Encryption under fire in Europe as France and Germany call for decrypt law
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
To put this in perspective, about 700 people would die from homicide in France in a normal year, and about 600,000 would die of all causes (http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=fr&v=26). The unusually high amount of terrorism in the last year, accounts for 0.03% of all deaths.
That terrorism is seen as an urgent problem just highlights the irrationality of decision-making in a democracy. It poses no significant mortality risk to Europeans.
Furthermore, the people who did those crimes did not use any form of encryption but discussed on their playstation while playing Call of Duty. So there's that too.
Conclusion: Let's ban PGP! People are dying!
http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/11/paris-police-fi...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trw1PbQt_Yo
Something must be done; this is something; therefore, we must do it.
Conclusion: Let's ban reading and writing !
Fact: The attackers who attack Paris in November were recruited online by Isis.
Conclusion: Let's ban internet for non commercial use !
no significant mortality risk to Europeans.
The rational behind being wary about terrorism is as follows.
1. Normal homicides are random individual actions, and they are under reasonable control by standard policing. In other words, if we continue policing as we do now, normal homicide rate will remain constant.
2. Terrorism is not random individual action, but rather organised violence by large groups seeking power. If we continue policing as we do now, terrorism will increase, up to a point where the terrorists take over and are the new rulers.
(Compare for example with the reaction to the AIDS epidemics in the early 1980s. The lazy whatabout-ist could have said (and indeed did say): "Oh AIDS just affects a few gays and needle-sharing heroin addicts, whatabout the orders of magnitude more who die of the flu and cancer, no need to worry about AIDS".)
If you believe the two 'axioms' above, then it's perfectly reasonable to adapt policing in the light of the current wave of terrorism that's been spreading in Europe (and not only there).
Note that I'm not saying that encryption should or should not be banned, or that either way is/isn't a good way of fighting terrorism. I'm just pointing out the weakness of the "but whatabout XYZ" argument.
That cannot be accepted as an 'axiom' without proof.
Or an empirical experiment, where we split the world into two parts, one were we police terrorism as the french are doing now, and one where terrorists are treated like random robberies and crimes of spurned lovers; then wait for 200 years and see which side does better?
You can't avoid the need to prove your premises by calling them 'axioms'.
You still have not given an workable account of what you would accept as "proof". I imagine that that's because you have not actually though about this issue.
The question of regime change has been thought about deeply for millenia, but there has never been a "proof". Instead, those who think about politics usually look at the history of regime change. This is not because they don't want to have higher standards of evidence, but because nobody knows how to do better.
The argument 'If we don't ban encryption, the terrorists will take over the world' is compelling, if you believe it. But it is simply a dire prediction of the kind that can be made (and often is) about anything.
Even regular murders. Not so long ago politicians were talking about crime waves and 'superpredators'.
That cannot be accepted as an
'axiom' without proof.
Proving this is nearly impossibleI hate to be this guy, but with enough knowledge about our ancestors going far into the past, how do we know similar acts did not take place?? Look at USA alone - they were asian tribes that got wiped by indians with arrows. Indians got wiped by whites with guns.. whoever comes for us now... I say... let it be! We will of course arm to teeth and defend, but if its written somewhere in stars that we are doomed to fail, no amount of policing will change that.
Whatever will happen today, it will happen and those living in year 2,500 would not see it any other way. Just as empires fell before, who says Isis or other ideology will not fail similarly one day?
> Oh AIDS just affects a few gays and needle-sharing heroin addicts
Correct me if I'm wrong but that's still the case today, no?
Unless I have unprotected sex with multitude of partners (stats shows homosexuals tens to spread AIDS more than hetero) and won't inject stuff with borrowed needles, my chances of getting AIDS are still super drastically slim.
I mean sure I can be a virgin and never even smoke a joint, and get affected by riding a subway with infected person who happened to touched a pole with their bloody finger and I happened to touch it after him/her with open wound in a short period of time before the virus dies given there was enough blood to get affected in the first place. But again chances are probably the same as walking in random park in a random European country at a random day and being blown up into peaces by a random person, who happens to randomly stand next to me and turn out to be a terrorist. I sure take my chances.
how do we know similar acts
did not take place??
but that's still the case today, no?
So the fact that "that's still the case today" is a great success of not going whatabout-flu-and-traffic-deaths when AIDS arrived.
[1] E. N. Luttwak, Coup d'Etat: A Practical Handbook.
[2] Võ Nguyên Giáp: People's war, people's army.
[3] S. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals.
Only 2 fact are undeniable: 1.AIDS can biologically affect anyone even if odds are low 2.If you use condoms (before you and you partner get tested), you'll never have to worry about it.
Otherwise is just betting with odds and trusting strangers, do as you wish but don't complain later on, nor shall you encourage others to be careless.
One of the very goals of terrorism is to provoke. To be in the media. To gain ears and mindshare. No such thing as negative publicity. Putting terrorism's actual impact into context is exactly what we should do, rather than play into the game of lock-down-chicken.
