[studentrob]

> let's face it, if you wait for the politicos to come up with a solution and force it through with legislation, they really would put in actual backdoors and encryption bans given half the chance.

They've tried to do this for decades and have failed. If they're going to do it then let it be on record. Let's see how voters like it.

[altantiprocrast]

90% of the voters are too stupid or probably don't even know what encryption is. Many are also going to stick to party lines. It just matters whether the 10% swing voters will care about this issue *more than* the other awful things the leadership is doing.

[studentrob]

Plenty do know and care when news outlets' tech experts report on seemingly incomprehensible topics such as net neutrality or encryption. You can't white wash expert opinion. Again, the government has been asking for this for decades:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars

[dnh44]

Well, they could always try putting pressure on the tech giants in other places via other means in order to get them to acquiesce to these sorts of anti-privacy measures. Maybe via things like anti-trust measures which seem to be popular.

[thw0rted]

Bad news, buddy: https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/message-screening/?la...

ETA: in short, about a month ago they did get the votes, at least in the EU, and it's now "allowed" for providers to scan all content. In a little while, they're going to have a vote to change "allowed" to "required", and we have no reason to think it'll go differently.

[studentrob]

Bad news for the EU maybe, if that were to pass. That sort of thing never passed muster in the US. There is always a huge backlash because it infringes on the speech rights of both companies and individuals. You'd essentially be forcing banks to build in backdoors that criminals could use, and also making it so that only criminals can use true E2E encryption.

There is no sense making laws you can't enforce. It erodes trust and credibility.

[thw0rted]

If you think EU policy only impacts the EU, you didn't pay attention to what happened with GDPR. Some companies might scan only EU-to-EU communications, some might scan communications where only one end is in the EU, and some might just scan everything because why build two completely separate systems rather than just doing whatever is compliant everywhere you operate?

[studentrob]

Maybe, what's your point? You want this legislation to pass? You seem intent on delivering news of a future dystopia.

I don't think any of these scanned systems or policies will survive in the long run. They're inherently insecure and won't lead to growth.

[thw0rted]

Your post I originally replied to said

> They've tried to do this for decades and have failed.... Let's see how voters like it.

My "point" is that I thought the same way you did -- look what a mess Clipper Chip was, they always want backdoors but surely a voice of reason will show up, etc -- but something has changed. Couple the vote in the EU with the way the major tech companies reacted to GDPR (you'd be surprised how many sites simply block all of Europe rather than comply) and it's a wakeup call. There is a real chance of the bad guys winning here.

[studentrob]

My opinion here is that such policies are unenforceable and will therefore blow up in the faces of whoever implements them. Whoever does not will have the people's backing and will pave the way to the future. Of course, none of us can see the future, so we'll just have to wait and see. If I lived in the EU I would make my voice heard about that legislation.