This document, although it tries hard to play both sides, looks to effectively neuter encryption so much that will become useless. Third-party access (i.e. law enforcement) cannot be done in a way...
This document, although it tries hard to play both sides, looks to effectively neuter encryption so much that will become useless. Third-party access (i.e. law enforcement) cannot be done in a way that respects E2E encryption, because it's essentially just a variation of man in the middle attacks. Those keys will leak. Either the companies wanting your data will do so much obscure lobbying that they'll get them, or they'll just bribe someone with access to those keys, because really, how would you fucking know that they're accessing your messages? You don't, and encryption is your only guarantee that the data they can access is randomized garbage.
The EU is using terror attacks here to justify those measures, but the truth is, the perpetrator of the Vienna attacks was already known to the police. He tried to emigrate to Syria to join fucking ISIS. No amount of message peeping the authorities could've done would've thrown up a larger, redder flag than the fact that the dude had already served time in prison due being member of a terrorist organization. There should've been eyes on him, because he obviously wasn't successfully deradicalized. For fuck's sake, the dude tried to buy guns in Slovakia, where the authorities caught on and reported it. We knew he was planning something, we already had all the information we needed! More information isn't going to solve this, more action will!
And now the authorities want to play Big Brother because some fuck shot up innocents. Probably just like next time when this shit happens.
Its hard to argue about what the EU wish and want. I think past experiences teaches us that those due processes and safeguards aren't worth shit but tend to tack on allowances to vague or unclear...
Such laws providing for the enforcement powers must always fully respect due process and other safeguards, as well as other freedoms and rights, in particular the right to respect for private life and communications and the right to the protection of personal data.
Its hard to argue about what the EU wish and want. I think past experiences teaches us that those due processes and safeguards aren't worth shit but tend to tack on allowances to vague or unclear crimes with no need for a judge to sign off on anything.
As soon as "due process" comes into play, they can literally break into a suspect's home and install a bug, hack their smartphone, do 24/7 surveillance or contact them through an informant. This...
As soon as "due process" comes into play, they can literally break into a suspect's home and install a bug, hack their smartphone, do 24/7 surveillance or contact them through an informant. This is about preemptively tracking communication before due process comes into play.
Which is not what they say though (not arguing with you, just pointing it out - I have no doubt in my mind that if they could they would enforce zero encryption at the drop of a hat). The memo...
Which is not what they say though (not arguing with you, just pointing it out - I have no doubt in my mind that if they could they would enforce zero encryption at the drop of a hat). The memo seems very hopeful that this will not be abused and that there are some processes to protect against it... although ALL political memos say stuff like that.
Its rather fascinating talking with a police officer about this kind of stuff btw - and worth breaking the "never talk to cops" rule. From the one I talked too's perspective he gets ordered to get results, and if he doesn't that is incredibly bad. That is the core problem for him. So anything that gives the results gets tacked on to his view that their job is to be a servant of the people etc etc - but at the same time, after some conversation, he agreed that it was kind of rough destroying peoples liberty to protect it.
Which in turn got in to a thing about what threats to liberty are threats and what are just "people being fussy". I mean what was revealing that - like all of us - he was locked in to world where there are very very clear demands and no one questions the demands no matter how outlandish they are. So they look for a way out, and being able to wiretap people (which they aren't allowed here yet (+caveat +caveat etc etc, you know the deal)) was an obvious out.
So when people argue with this clear path out of a world embracing conflict of interests as he saw it - that means something different.
Anyway, the end point is that we can't have a group with one goal, no matter how noble, dictate all other circumstances because in the end they will always justify everything only against their own problems and motivations. If you're a hammer, all you see are nails.
This document, although it tries hard to play both sides, looks to effectively neuter encryption so much that will become useless. Third-party access (i.e. law enforcement) cannot be done in a way that respects E2E encryption, because it's essentially just a variation of man in the middle attacks. Those keys will leak. Either the companies wanting your data will do so much obscure lobbying that they'll get them, or they'll just bribe someone with access to those keys, because really, how would you fucking know that they're accessing your messages? You don't, and encryption is your only guarantee that the data they can access is randomized garbage.
The EU is using terror attacks here to justify those measures, but the truth is, the perpetrator of the Vienna attacks was already known to the police. He tried to emigrate to Syria to join fucking ISIS. No amount of message peeping the authorities could've done would've thrown up a larger, redder flag than the fact that the dude had already served time in prison due being member of a terrorist organization. There should've been eyes on him, because he obviously wasn't successfully deradicalized. For fuck's sake, the dude tried to buy guns in Slovakia, where the authorities caught on and reported it. We knew he was planning something, we already had all the information we needed! More information isn't going to solve this, more action will!
And now the authorities want to play Big Brother because some fuck shot up innocents. Probably just like next time when this shit happens.
Its hard to argue about what the EU wish and want. I think past experiences teaches us that those due processes and safeguards aren't worth shit but tend to tack on allowances to vague or unclear crimes with no need for a judge to sign off on anything.
As soon as "due process" comes into play, they can literally break into a suspect's home and install a bug, hack their smartphone, do 24/7 surveillance or contact them through an informant. This is about preemptively tracking communication before due process comes into play.
Which is not what they say though (not arguing with you, just pointing it out - I have no doubt in my mind that if they could they would enforce zero encryption at the drop of a hat). The memo seems very hopeful that this will not be abused and that there are some processes to protect against it... although ALL political memos say stuff like that.
Its rather fascinating talking with a police officer about this kind of stuff btw - and worth breaking the "never talk to cops" rule. From the one I talked too's perspective he gets ordered to get results, and if he doesn't that is incredibly bad. That is the core problem for him. So anything that gives the results gets tacked on to his view that their job is to be a servant of the people etc etc - but at the same time, after some conversation, he agreed that it was kind of rough destroying peoples liberty to protect it.
Which in turn got in to a thing about what threats to liberty are threats and what are just "people being fussy". I mean what was revealing that - like all of us - he was locked in to world where there are very very clear demands and no one questions the demands no matter how outlandish they are. So they look for a way out, and being able to wiretap people (which they aren't allowed here yet (+caveat +caveat etc etc, you know the deal)) was an obvious out.
So when people argue with this clear path out of a world embracing conflict of interests as he saw it - that means something different.
Anyway, the end point is that we can't have a group with one goal, no matter how noble, dictate all other circumstances because in the end they will always justify everything only against their own problems and motivations. If you're a hammer, all you see are nails.