Comment

Comment on Backdoors that let cops decrypt messages violate human rights, EU court says

In Germany you have to show some kind of ID - which gets registered in a system - to buy a SIM card, something I never had to do in other countries I lived in, in Europe.

There is no other point in having such a requirement for stores to record people’s ID when they buy SIM cards than to associate phone numbers with people for surveillance.

The UK too doesn’t have ID cards or ID numbers for people and yet has the biggest densitity of surveillance cameras in Europe, automated license plate reading cameras in major roads and highways and, as shown by the Snowden revelations, have an even more broad civil society surveillance system in place than the US and, by the way, when that came out the political response was simply to retroactivelly make legal any part of it which weren’t.

ID numbers are just one big “look over here” distraction from what’s really going on.

source

Sort:hotnew top

GiddyGap@lemm.ee ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I didn’t say that Germany doesn’t collect data for basic protection if its citizens and for terrorism prevention (or, some may see that as surveillance). It does. It’s just not shared in a big central system that other institutions and private companies can pull from like it is in the Scandinavian countries or the Netherlands.

E.g. if you move from on place to another in Germany, the government institutions in the two locales don’t talk to each other about that. So, for tax and social benefits purposes, you have to tell each one that you moved. The federal government is also not involved.

source
- Aceticon@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Somehow the rest of Europe doesn’t need to get people’s IDs when SIM cards are sold “for basic protection of its citizens and for terrorism prevention”.
  
  Also from what I’ve seen in Britain, having government entitites unable to properly cooperate AND having a disproportionatly high level of civil society surveillance are not at all incompatible.
  
  source
  - GiddyGap@lemm.ee ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    You’re not right about the rest of Europe not needing ID for a SIM. In Denmark, you need ID. In Sweden, you need ID. In Norway, you need ID. I’m sure you need in many other countries as well.
    
    In the US, you also need an ID to open an account.
    
    source
    Aceticon@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Right, I’ll grant you that - can only really speak for countries were I actually bought SIMs.
    
    I know for sure you don’t need an ID in Portugal, Spain, The Netherlands, the UK and Canada, or at least you didn’t back when I did bought a SIM card over there.
    
    Funny enough, the countries you listed (except Germany) are ones were somebody else was pointing out that people trust the authorities and are more ameanable to the authorities having lots of information about them.
    
    Personally I was quite shocked that Germany, the country which had both Nazism and in some parts Communism, and were one would expect people to shy-away from anything with even the slightest wiff of Gestapo/Stasi to it, very explicit and obvious measures to make sure the authorities knew who had what mobile phone line were in place and accepted by the population.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
redfox@infosec.pub ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Since I also appreciate EUs privacy mindset, and you guys actually mentioned interesting things about the various populations, I’m going to post devil’s advocate question:

Is there anything to allow privacy invasion we should do for law enforcement and CSAM? Since that’s all political excuses for it?

Here’s a story I heard recently that talks about it from a technician cyber crime podcast: darknetdiaries.com/episode/131/

Disclaimer: I cried while on a run in the middle of a populated area.

My emotions on the topic go from shock and sadness to the punisher style rage, and what vigilante justice.

There’s also apps like kik, where apparently this shit is unchecked.

So my question is, can we all have our no data collection privacy, but still give law enforcement a way to hunt these pieces of shit into extinction without them overreaching?

source
- Aceticon@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  As with everything, there has to be Proportionality (are the gains from mandate backdoors on everybody’s software or mandatory taps on every phone out there so great they justify the high risk of massive loss of privacy and security of the general population) and ther has to be Independent Oversight, as in, it has to happen with a Court Order which is the result of a Judge having examined the case of the police and determined that there is sufficient reason to break somebody’s privacy, same as is necessary for the Police to break into somebody’s house to conduct a search.
  
  Given that the smart criminals - read big ones - don’t use phones they bought with an ID with contract that they pay from their bank account, and in some cases even use proprietary comms apps rather than the ones common people use (it’s not as if it’s hard to make an encrypted comms app for anybody with even just a bit of mobile development experience) things like mandated backdoors on widelly available comms apps only provide a mild improvement in Police effetiveness whilst openning a massive attack vector on millions, tens of millions, or even hundreds of millions (for the whole of the EU) of law-abiding citizens, hence are a massivelly dispropotionate solution versus other options, such as bugging the devices, direct surveillance of the suspects and so on.
  
  Also for me personally, having lived in the UK, you cannot at all in any way or form trust the Authorities with such power as they will with absolute certainty abuse it. Also even if a country’s authorities are squeaky clean, prim and propper today (most definitelly not so in the UK, were they even had surveillance on the Green Party, but most of Europe is better), there is no guarantee the next ones will still be so (remember, most of Europe was at some point under Fascist or Communist dictatorships), and in this day an age stuff once recorder exists forever and can be later fished out and used against you even when back in the day when you said it or wrote it, it’s was totally legit.
  
  So it’s the balance of pros and cons (i.e. the fail in Proportionality) that makes mandated backdoors on everybody’s comms apps for the purpose of surveillance, even were it would be under proper oversight by a Court of Law, be an unacceptable option.
  
  source
  - redfox@infosec.pub ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    These are good points, well said.
    
    I agree. Insert great power/responsibility saying.
    
    They always seem to go off the rails.
    
    I would be in favor of mandatory disclosure (though, this would be extremely difficult and costly). I imagine anytime a government privilege was used, especially when behind closed doors, and reviewed by “…the proper oversight officials…”, whoever that means, I would rather like the governments to prove it.
    
    I would support an idea that by law, it all has to be documented, and after a reasonable amount of time after the prosecution is complete, they have to disclose everything they did, all the snooping, etc. With redacted private information of course for unrelated people.
    
    This is fairly unreasonable/unrealistic. But for me, if you could see all the cases where a government invaded privacy and link it to all to nothing but legitimate uses, it might help restore some faith/trust in officials.
    
    source