weaknesses in OpenSSL (as far as I know), this did put the spotlight on the vulnerability and dependence on of the certificate chain. Supporting the software that provides this crucial layer of security makes a lot of sense for a government that has been bitten once.

[Confiks]

The amendment to provide €500 million to open sources encryption project (initially only OpenSSL), was done by D66's Kees Verhoeven. He has a history of asking question about the Snowden revelations and other issues around computer security. He is also partly responsible for the amendment on net neutrality, and the infamous 'cookie law' (which is actually more of a 'do not 3rd party track before asking consent' law).

For example in June has asked questions [1] about "the news that American intelligence agencies used vulnerabilities in encryption software" (specifically weak DH / Logjam).

If anything, this proposal has more to do with Logjam than with Diginotar. Not all too incidently, improving OpenSSL would do nothing to prevent another Diginotar from happening.

[1] http://www.tweedekamer.nl/downloads/document?id=97a9bc20-eca...

[skion]

You probably mean €500 thousand, not million.

[gpvos]

You probably meant "wary". But weary too.

[dracht]

>it might also just be political play to get some douchebag rightwing parties over the line

Who is the real "douchebag" in that case?

[rubyfan]

Surveillance is not generally a right/left thing and seems to be more an establishment thing.

[Spivak]

This issue is captured in the Authoritarian <--> Libertarian axis on the 'grid' representation of political views.

It's the reason I really don't like Hillary. I can put up with her economic and social positions but in my view she hits the tip top of the authoritarian graph and it scares me.