💾 Archived View for dioskouroi.xyz › thread › 29433262 captured on 2021-12-03 at 14:04:38. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
________________________________________________________________________________
There is [...] a prohibition of state authorities to keep vulnerabilities a secret.
This is another great thing. It is simply unethical to hoard vulnerabilities, as this will eventually backfire[0]
On top that all future security legislation will be subject to an evaluation by a panel of independent experts who have to look into issues with any potential restrictions on freedom.
I really hope this will be people from the CCC.
[0]:
https://www.theregister.com/2020/10/28/nsa_backdoor_wyden/
It's neat how many genuinely good points regarding information security and privacy made it into the coalition agreement, but everyone knows that just because it says in the paper that a new gov't wants to do something does not mean they do it.
Is it a right to End-to-end encryption or a right to "encryption from everyone except government" ?
This is great, of course, but ~50 years of hesitant, schizophrenic legislation regarding digital security leaves me hesitant that Germany will actually be a forerunner on this one.
I approve of constitutionally guaranteeing that people can keep their communications secure, but as an American, I think the rhetorical framework surrounding the movement could be improved. We need negative rights, not positive ones.
People don't have a right _to_ encryption, or a right _to_ a specific computing environment, or really, a right _to_ anything at all. What people do have is a right to be free of government limitations on the freedom of individuals to run whatever software they want on devices they own.
When you make something a positive right, that means it's something the government has to give you, and a government that can give you rights can take them away.
The American perspective is that people have rights just by virtue of existing, and the state can only illegally and immorality interfere with rights that you always possess, unconditionally, no matter what.
IMHO, the right framing isn't that people have a right to encryption, but that the state has no business interfering with the math people do on their own computers.
It's not a matter of positive / negative really, it's not like encryption will be mandatory. The right to not have their encryption backdoored sounds negative enough to me
Well that sure makes up for being forcefully vaccinated, quite a tit for tat.
It was either forcefully vaccinated or forcefully infected by the unvaccinated. I’m thankful we’re making the right choice.