5 ms·

From my understanding of the article (non-native), it seems like it is only one specific mailbox that is to be monitored > "Tutanota sieht sich nun gezwungen,

From my understanding of the article (non-native), it seems like it is only one specific mailbox that is to be monitored > "Tutanota sieht sich nun gezwungen, bis Jahresende eine Funktion zu programmieren...dieses Postfach zu überwachen." and that nothing else will change for the other users > "Für die anderen Nutzer soll sich dadurch nichts ändern, ihre Mails sollen weiter standardmäßig verschlüsselt werden" As other users have pointed out, it will only be for new emails for the specific mailbox, as the rest are already encrypted > "betrifft die Überwachungsmaßnahme nur die neu eingehenden unverschlüsselten E-Mails" We may have to wait until tomorrow for some more native speakers to wake up and translate.

cpach 6y ago
It’s not so late here in Europe yet. At least not for hackers :) And there ought to be some German-speaking persons over the pond as well. We’ll see :)
uallo 6y ago
German native here. Your translation is mostly correct. The court seems to have forced Tutanota to store new incoming non-encrypted emails in plaintext for a specific mailbox that was used to blackmail an automotive supplier. But the article is not entirely clear on whether that is for that specific mailbox only. At one point, the article mentions that storing emails in plain text could be used on "specific mailboxes" (plural). > Ein Urteil des Landgerichts Köln zwingt das hannoversche Unternehmen nun jedoch zum Einbau einer Funktion, mit der Ermittler einzelne Postfächer überwachen und Mails im Klartext lesen können.
- pintxo 6y ago
  IANAL, but if I am not mistaken, German law requires telecommunication providers (above a certain threshold) to provide law enforcement with a way to look into customer communication via the provider. Meaning here, they need to implement a way for law enforcement to look into any mailbox they can come up with a warrant for.
  - BlackLotus89 6y ago
    Correct but from the article > So hatte im Sommer das Landgericht Hannover entschieden, dass Tutanota im rechtlichen Sinn keine „Telekommunikationsdienste“ erbringt oder daran mitwirkt – und deshalb auch nicht zur Telekommunikationsüberwachung verpflichtet werden kann In the summer the Landgericht Hannover judged that Tutanota isn't a "Telekommunikationsdienste" (telecommunication providers) and they also don't take part in one. That is why Tutanota calls bullshit. > Das Kölner Gericht sieht Tutanota dennoch als „Mitwirkenden“ bei der Erbringung von Telekommunikationsdiensten. Folglich müsse das Unternehmen die Überwachung ermöglichen. Cologne now says the opposite and says they "take part" in providing telecommunication without clarification.
- BlackLotus89 6y ago
  > Für die anderen Nutzer soll sich dadurch nichts ändern, ihre Mails sollen weiter standardmäßig verschlüsselt werden. They seem to suggest that it really only applies to this one specific inbox
- beezle 6y ago
  >The court seems to have forced Tutanota to store new incoming non-encrypted emails in plaintext This makes sense as AFAIK Tutanota messages between users are encrypted on the client side, not the server side. I guess they could try to backdoor that too but I'd think someone would be able to sniff that in the network traffic?
BlackLotus89 6y ago
Yeah german here you are correct. > Tutanota will Beschwerde gegen den Beschluss einlegen, diese hat jedoch keine aufschiebende Wirkung Tutanota wants to appeal in court against this, but is forced to comply (right now). > "Tutanota sieht sich nun gezwungen, bis Jahresende eine Funktion zu programmieren...dieses Postfach zu überwachen." Tutanota sees no other possibility than to program a function (until the end of the year) that can monitor this inbox. and that nothing else will change for the other users > "Für die anderen Nutzer soll sich dadurch nichts ändern, ihre Mails sollen weiter standardmäßig verschlüsselt werden" For other users nothing changes. > "betrifft die Überwachungsmaßnahme nur die neu eingehenden unverschlüsselten E-Mails" Only the new mails will be stored unencrypted. Already encrypted mails can't be unencrypted and it's only for this inbox. > Für die anderen Nutzer soll sich dadurch nichts ändern, ihre Mails sollen weiter standardmäßig verschlüsselt werden. Gleichwohl sieht Tutanota eine einmalige Umgehung der Verschlüsselung als Datenschutz- und Sicherheitsrisiko für letztlich alle Kunden an. For other users nothing changes. Tutanota sees through this "onetime" circumvention of the encryption a big risk in data protection and security for all other users. And I agree. I won't feel good using a secure mail provider that promises to encrypt all my mails so that nobody else can read them, knowing they once had to implement a backdoor to circumvent exactly that.
- PopeDotNinja 6y ago
  I wonder how a company that uses 100% open source software would comply with an order like this. def decrypt_email?(email) do email in surveilance_order_emails() end
  - arthurcolle 6y ago
    Not a lawyer and I am just speculating but in the US I believe it would likely result in the court compelling the maintainer of the libraries in question to comply with the original order, or issue new orders to compel the parties in question given the new information.
    - leipert 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
louwrentius 6y ago
My German is extremely rusty, but the whole dispute here seems to stem from the discussion wether or not the company has to comply with what we normally call 'lawfull-intercept' as part of telecom regulations. They contest the notion that they are a telecom provider.
Baetylraig7 6y ago
You are missing the entire point of why this is a horrible thing to begin with! They have to develop new encryption circumvention technology for this one surveillance which weakens encryption for everyone using the encryption technology. Its exactly like if you were to force the creator of PGP to build a backdoored version of PGP with the right windows signatures or something. You could just say, "it will only be for new emails for the specific mailbox, as the rest are already encrypted", but then you are missing the point entirely. BTW germany is currently in the process of shoving a new law though the EU which will effectively destroy all encrypted services in europe (by means of forcing backdoors/secondary keys). Just for context.
dathinab 6y ago
Yes furthermore it's a decision of a local court which is not in line with decisions of other courts in similar cases. So it's likely to be overruled but until then the courts decision is valid, hopefully it gets overruled before the charges are deployed.

