4 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoThe document does also say: "the provisions will not apply to commercially available mobile phones nor the encrypted messaging apps available on them".
- nhchris 4y agoI 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 agoI 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.