this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2025
717 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

63375 readers
6146 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
717
France is about to pass the worst surveillance law in the EU. (tuta.com)
submitted 1 day ago by floofloof to c/[email protected]
76 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/56769139

cross-posted from: https://sopuli.xyz/post/23170564

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 17 hours ago

This is exactly the sort of argument I was talking about

  • The forth amendment counts for less than the paper it is written on outside the bounds of the US
  • Most of the rest of the world has laws requiring companies that operate in their jurisdiction - even if they aren't based in that country - to prove access to law enforcement if requested
  • If complying with the law is truly actually impossible, then don't be surprised if a country turns around and says "ok, you can't operate here". Just because you are based in the US and have a different set of cultural values, doesn't mean you get to ignore laws you don't like

To illustrate the sort of compromise that could have been possible, imagine if Apple and Google had got together and proposed a scheme where, if presented with:

  • A physical device
  • An arrest warrant aledging involvement in one of a list of specific serious crimes (rape, murder, csam etc)

They would sign an update for that specific handset that provided access for law enforcement, so long as the nations pass and maintain laws that forbid it's use outside of a prosecution. It's not perfect for anyone - law enforcement would want more access, and it does compromise some people privacy - but it's probably better than "no encryption for anyone".