Are you seriously expecting that ISIS will take control of France?
A hand full of socialist revolutionaries took over Russia, and ruled for nearly a century.
Francisco Pizarro with took over the Inca empire with just 168 men, 1 cannon and 27 horses! The Inca empire was one of the largest seen in human history at the time.
Actually a handful of revolutionaries took over France in 1789.
The main reason why the Spanish were successful was political: the Incas (which means "rulers") had forged their empire with violence and the tribes they subjugated were only too happy to get rid of the Incas, so collaborated on a case-by-case basis with the Spanish. In addition, the ruling family (i.e. the Incas) was quarrelling amongst each other, with some of them collaborating with the Spanish to get rid of the other side of the family. The idea was: (1) let the Spanish do the dirty work of getting rid of the other side, and (2) then get rid of the Spanish. Part 1 worked very well, Part 2 ... not so much.
It's pretty clear that Pizarro was in a fairly weak and tenuous position. If the Incas had worked together, rather than fighting among themselves, they would have defeated Pizarro easily.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/cortes_hernan....
Pizarro had one cannon, and cannons at that time were awkward, especially in the mountains.
The truth is that terrorism is a minor threat compared to others in our life yet a disproportionate amount of effort and fear stems from it. Your assertion that they would eventually take over is an overstatement. There have been countries under occupation with strong resistance movements that were orders of magnitude more active and disruptive and had far more popular support than the terrorist threat we are facing now, and those movements by themselves did not manage taking over, it seems unlikely terrorists would manage this now.
> (Compare for example with the reaction to the AIDS epidemics in the early 1980s. The lazy whatabout-ist could have said (and indeed did say): "Oh AIDS just affects a few gays and needle-sharing heroin addicts, whatabout the orders of magnitude more who die of the flu and cancer, no need to worry about AIDS".)
In a way, this example is also flawed. If, a comparatively similar amount of effort and research would have gone into developing cures and treatments for the other diseases, the benefits would have also been, probably, order of magnitudes greater. Would that not have been a logically superior choice?
On the other hand, I find very interesting you approaching this as a disease that has to be controlled and quarantined so it does not spread, it might have some merit. But we are not proposing ignoring the issue, but acting in a way proportional to its actual threat level, some way that the costs of acting are balanced with its actual benefits. I will give you that terroristic attacks are most costly not because of human lived but because of, well, spreading terror. I we could all see the threats as relatively minor to other threats, maybe their effects would be diminished. I think that they would loose their effect if they become common enough, because people get used to them and continue their lived, same way people continue their lives in war zones.Then, the precieved risk(or at least, the fear of this risk) would be smaller even if the risk itself would be higher.
If, a comparatively similar amount of
effort and research would have gone
into developing cures and treatments
for the other diseases, the benefits
would have also been, probably, order
of magnitudes greater.
I'm rather trying to debate that a more common affliction should have priority over a less common one and thus, pointing out that efforts is disproportionately spent in a field compared to another it not whattaboutism.
I've been trying to illustrate that under the assumption that some affliction _would_ be an order of magnitude more common than another (as the whattaboutists in your AIDS illustration assert). Adding to this the assumption that results would be proportional with exerted effort for both affliction treatments (not always true), it would make greater sense to expend more effort for the more common one, thus the percentage an affliction is present compared to another does matter.
Granted, there are a number of assumptions to my illustration, and in particular cases they can be true or false, but it does prove that the percentage of population a certain issue affects does deserve a part in the equation of how much effort we should expend into fixing some situation and can not be readily excluded from the conversation by simply shouting "whattaboutism".
That means the increase in homicide from recent terrorism is anywhere between 14 and 21%. That's not insignificant however you look at it.
Those 600,000 people are going to die either way, but those 150 people a year are still up in the air.
Doesn't mean that cancer isn't a bigger issue on the grand scale, but having people see terrorism as a natural disaster is a bit of a stretch.
Terrorism in the last year is a significant proportion of the total number of homicides in France, but the percentage increase doesn't mean the absolute number is relevant. If you didn't worry about being murdered in France before 2015, there's no reason to worry about dying in a terrorist attack after 2015. Moreover, we might expect terrorist attacks to regress to the mean, so 2015 would be unusually bad under that additional assumption.
If the number of homicides increased by 14-20% due to some other cause, it likely wouldn't be seen as an urgent policy issue.
> Those 600,000 people are going to die either way
In fact, many will die from avoidable causes, like medical errors.
Accounting for all deaths together is a great way of losing focus on each problem.
Drownings account for roughly as many deaths as police in the USA. Should we seek for different, specific solutions or treat all deaths as if they were the same, losing touch with the real topic?
Terrorism is a deliberate attempt to destabilize the state and must be fought differently with respect to, say, flu.
Of course it's not so, some laws are required to face a new threat and stabilize the country.
Quite a big assumption you make.
If states have no right to exist, they obviously have no right of making new laws.
Here we are discussing about a law proposal, so apparently everyone believes in the right of a country to exist and to regulate citizen's life through laws.
I'm sorry.
