8 ms·

I think it's important to note that the linked document does say this: "...the prosecution would need to show that the accused had reasonable grounds to suspec

by rlpb 4y ago

I think it's important to note that the linked document does say this: "...the prosecution would need to show that the accused had reasonable grounds to suspect that the article they are making, modifying, supplying, offering to supply or possessing will be used in serious crime." In other words, they're not proposing to criminalize "sophisticated encryption devices" except when associated with crime. I think the HN headline is misleading by omitting this distinction.

costco 4y ago
But it also says: > It could in some cases criminalise those who did not suspect the articles would be used for serious crime. The justification for criminalising such people, who lack actual suspicion, is that the articles named in legislation are so closely associated with serious crime that it is appropriate to expect that those who are involved in making, modifying, supplying or offering to supply, or who are found in possession of such articles have at least a reasonable standard of awareness of the signs of criminal activity. And then they say (in bold): > Both options intend to better equip law enforcement agencies to target people supplying the tools of organised crime and people found in possession of those tools. And in the EncroChat example they provided to justify their proposal, they say they lacked "sufficient evidence to seek to prosecute Mr A under existing offences" so they let him go. Presumably under the proposed law they would still be able to get him for possessing the EncroChat device.
t-writescode 4y ago
> " that the article they are making, modifying, supplying, offering to supply or possessing will be used in serious crime." Every single employee at Intel knows that terrorists probably have a Windows computer; and statistics say that half of those terrorists will be running an Intel-created chip.
nhchris 4y ago
> I think the HN headline is misleading by omitting this distinction. You make a secure messaging service/protocol/app. It takes off, getting 100k+ users. The police send you a letter (gag order included) informing you 10 of those users are under investigation for "serious crime". Now that you have reasonable grounds to suspect your service is used in "serious crime", you can either immediately shut it down and stop distribution and support of the code, or take the police's generous offer to stay prosecution against you if you sabotage your code and help them take down the bad guys. They pinky swear they won't use the vulnerabilities against anyone but "serious criminals". There is no distinction.
- rlpb 4y ago
  The document does also say: "the provisions will not apply to commercially available mobile phones nor the encrypted messaging apps available on them".
  - nhchris 4y ago
    I assume that means if I resell phones after putting a privacy-first ROM on them, or make a messaging app that doesn't get preinstalled by vendors or isn't available through either Google's or Apple's walled garden stores, that makes them "not commercially available". This is, explicitly, one law for the corporations, and another for the commoners.
    - rlpb 4y ago
      I think it depends on the exact wording. I get the impression from the document they don't consider their wording final yet, so we can only rely on their intent. I'm not sure their intent is bad in the sense that you're concerned about, based on what they've stated. But we'll have to see.
SahAssar 4y ago
That would apply to any major cryptography protocol or library, right? I (and I assume most openssl devs) for example would be pretty sure that openssl is used in "serious crime" in some way. Same goes for almost any other privacy-oriented thing like TOR, signal, etc.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by rlpb 4y ago

costco 4y ago

But it also says: > It could in some cases criminalise those who did not suspect the articles would be used for serious crime. The justification for criminalising such people, who lack actual suspicion, is that the articles named in legislation are so closely associated with serious crime that it is appropriate to expect that those who are involved in making, modifying, supplying or offering to supply, or who are found in possession of such articles have at least a reasonable standard of awareness of the signs of criminal activity. And then they say (in bold): > Both options intend to better equip law enforcement agencies to target people supplying the tools of organised crime and people found in possession of those tools. And in the EncroChat example they provided to justify their proposal, they say they lacked "sufficient evidence to seek to prosecute Mr A under existing offences" so they let him go. Presumably under the proposed law they would still be able to get him for possessing the EncroChat device.

t-writescode 4y ago

> " that the article they are making, modifying, supplying, offering to supply or possessing will be used in serious crime." Every single employee at Intel knows that terrorists probably have a Windows computer; and statistics say that half of those terrorists will be running an Intel-created chip.

nhchris 4y ago

> I think the HN headline is misleading by omitting this distinction. You make a secure messaging service/protocol/app. It takes off, getting 100k+ users. The police send you a letter (gag order included) informing you 10 of those users are under investigation for "serious crime". Now that you have reasonable grounds to suspect your service is used in "serious crime", you can either immediately shut it down and stop distribution and support of the code, or take the police's generous offer to stay prosecution against you if you sabotage your code and help them take down the bad guys. They pinky swear they won't use the vulnerabilities against anyone but "serious criminals". There is no distinction.

rlpb 4y ago
The document does also say: "the provisions will not apply to commercially available mobile phones nor the encrypted messaging apps available on them".
- nhchris 4y ago
  I assume that means if I resell phones after putting a privacy-first ROM on them, or make a messaging app that doesn't get preinstalled by vendors or isn't available through either Google's or Apple's walled garden stores, that makes them "not commercially available". This is, explicitly, one law for the corporations, and another for the commoners.
  - rlpb 4y ago
    I think it depends on the exact wording. I get the impression from the document they don't consider their wording final yet, so we can only rely on their intent. I'm not sure their intent is bad in the sense that you're concerned about, based on what they've stated. But we'll have to see.

SahAssar 4y ago

That would apply to any major cryptography protocol or library, right? I (and I assume most openssl devs) for example would be pretty sure that openssl is used in "serious crime" in some way. Same goes for almost any other privacy-oriented thing like TOR, signal, etc.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]