Or just the good old quality of life update where they forgot the <= v1.0.5 hardware used inverted sensor output, while >= v1.0.6 was non-inverting. "but we have lots of unit tests!"
"Law enforcement need lawful ways to enter a home"
"See! The government is trying to pick all our locks"
Okay dude. Taking off the tinfoil hat for a second here, but maybe they're just trying to do the thing they say they are doing, namely, lessen friction to obtain things like camera footage, financial data, and internet usage.
The lawful way for law enforcement to enter a home is to get a search warrant (or whatever the EU equivalent is) and show it to the owner, who then lets them in because that's what the law requires. No need for law enforcement to even worry about the lock. If the owner doesn't let them in when they have a search warrant, they're violating the law, and sure, they can technically keep the doors locked and refuse to open them, but it's only a matter of time before they'll end up giving in one way or another.
But if law enforcement wants to be lazy, they can say, look, this whole search warrant business is so tedious, and even then it might take time before the owner capitulates, so why not just pass a law that requires all locks to have backdoors in them so we can open them? Then we can just let ourselves into someone's home whenever we feel like it^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hhave a bona fide need to do so in order to protect the public.
The latter is what the EU Commission is trying to do.
> "See! The government is trying to pick all our locks"
Them having to bring lockpicks (or more commonly a battering ram) would be preferable. This is more like "all locks and locksmiths must only manufacture locks that can be opened with one of a handful of TSA-approved backdoor keys".
It's more like "locks are illegal because the police might need to get in".
There's a matter of scale and friction. If the police have to work for six hours to get into something, they can't mass-surveil that way. While we still might not like that, it's much better than mass surveillance.
It used to be like that - they'd have to clip an expensive machine onto someone's phone line to record who they called. They'd have to tail someone to know where they went. Criminal still got caught in those days.
> It's more like "locks are illegal because the police might need to get in".
Same idea, yeah. One of the issues with "TSA-approved" locks is that the corresponding keys are widely available. We should not expect a government backdoor key to be secured any better than that.
Maybe. I think that strengthening laws that force servers to be more diligent would be unpopular (especially with this crowd), but it's a lot different from forcing backdoors.
The idea of backdoors needs to be drawn and quartered, and the pieces buried under crossroads.
This is the same thing they tried to do with Chat Control v2, that is to force providers to access data before it is encrypted and store it in case one day someone becomes a criminal.
You should look up all the past posts on HN on this very topic.
The end goal is to track and collect everything and/or make it possible to decrypt what they need when they need it including: emails, chat messages, posts on social media, images, and who knows what else.
And the EU has the gall to criticize Russia and China for cracking down on freedom of speech and on digital rights, what a joke!
There is no safe backdoor just for the "good" guys. It doesn't exist, never has and never will. It's that simple.
It just sucks having to pick between two extremes.
I moved to SourceHut from Github when their site stopped functioning without a JITed JavaScript engine or when you block certain AI elements. The bloat just got insane. Now it seems like I have to move again since SourceHut moved too far in the other extreme by embracing "minimalism" not only of their service but also of their users.
> you can [self-]host
I used GitHub and then SourceHut precisely so I don't have to do this.
Same, and for the same reason, I considered the same when they added the "content related to cryptocurrency or blockchain technologies" clause as well, though I do not see the value in these technologies.
I will add that the policy is not just dumb and unenforceable, it is also poorly reasoned. Many of the arguments apply equally to other technologies, or don't apply to AI-generated code in the first place.
If resource usage/hardware costs are a concern, should games and databases be banned? If financial ethics are a concern, should SaaS services/apps with micro-transactions be banned? If ownership is a concern, should closed-source software or private repos be banned? And so on.
I think it is obvious that this choice, much like the crypto/blockchain choice, was made purely because of the "vibes" (if you will) around AI, and not for any logical reason.
reply