[heimatau]

> Have you proved the point that I need to "assume malice"?

Catch up to the conversation. I moved on from my characterization to repeat my question without the malice. You said 'i can answer your question', yet your entire comment is devoid of such answer.

You're Sybil'ing this issue. Only obstructing the real issue at hand.

The real issue is whether the laws (via court cases ensure interpretation is correct) says it's allowed or banned. The good faith in the government or bad faith in the government is moot. The intention/malice distracts from the actual point. Which is why I moved on from it because I'm trying to engage you in the actual issue.

Nothing explicitly protects citizens right to encryption. No law. No court case. And until that's plainly laid out, we shouldn't be offering our trust to any ruler over us. Whether their intent is positive or negative, it's entirely moot.

Whether citizens have a human right. That's the issue and you've spoken to distract from the issue. I encourage you, prove your case that EU provides this human right.

[prof-dr-ir]

> we shouldn't be offering our trust to any ruler over us

But that is exactly the claim I tried to summarize two comments ago as "assume malice"...

> I encourage you, prove your case that EU provides this human right.

This is a basic tenet of law: it is not forbidden, hence you are free to use encryption everywhere in the EU. QED :)

You probably want to argue that in an ideal world, the right to use encryption should be written into the EU treaties. (Another option would be the ECHR, but good luck getting Russia on board!) That might be laudable, but until such is done we seem to have to (unfortunately!) give some bit of trust to the law-makers here and ask whether or not they will actually move and introduce a law that bans encryption.

For example, someone can claim that EU lawmakers want to forbid us from eating cake. As a cake-lover I would be tempted to protest, but should I not maybe first check if the claim is actually reliable? That is what I am trying to do here. If the claim is not reliable, there might be no need to call for an amendment to the treaties to ensure cake-eating remains legal.

[heimatau]

>> (me) I encourage you, prove your case that EU provides this human right.

> (you: prof-dr-ir) This is a basic tenet of law: it is not forbidden, hence you are free to use encryption everywhere in the EU. QED :)

Interesting. You went with proof by assumption. There is the rub. If you're going to assume cognitive bias, I can't argue with your irrational belief. Instead, I'm writing for others to realize the error in this mental structure.

> (you) You probably want to argue that in an ideal world,...

Actually, on the contrary, I think you're arguing in an ideal world that those is power don't circumvent the goodwill intents of the law due to accidental reasons, or negligent reasons or even nefarious purposes (notice these circumventions to the law happen with a positive motive or negative motive. Which is why I went away from that when you got caught up in charactizations).

Assuming you have a right because it doesn't explicitly state it, is logically equivalent to your gripe with the ban of E2E.

> (you) I have a hard time seeing it because, well, the resolution does in fact not explicitly ban (E2E) encryption.

Said in reflection to your assumption: I have a hard time seeing it because, well, the resolution [nor any other EU law/resolution/court-case] does in fact explicitly state we have a right of E2E as citizens.

A side note: Since you're using assumptions for your human right. I feel you've not learned history. Laws can and should be explicit (I don't argue against your logical battle but I argue against where your focus is). A region of the world that had Hitler doesn't recognize this assumption could cause dire consequences? It's an absolutely fair point since you're focusing on the EU. (I'd quote other local atrocious leaders if we were debating a different location)

A final point, laws should be able to hold the powerful into account. So, even if it's stated in the law explicitly and even if the court cases confirm our cultural interpretations of the law, then this is still not what is necessary. We need one more aspect included. Consequences to law breaking. So my conclusion is that prof-dr-ir you're a far cry away from having all three aspects QED. I hope others realize and not take this situation lightly. Especially if we don't want to accidentally, negligently or even maliciously fall into a dystopian society.