Hope that is satire. if not:Is that + or - GMT?
polynomial time <<< exponential time [encryption::= NP complete algorithms]
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PolynomialTime.html
Hope that is satire. if not:Is that + or - GMT?
Really, you can't see how elitist that sounds? perhaps some "educated folks" want nothing to do with the EU. For better or worse, the majority voted to leave. Are you saying the voices of the majority shouldn't be heard?But yeah. I guess what stood out was your poor opening line, because it was educated folks, universities, scientific research groups, were the ones voting to remain. You could at least dodge that completely and bring up "the common man".
I disagree rather strongly.While this is a nice idea, the fact is any sort of government regulation of the internet, created by people who frankly don't know anything about it at a technical level, is only going to cause more harm than good, by forcing standards that in many ways may be less secure, or less useful to the user. While this may, in theory, force international companies to encrypt more stuff (which is a good thing), I'd prefer the free market, and academics who are far smarter than any politician, figure out how to make the internet more secure for everyone.
An interesting thing to say given the context, since this proposal was made by the EU Parliament, which is very much elected.I don't trust the EU with its unelected elites deciding on our lives.
Really, you can't see how elitist that sounds? perhaps some "educated folks" want nothing to do with the EU. For better or worse, the majority voted to leave. Are you saying the voices of the majority shouldn't be heard?
many were manipulated by friends/press/propaganda and didn't actually know...
Correct, but that wouldn't stop overzealous politicians from campaigning on banning it anyway. Either because they are honestly too thick to realize what you just said, or because they do realize but cynically know that their proposal might score well with the electorate. Which would then hurt the 99.999% of the population that are not terrorists, and not do much to stop the .001% that are.Banning encyprtion wouldn't help. For starters terrorists could just do it illegally.
An interesting thing to say given the context, since this proposal was made by the EU Parliament, which is very much elected.
Is this an alternative fact in your mind?It is very much not elected !
The EU Commission is very much not elected !
That's technically true in the same way that saying Theresa May is not elected as PM is technically true.The EU Commission is very much not elected !
I agree but security is not in the best interest of governments. It's in the best interest of consumers. The consumers will lose.Anything that we do to give legitimate police more power of terrorists in terms of information security will inevitably also give much less legitimate hackers more power over the general population.
It is also annoying when obviously a majority of people was manipulated with wrong facts by politicians and big media companies in order to push the election into a certain direction. It is the simple minds who are not used to dig for reliable sources for themselves or are used to deal with complex situations like that and fall for it more likely.It is annoying when people opine that those who voted for Brexit somehow "didn't understand" the issues. Maybe they understood them all too well.
Your malicious joy will be past soon. Have fun to celebrate your "independence" from the EU on your isolated island in poverty in a few years from now. I just feel for the many great people I know from the UK who actually got that "The British Empire" is long gone...Oh but isn't democracy annoying, too, when it doesn't do what you want it to? But that's the point. Let the people decide, and don't patronise them when they vote against your ideas. As the old adage runs: democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others.
The debate has erroneously centred (at least outside of tech-literate circles) on the 'balance' or 'compromise' between e-to-e encryption and people being kept safe, as of the two things were in conflict.
On the face of it I think that this EU draft sounds good, but just as important (because it's a global matter) is to impress again and again that encryption is not in opposition to our safety, rather that it is vital in order to secure it.
The number of terrorist incidents is too high. Obviously. Even one is one too many. But the spectacular and sensationalised nature of such attacks (which is half the point) against relatively tiny numbers of people should not let us disproportionately damage aspects of digital infrastructure that keep us all safe every day in countless ways.
To be clear, any kind of backdoors or compromises in encryption only do real, lasting harm to we, the law-abiding and innocent. Whilst some 'low-hanging fruit' criminals and potential terrorists could be disrupted or caught by monitoring communications that has had its encryption broken, any vaguely competent bad guys will avoid detection altogether by other means. Meanwhile internet commerce, important (and in some cases vital) physical infrastructure would be put at risk, eveyone's privacy would compromised, and authoritarian states around the world would continue to be enboldened to crush dissent and political opponents by the poor example set by the supposedly enlightened free democracies.
Also, intelligence agencies already have a wide array of capabilities to monitor communications and metadata. I'm sure this gives them lots of leads and evidence, which is good (and I'm not sure whether the EU proposals go too far in this respect). But they only get that because bad guys think the content itself can't be decrypted. If encryption was gone, what would they do? Continue to send stuff and just hope no-one reads it? Come on, it doesn't pass the 'smell test', does it?
Except for those small fraction of people involved in perpetrating it, we all want terrorism and criminality to stop. But removing everyone else's protection whilst causing minor inconvenience to the bad guys wouldn't achieve that.
I hope the EU enacts something like this proposal, and that others follow.
I was going to say the same about the European Parliament. Perhaps we are both right or both wrong, or some other permutation.All you need to know is that the opposite should happen of anything the horrible horrible Amber Rudd says.
The common man really has no say...until the next revolutionary war. Reminds me of the 13 colonies uniting to fight the King's unilateral imposition of his will.You could at least dodge that completely and bring up "the common man".
In theory what you are proposing is correct, but I would counter that the EFF has been sounding the horns on government surveillance overreach for years now, and "the common man" really has done nothing about it.A better piece of legislation, if I was writing it, would simply force greater transparency from companies on how they secure user data, what encryption schemes they use to do it, and then let the market figure out what's actually best. Non-profits like the EFF and academia will figure out how to translate this information for public consumption.
MacRumors really needs to stop promoting the idea that encryption, and therefore privacy, are political issues. They are not. They are fundamental human rights and should be treated as such.
One person's idea of what constitutes human rights doesn't necessarily accord with another's. Therein lies the politics.
With our current dictator in power (Theresa May) I doubt we’d see these measures, since she wants to lock down the UKs internet and open encryption North Korea style.
So is it a political issue to allow rape and torture?One person's idea of what constitutes human rights doesn't necessarily accord with another's. Therein lies the politics.