Matthew GreenIt is remarkable to think that only in the past 15-20 years have we moved most of our private communications to digital channels with centralized storage & the processing power to perform bulk scanning. Coincidentally that’s nearly as long as encrypted messaging has been around.
sbugMany folks in law enforcement and politics seem genuinely confused about the popularity of end-to-end encrypted messaging, like we all just decided to become anarchists or something. That’s not at all the dynamic we’re seeing here. The entire basis of our communications infrastructure shifted in a direction that’s inimical to privacy; encryption is the obvious solution.
If you had the most cynical possible view of humanity and its governments, you’d expect government agencies to be making a *huge* push to end encryption right now; or at least adorn it with mass-scanning infrastructure. And sure enough, that’s exactly what we’re seeing all around the world. https://www.globalencryption.org/2023/04/statement-on-eu-us-cooperation-against-encryption/
Global Encryption Coalition Steering Committee Statement on EU-US Cooperation on Turning Public Opinion Against Encryption – Global Encryption Coalition
The members of the Global Encryption Coalition’s Steering Committee issued a statement on the EU-US collaboration against encryption.
Anyway one of the things I’m desperate to convey to people is that this is *not* just a continuation of the same fight we’ve been having for decades. The circumstances have entirely changed, in a way that can never change back. The folks leading this charge know that.
Christie Dudley@matthew_d_green it’s more an intersection of existing communication channels and the pandemic response of everything moving online. Following that conjuncture, thinking on how to address problems must change, on both sides. I personally will never forget the US government hacking into attorneys’ offices within the US to spy on a foreign trade delegation. They can do it. They have done it. They will do it, only it’s so much easier now.
Alex Zani@matthew_d_green How are things different this time?
it's B! Cavello 🐝@matthew_d_green I’m lost now. Is this in reference to something in particular?
Joe Ortiz@b_cavello @matthew_d_green The US, UK, and EU are all proposing laws that world basically kill our privacy, security and online freedom of expression all at once. My post and thread which is pinned: https://mastodon.sdf.org/@joeo10/110237902568107887
Joe Ortiz (@[email protected])
So to recap on the privacy, security and online freedom of expression wrecking proposed bills going on in western democracy: United States: #EARNITAct United Kingdom: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/03/tell-uks-house-lords-protect-end-end-encryption-online-safety-bill #OnlineSafetyBill European Union: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/10/eu-lawmakers-must-reject-proposal-scan-private-chats https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/ #ChatControl You know what to do in terms of contacting your elected officials.
@joeo10 @matthew_d_green ahh, gotcha. Yeah, for sure. Thank you!
happyborg@matthew_d_green I'm not sure which things you suggest can't change. Things can't be undone, but we can wrest back control using p2p systems.
@happyborg We can wrest back control by using encryption! Which unfortunately not enough p2p systems have access to.
@matthew_d_green I take encryption as read. We can't wrest back control without usability >= today's apps and the only way I see that happening is with encrypted p2p such as Safe Network.
OldGuySelfHosting@matthew_d_green Almost certainly unstoppable for the most part. Bad guys will of course develop workarounds with little to lose, the rest of us get duct-taped and become more sheep-like. 😥
[EUnomia Trust Factor: 21/100]@matthew_d_green it's not cynical at all, it's realistic. you don't have an absolute legal right to privacy in this country and never have. They believe that your privacy is balanced against their ability to effectively prevent crime and enforce the law. They can and will make laws to prevent you using encryption that they cannot surveil. When the government says you have a right to privacy, they don't mean from _them_.
HighlandLawyer@MoonMan @matthew_d_green When every politician is followed during their term of office 24/7 by a drone live-streaming their every action, we'll consider that argument
Arvid E. Picciani@MoonMan @matthew_d_green uh but that's literally what right to privacy means. Bunch of countries have in their constitution for this exact reason.
@aep @matthew_d_green I was referring specifically to the USA but for example UN human rights has weasel wording to exempt government.
𝕃𝕦𝕔𝕒𝕤@matthew_d_green Gone are the days of quietly exploiting vulns/weaknesses and having NIST make it a recommended algo. Now, they just outright say they need to end encryption to thwart "terrorism" or "think of the children". And the "have nothing to hide" crowd will parrot what they're told.
The Cadence Collective@matthew_d_green somehow this doesn't surprise me. Kayla
El Jefe "
" 
@matthew_d_green elected and cops first.
Sheogorath@matthew_d_green I think an important factor is: 20 years ago, the main thing that stand between you and surveillance was a law that said "unless a judge allows it" and the organisational inability to actually read all letters.
Nowadays the latter isn't given anymore and the former was replaced by commercial services.
But the big problem for law enforcement that end-to-end encryption poses: There is no more "unless a judge allows it" clause.
The attempts change that are however horrendous.
@sheogorath I honestly think the main thing that stood in the way was cost. Most eavesdropping required time and human effort that couldn’t be scaled to millions of people. That’s not true anymore.
@matthew_d_green That's basically what I meant with "organisational inability". Some states like the German Democratic Republic actually tried anyway(~30-40 years ago), but with limited success, thankfully.
@sheogorath The difference between the West and the GDR is that they could afford to devote half their resources to mass surveillance and we couldn’t. (And they couldn’t afford it in the end.) But the economics are different now.
Eric Hustvedt@matthew_d_green law enforcement has looked upon the shifting of communication to discoverable media as a way to replace human intelligence. I remember jokes about meetings of <insert group here> consisting mostly of undercover feds. Sadly, now that law enforcement has seen an easier path, they don’t want to do the hard work anymore.
Jay Thoden van Velzen ☁️🛡️
@matthew_d_green the crypto wars were won in the 90s. the rest is just noise
E2E encryption is freely available. Banning is not going to change that
Jennifer Stisa Granick@matthew_d_green Do you think it suspicious when someone does not record their phone calls? No? Do you think that we should be required to do so? No? Then move along.
Adam Shostack 
@stablehorde_generator draw for me suspicious people not recording their phone calls
AI Horde Image Generator@adamshostack Here are some images matching your request
Prompt: suspicious people not recording their phone calls
Style: raw
Aurora B (FKA James D) :firefish:
Max Leibman has moved!@matthew_d_green The confusion may be a lack of understanding of the technological context, but I fear it may also stem from worldview. If there were a safe and accurate way to read minds, I fear a lot of these same folks would be fine with the idea that all it should take to do so is a warrant.
@maxleibman When it comes to scanning, they don’t even want there to be a warrant. These systems don’t require one as long as the scanning is “voluntary” by the tech firms. Of course they also want to make the tech firms do it by default, which makes everything more confusing.