4 ms·
They aren't banning cryptography. This only applies to private entities hosting conversations for other persons. This wouldn't apply to private individuals host
by jesprenj 4y ago
They aren't banning cryptography. This only applies to private entities hosting conversations for other persons. This wouldn't apply to private individuals hosting their own conversation servers, let's say using encrypted XMPP.
- andai 4y agoWhile that is some comfort, it would eliminate the vast majority of encrypted communications as they exist today, no?
- teilo 4y agoAnd you think it will stay that way? It won't. This is just the start. Next, they will ban private servers and raid those who do not comply.
- gorbypark 4y agoAre you going to have a conversation with yourself? I suppose XMPP is federated, but would this ban a group of friends using the same XMPP server that's administered by one person? What about services that aren't federated? It would essentially criminalize running an instance of anything and sharing it with friends/family/others.
- hkt 4y agoThat's a huge number of people who can't access secure messaging anymore. Journalists can't run such services, and as soon as somebody does it for them they're a service provider who falls under the regulations.
- NoImmatureAdHom 4y ago"They aren't banning cryptography. They're just banning cryptography for regular people." FTFY ;-)