4 ms·

I highly recommend reading the actual resolution at [0]. It is short and clearly written, a pdf of a few pages. As Protonmail admits, "it's not explicitly stat

I highly recommend reading the actual resolution at [0]. It is short and clearly written, a pdf of a few pages. As Protonmail admits, "it's not explicitly stated in the resolution" that it "seek[s] to allow law enforcement access to encrypted platforms via backdoors". Protonmail argues, however, that this "is widely understood" to be its aim. I am disappointed that Protonmail provides no evidence that this is really the underlying purpose of the resolution. (They do point out that previous proposals did contain such wording, but this in my view is insufficient - the explicit removal of such words can be called progress, after all!) So what am I missing? Can someone here maybe provide evidence that this is really the actual intent of the resolution? [0] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2020/12/14/encryption-council-adopts-resolution-on-security-through-encryption-and-security-despite-encryption/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2020...

dalbasal 6y ago
>> disappointed that Protonmail provides no evidence that this is really the underlying purpose of the proposal Be a little generous. This is a blog post, and this is the middle of a debate that's been happening for years. That backdoors are actually what this resolves to is not a controversial position, except that advocates are trying to avoid these terms. In any case, it has been discussed heavily. Not every blog post needs to go through the motions. Meanwhile, for evidence you can read the resolution yourself and make up your mind... It is linked in the first paragraph. It's short, but here's a paraphrase: [1] We love encryption, human rights and all that kind of stuff. [2] Lots of people use encryption. For really important stuff, we even make them use encryption. [3] BUT(!) Criminals also use encryption. This makes it hard for police to read their DMs even though they're just trying doing their job... [4] We want to keep encryption, but make it so police can read criminal's DMs. [5] Big Tech needs to do this. [6] Regulation something something [7] More words, no discernible meaning. Point 4 is the disingenuous point the post is referring to. You are disappointed in a blog post that doesn't cover everything. How about being disappointed in the Council of The European Union's formal resolution demanding something that they know to be impossible. It's not even just technically impossible. It is logically impossible. This is not the first version, as the blog post mentions. Earlier version were unpopular because banning encryption seems like a bad idea. Even politicians seems to have noticed that. This version is demanding a ban on encryption, but also demanding that whatever weaker alternative is implemented still be called encryption so people aren't worried. Honestly, this is hideous. Whatever the merit of their arguments, this is not the way. Everything here is subtext. Nothing is stated plainly. About 40% of the text is "reassuring you that this isn't exactly what it sounds like." Quite literally Orwellian. Like the top comment says. Let's start with them. All members who have signed this resolution can beta test whatever "encryption that only police can break" means. We can all look forward to reading their emails.
- prof-dr-ir 6y ago
  I see that you are claiming that "evidence" is in the resolution itself - something not even Protonmail does! As is obvious from my comment, I did read the resolution and agree with Protonmail that it does not provide sufficient evidence. More substantially, we clearly disagree about the interpretation of point [4]. I would in particular question whether it calls for a ban on end-to-end encryption - at the very least you have to accept that it does not do so explicitly! And one could, for example, interpret it as a call to force suspected criminals to give up their passwords or some such. I would therefore also propose that your claim of "Orwellian" is only fully justified once we find an actual proposal in front of the EU parliament that bans encryption. At the moment we are rather far from this, and - without further evidence - I correspondingly think that your claim is rather far-fetched.
  - dalbasal 6y ago
    Where did I "claim" anything. You demanded evidence from a blog post commenting on a wide discussion, that they have been involved in for years. There are plenty of arguments by plenty of people making this point. You can agree or disagree with that, but you can't demand that they convince you. If I say that a free press is important to democracy, you cannot demand that I "prove it." OTOH, If a (my) legislating body has officially resolved something, as they have, I do get to demand that they tell me what it is. Telling me that they expect big tech to implement a system where police can gain lawful access to my data without circumventing encryption is... pissing on me while telling me it's raining. And yes, Orwellian, in the simplest and most iconic way. This is a resolution to ban encryption. Plain and simple. The resolution's language is all about how they respect privacy and encryption. This is Ministry of Love language, and it's Orwell all the way down. The only way to progress as they clearly wish is by changing the definition of the term "encrypted." More precisely, taking away the "end-2-end" caveat or some other way of encrypting while circumventing encryption. Incidentally, instead of "police," the resolution refers to them (5 times) as "competent authorities." This is like an Orwell homage... maybe an intentional wink. If I ever write a 1984 knock-off, the police will be called CAs.
    - 6y ago