cpach 6y ago

It’s not so late here in Europe yet. At least not for hackers :) And there ought to be some German-speaking persons over the pond as well. We’ll see :)

uallo 6y ago

German native here. Your translation is mostly correct. The court seems to have forced Tutanota to store new incoming non-encrypted emails in plaintext for a specific mailbox that was used to blackmail an automotive supplier. But the article is not entirely clear on whether that is for that specific mailbox only. At one point, the article mentions that storing emails in plain text could be used on "specific mailboxes" (plural). > Ein Urteil des Landgerichts Köln zwingt das hannoversche Unternehmen nun jedoch zum Einbau einer Funktion, mit der Ermittler einzelne Postfächer überwachen und Mails im Klartext lesen können.

pintxo 6y ago
IANAL, but if I am not mistaken, German law requires telecommunication providers (above a certain threshold) to provide law enforcement with a way to look into customer communication via the provider. Meaning here, they need to implement a way for law enforcement to look into any mailbox they can come up with a warrant for.
- BlackLotus89 6y ago
  Correct but from the article > So hatte im Sommer das Landgericht Hannover entschieden, dass Tutanota im rechtlichen Sinn keine „Telekommunikationsdienste“ erbringt oder daran mitwirkt – und deshalb auch nicht zur Telekommunikationsüberwachung verpflichtet werden kann In the summer the Landgericht Hannover judged that Tutanota isn't a "Telekommunikationsdienste" (telecommunication providers) and they also don't take part in one. That is why Tutanota calls bullshit. > Das Kölner Gericht sieht Tutanota dennoch als „Mitwirkenden“ bei der Erbringung von Telekommunikationsdiensten. Folglich müsse das Unternehmen die Überwachung ermöglichen. Cologne now says the opposite and says they "take part" in providing telecommunication without clarification.
BlackLotus89 6y ago
> Für die anderen Nutzer soll sich dadurch nichts ändern, ihre Mails sollen weiter standardmäßig verschlüsselt werden. They seem to suggest that it really only applies to this one specific inbox
beezle 6y ago
>The court seems to have forced Tutanota to store new incoming non-encrypted emails in plaintext This makes sense as AFAIK Tutanota messages between users are encrypted on the client side, not the server side. I guess they could try to backdoor that too but I'd think someone would be able to sniff that in the network traffic?

BlackLotus89 6y ago

Yeah german here you are correct. > Tutanota will Beschwerde gegen den Beschluss einlegen, diese hat jedoch keine aufschiebende Wirkung Tutanota wants to appeal in court against this, but is forced to comply (right now). > "Tutanota sieht sich nun gezwungen, bis Jahresende eine Funktion zu programmieren...dieses Postfach zu überwachen." Tutanota sees no other possibility than to program a function (until the end of the year) that can monitor this inbox. and that nothing else will change for the other users > "Für die anderen Nutzer soll sich dadurch nichts ändern, ihre Mails sollen weiter standardmäßig verschlüsselt werden" For other users nothing changes. > "betrifft die Überwachungsmaßnahme nur die neu eingehenden unverschlüsselten E-Mails" Only the new mails will be stored unencrypted. Already encrypted mails can't be unencrypted and it's only for this inbox. > Für die anderen Nutzer soll sich dadurch nichts ändern, ihre Mails sollen weiter standardmäßig verschlüsselt werden. Gleichwohl sieht Tutanota eine einmalige Umgehung der Verschlüsselung als Datenschutz- und Sicherheitsrisiko für letztlich alle Kunden an. For other users nothing changes. Tutanota sees through this "onetime" circumvention of the encryption a big risk in data protection and security for all other users. And I agree. I won't feel good using a secure mail provider that promises to encrypt all my mails so that nobody else can read them, knowing they once had to implement a backdoor to circumvent exactly that.

PopeDotNinja 6y ago
I wonder how a company that uses 100% open source software would comply with an order like this. def decrypt_email?(email) do email in surveilance_order_emails() end
- arthurcolle 6y ago
  Not a lawyer and I am just speculating but in the US I believe it would likely result in the court compelling the maintainer of the libraries in question to comply with the original order, or issue new orders to compel the parties in question given the new information.
  - leipert 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

louwrentius 6y ago

My German is extremely rusty, but the whole dispute here seems to stem from the discussion wether or not the company has to comply with what we normally call 'lawfull-intercept' as part of telecom regulations. They contest the notion that they are a telecom provider.

Baetylraig7 6y ago

You are missing the entire point of why this is a horrible thing to begin with! They have to develop new encryption circumvention technology for this one surveillance which weakens encryption for everyone using the encryption technology. Its exactly like if you were to force the creator of PGP to build a backdoored version of PGP with the right windows signatures or something. You could just say, "it will only be for new emails for the specific mailbox, as the rest are already encrypted", but then you are missing the point entirely. BTW germany is currently in the process of shoving a new law though the EU which will effectively destroy all encrypted services in europe (by means of forcing backdoors/secondary keys). Just for context.

dathinab 6y ago

Yes furthermore it's a decision of a local court which is not in line with decisions of other courts in similar cases. So it's likely to be overruled but until then the courts decision is valid, hopefully it gets overruled before the charges are deployed.