That doesn't follow. States do make new laws, and people will go along with those laws, because the nature of a state is to compel people to follow its laws (by definition). It still doesn't mean that it's bad that any state should stop existing, or that we should oppose terrorism on the sole ground that it threatens states.
Put it another way: a referendum to split the state into two (like the Scottish independence referendum), also threatens the state. That would not be a reason to oppose the referendum.
Of course they do.
You didn't read my reply thoroughly.
I just said that if you believe they have no right to exist, you must also believe that they cannot have a right to make laws.
> a referendum to split the state into two also threatens the state
Threatening the state by splitting it, and threatening the state with terrorism are two completely different things.
The former is somehow encouraged by international law, through the right of self-determination of nations. The latter, on the other hand, is frowned upon very badly, as it violates at least a couple of dozen of articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The mafia can also force people to go along with its protection racket, but that doesn't mean the mafia has a right to do it. Just that we live in a world where it's possible.
> Threatening the state by splitting it, and threatening the state with terrorism are two completely different things.
Not in terms of the outcomes, which might be identical. In the consequentialist argument you're making, you cannot oppose terrorism on the grounds that it destroys the state if you support a referendum that can destroy the state.
> it violates at least a couple of dozen of articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
This has nothing to say about national sovereignty. Actually, if you believe in the claims made by the UDHR, that contradicts the notion that nations should act as they please and make whatever laws they decide on.
Anyway, I don't see why the UDHR should have any moral force. It wasn't decided on by a democratic vote, it was decided on by the victors after WW2, some of which weren't even democracies. There is no mechanism for amending the UDHR, and nobody has ever had a say in whether they wanted it to apply to them. "Human rights" don't exist.
You cannot see how a peaceful splitting of a country is way different from terrorism. You cannot see that human rights do exist, whatever you like them or not, and there are courts enforcing them (ECtHR, for instance)...
Well, my friend, seems like we are living in different worlds.
They could ban encryption for wide audience, that's true. But those who need to hide something, they will have access to encryption.
For that, free access to your computer is required. This isn't the case for the vast majority of smart phones and becomes less true for laptops or desktops as the discussions around Windows 10 show. Even if you install Linux, there is Intel ME and the like.
Using Linux singles you out. Three letter agencies will have to target only the few ones with it via ME or the like. Only if big enterprises will start to adopt Linux this will become infeasible and under scrutiny of big IT organizations.
Hypothetically, they (actually, we, as governments are just representative of the voters) can ban encryption. Which means that any communication with no signal naturally emerging from noise is suspicious, thus they/we can ask you to justify yourself and keep you locked until you demonstrate that what you were hiding doesn't represent a threat for the community. And then give you a fine you anyway, so next time you'll think twice before breaking the law.
PS: it's not "you" you, it's "you" in general :-)
With the number of spam emails that look like the output from bad Markov Chain generators, you could send messages in clear-text, using a simple traditional code, and it would be drowned in the noise.
Besides, how do they think this will play out with financial transactions? Government websites? Heck, any website that uses https? Stupid idea.
It could be done the same as driving or carrying a gun: not banned, but controlled.
You want to use encryption? OK! Just register yourself with the authorities and sign a statement that you will provide the keys if a judge asks. Other than that, you are breaking the law.
As far as I remember the Police already had the people behind the attacks on their radar, but they didn't do anything.
Being able to decrypt the messages wont help if they do it after the attacks happened. Like the FBI vs Apple? They knew the guy, they were following him. And did they do anything? Nope.
And what does it matter, if they go through with this? Criminals, terrorists will create their own encrypted channels.
It's a never ending battle and the only ones loosing will be the rights of the civilians.
And even if it will help to fight terrorism and save everyone without firing a gun, what's the promise that these tools, these backdoors wont fall into wrong hands? What's the promise when a dictatorship rises in one of these countries, they wont be able to use it for bad things?
Will they close these doors after they won the war on terrorism?
That's how it goes with politicans for the last 15 years.
I used to be wanting interplanetary travel, now my bar is much lower, I'll be happy enough extracting my revenge.
The leading party (CDU) even has a sister party (CSU in Bavaria) that is even more of a law and order type. They have way more extreme ideas on how a state should be able to control it's citizens. But even the moderate left SPD (in coalition with CDU as ruling parties in Germany) have their flavor of hawks.
Right now it seems there is no powerful reasonable voice for freedom in Germany - at least in the higher ranks of power. But maybe this last sentence is just my selection bias.
Considering that Mr Valls, the prime minister, is Cazeneuve's predecessor and is at the right wing of the Socialist Party, it's not a really big surprise.
However, the government policy is not well received inside the Parliament. Many socialist deputies (the "Frondeurs") kind of oppose the government on various political decisions (on security or economy).
But it has little effect on the policies being enforced, through the 49.3 article, the government can pass a law without parliamentary debate and vote (the Parliament, through a vote, can only force the government to resign which has never happened as it will be a political suicide for the deputies), the french fifth Republic constitution is magical sometimes...