dalbasal 6y ago

>> disappointed that Protonmail provides no evidence that this is really the underlying purpose of the proposal Be a little generous. This is a blog post, and this is the middle of a debate that's been happening for years. That backdoors are actually what this resolves to is not a controversial position, except that advocates are trying to avoid these terms. In any case, it has been discussed heavily. Not every blog post needs to go through the motions. Meanwhile, for evidence you can read the resolution yourself and make up your mind... It is linked in the first paragraph. It's short, but here's a paraphrase: [1] We love encryption, human rights and all that kind of stuff. [2] Lots of people use encryption. For really important stuff, we even make them use encryption. [3] BUT(!) Criminals also use encryption. This makes it hard for police to read their DMs even though they're just trying doing their job... [4] We want to keep encryption, but make it so police can read criminal's DMs. [5] Big Tech needs to do this. [6] Regulation something something [7] More words, no discernible meaning. Point 4 is the disingenuous point the post is referring to. You are disappointed in a blog post that doesn't cover everything. How about being disappointed in the Council of The European Union's formal resolution demanding something that they know to be impossible. It's not even just technically impossible. It is logically impossible. This is not the first version, as the blog post mentions. Earlier version were unpopular because banning encryption seems like a bad idea. Even politicians seems to have noticed that. This version is demanding a ban on encryption, but also demanding that whatever weaker alternative is implemented still be called encryption so people aren't worried. Honestly, this is hideous. Whatever the merit of their arguments, this is not the way. Everything here is subtext. Nothing is stated plainly. About 40% of the text is "reassuring you that this isn't exactly what it sounds like." Quite literally Orwellian. Like the top comment says. Let's start with them. All members who have signed this resolution can beta test whatever "encryption that only police can break" means. We can all look forward to reading their emails.

prof-dr-ir 6y ago
I see that you are claiming that "evidence" is in the resolution itself - something not even Protonmail does! As is obvious from my comment, I did read the resolution and agree with Protonmail that it does not provide sufficient evidence. More substantially, we clearly disagree about the interpretation of point [4]. I would in particular question whether it calls for a ban on end-to-end encryption - at the very least you have to accept that it does not do so explicitly! And one could, for example, interpret it as a call to force suspected criminals to give up their passwords or some such. I would therefore also propose that your claim of "Orwellian" is only fully justified once we find an actual proposal in front of the EU parliament that bans encryption. At the moment we are rather far from this, and - without further evidence - I correspondingly think that your claim is rather far-fetched.
- dalbasal 6y ago
  Where did I "claim" anything. You demanded evidence from a blog post commenting on a wide discussion, that they have been involved in for years. There are plenty of arguments by plenty of people making this point. You can agree or disagree with that, but you can't demand that they convince you. If I say that a free press is important to democracy, you cannot demand that I "prove it." OTOH, If a (my) legislating body has officially resolved something, as they have, I do get to demand that they tell me what it is. Telling me that they expect big tech to implement a system where police can gain lawful access to my data without circumventing encryption is... pissing on me while telling me it's raining. And yes, Orwellian, in the simplest and most iconic way. This is a resolution to ban encryption. Plain and simple. The resolution's language is all about how they respect privacy and encryption. This is Ministry of Love language, and it's Orwell all the way down. The only way to progress as they clearly wish is by changing the definition of the term "encrypted." More precisely, taking away the "end-2-end" caveat or some other way of encrypting while circumventing encryption. Incidentally, instead of "police," the resolution refers to them (5 times) as "competent authorities." This is like an Orwell homage... maybe an intentional wink. If I ever write a 1984 knock-off, the police will be called CAs.
  - 6y ago