undefined | Better HN

0 pointsalkonaut4y ago0 comments

Businesses are either forced by legislation or they aren't. If the legislation doesn't explicitly say that they are, then they are not. You don't really need a take.

It's good to be worried that this might happen, or that businesses might do something voluntarily as an extension or whatever. But it's not the same as "EP passes legislatino forcing businesses to install back doors" which is parroted by the PP over and over. That's hyperbole (to not say outright bullshit).

0 comments

raxxorrax4y ago

I think most people expect their mail provider to not read their mail, of course compromises are made to filter spam etc.

But I think it is still important that mails qualify as confidential communication, even with all its limitations. That has been clearly removed by this legislation.

And you can argue that companies are indeed forced to scan mails, it depends a bit on their business, but many might feel indeed be forced to take such a measure to not get left behind. As I said, depends on the business.

And the title is correct to the letter. The parliament did approve mass surveillance for private mail. Maybe use another word like sanction, but it fits the

Perhaps it is a bit dishonest, because it can be read wrong and that might be the case in most instances, but that is sadly how things are often framed today.

alkonautOP4y ago

> I think most people expect their mail provider to not read their mail, of course compromises are made to filter spam etc.

Machines reading my mail is something I reluctantly accept (For spam it's a good thing, and for ads it's a bad thing).

> But I think it is still important that mails qualify as confidential communication, even with all its limitations. That has been clearly removed by this legislation.

True, but this is also a temporary exemption to legislation that basically lets things go back to how they were just a short while back. And it's how it works everywhere else.

I'm all for codifying confidentiality (there wasn't really a strong protection for it in the past either) and while this certainly isn't a step in the right direction, I think it's important to look at this on two different levels: a) "regular" messaging (mail, emails, text messagges, etc) where people have some understanding that they aren't sending e2e encrypted data but still expect some privacy. For example they are probably fine with phones being tapped if it's after court orders and targeted rather than mass surveillance. And b) secret communications such as Signal where people expect that their e2e encrypted communications are secure and that governments do not break that such as by mandating back doors or banning the use of strong crypto.

This law only applies to a) but all the screaming from the pirate party seems to be about b). The hyperbole is in that nonsensical extrapolation. I'm completely fine with the conclusion that everyone looses all their "a-privacy" here - and I don't like it either. But it's still not the same as the mandating backdoors or banning crypto .

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse