4 ms·
That this reduces security for honest citizen, because it makes it harder to find evidence against criminals.
by 1337shadow 5y ago
That this reduces security for honest citizen, because it makes it harder to find evidence against criminals.
- MaKey 5y agoWell, criminals would still use encryption even if it was banned because they are...criminals.
- charcircuit 5y agoYou are overestimating the capabilities of the average criminal. If you changed the protocol so law enforcement with warrants could decrypt messages from people on WhatsApp. Most criminals on WhatsApp would not leave the platform. They would just continuing using it regardless.
- 1337shadow 5y agoNot if we catch them before they learn the lesson!
- unionpivo 5y agosure you catch a few, then everyone gets wise, but law will be on the books
- yibg 5y agoI think you need some data to support your argument here. How many criminals go unpunished because information can't be decrypted? What is the real cost to society because of lack of backdoors?
- alpaca128 5y agoPolice can't even catch terrorists before an attack despite getting warnings from foreign countries and having the suspects on a list. What makes you think that they'll gain anything from an encryption ban when law enforcement is already complaining today about their inability to make sense of the surveillance data they're basically drowning in.
- nopcode 5y agoThis is mainly to catch drug cartels.
- 1337shadow 5y agoIt's not even an "encryption ban law", that's fake news. > the proposed passage that would have forced companies to decrypt encrypted data upon request by the authorities got removed from the draft law.
- piaste 5y agoSecure E2E encryption makes companies unable to decrypt encrypted data upon request. Therefore, a law forcing them to decrypt encrypted data upon request necessarily makes it illegal to implement secure E2E encryption. QED. (If the law only allowed them to share with the government data that was already decryptable by third parties, that would be a different matter. That's what happened to Tutanota in Germany: the tribunal ruled that they had to allow the police to access messages sent as cleartext, but they could not be required to put a backdoor in their E2E clients.)
- nopcode 5y ago"E2E encryption ban" != "encryption ban"
- piaste 5y agoSemantics. E2E is necessary against a wide array of threat models and is a fundamental part of what can be considered 'pretty good privacy' by 2021 standards (pun intended). If a government, possessing a working set of quantum computers, chose to ban post-quantum crypto algos only, by the same semantics it could be argued that it would not be a general "encryption ban" either.
- alpaca128 5y agoI think it's clear we're talking about effective, secure encryption, and that means E2E. Faulty implementations are technically an exception, but I don't think you can argue with that in good faith.
- AdrianB1 5y agoIt is not a zero sum game.
- adgjlsfhk1 5y agoI personally like being able to connect to a bank online without criminals being able to hack the connection.
- 1337shadow 5y agoThis is what they are talking about: > a passage that would have forced companies such as WhatsApp and Signal to decrypt their encrypted chats upon request by the authorities for criminal investigation.
- inglor_cz 5y agoThat is done with backdoors. The bad property of backdoors is that they can be discovered and used by other people, not just the ones that have the correct badges. I definitely do not want the Russians, the Chinese or that infamous Israeli private corporation to read my messages at will.
- 1337shadow 5y agoAnd you'd rather have criminals that we can't catch because evidence is encrypted running around in the same streets as your children? Nobody's saying this law was a silver bullet.
- inglor_cz 5y agoMost crimes leave a lot more evidence than just communication; physical illicit stuff, suspicious money transfers, blood, witnesses. The only exception I can think of is distribution of child porn. Everything else has a massive real world trace that can be used to convict the perps.
- ttybird2 5y ago"evidence is encrypted running around in the same streets as your children?" What?
- piaste 5y ago
- bmcn2020 5y agoWhat makes you think it will only be used against criminals?
- 1337shadow 5y agoBecause there are so many of them we don't have time to bother honest citizen, except on the road but that's for the money :)
- ttybird2 5y agoMore like they ignore dangerous criminals in order to focus on inconvenient "honest" citizens.
- 1337shadow 5y agoAnd why would that be?
- piaste 5y ago> Because there are so many of them we don't have time to bother honest citizens Can I come and live on your planet? It sounds very nice.
- 1337shadow 5y agoWell join the police then.
- adgjlsfhk1 5y agoyou're assuming people working at the NSA would rather catch criminals than look at people's nudes. That assumption, unfortunately has been proven incorrect.
- 1337shadow 5y agoNow we've got NSA in Belgium that's interesting!
- Bjartr 5y agoIs the bottleneck on improving security a lack of evidence?
- 1337shadow 5y agoOf course, in many cases, we're talking about Belgium here.
- inglor_cz 5y agoHaving right to an attorney also makes it harder to convict criminals, but the trade-off is still worth it. A world without strong crypto is a world where all kinds of records and communications are mercilessly exploited by entire armies of bad actors, some of which may sit ten timezones away from you. It is like having your home or business open to the entire 8 billion people out there.