4 ms·

As if terrorists really care about the legality of the app they're using.

tombert 3y ago
Of course they don't, but if it's illegal then things get removed from app stores and the like, making it hard to actually install. Obviously on Android there's sideloading, even on iOS to a lesser extent, but I think the idea is that if there's any technical hurdle required to overcome this limitation, then the bad people will be less likely to use the workarounds. Obviously some percentage of criminals will do these workarounds, and I suspect the lawmakers even know that, but I think the idea is that any percentage reduction of criminals being able hide stuff is positive. To be 100% clear, I think this is a very bad proposal; I think E2E encryption is important and should be protected, not threatened, I'm just saying that the rationale isn't completely incompetent.
- zirgs 3y ago
  If the app is not illegal elsewhere then sideloading it is trivial. The UK can't force app stores in other countries to take down e2e communication apps. Repos like F-Droid will keep hosting them.
  - effie 3y ago
    "Sideloading" is the likely next target. "We have to protect our people from dangerous Russian hackers spying on people, so we will make sure only clean and safe applications from $CORPSTORE are used".
    - zirgs 3y ago
      That means that custom Android roms should be banned. Oh and desktop PCs too, because you can "sideload" anything there. Banning sideloading is unrealistic.
      - effie 3y ago
        "It wouldn't work 100%, so they won't do it." Most naive argument ever.
    - jodrellblank 3y ago
      You say that like it's a bad thing. We actually do protect our people from dangerous products (lead water pipes, asbestos insulation), dangerous medications (Thalidomide and friends), dangerous food additives, dangerous environmental toxins (Zoning regulations, environmental and industrial waste regulations), physical dangers (OHSA, hard hats, fencing, car and pedestrian infrastructure design). And from informational dangers (VBScript email attachments, et al). Why not from this also?
      - effie 3y ago
        Government measures protecting country from attacks are fine as long as they don't erode individual liberties. When they do, the official rationale becomes suspicious. Forbidding installing apps from non-official sources is obviously bad and I don't think most people want it.
- nerdbert 3y ago
  You can offer end-to-end encrypted chats in a website. No app stores involved.
Hamcha 3y ago
They don't get caught when using SMS of all things, I don't think they worry about encryption at all at this point
- tgv 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EncroChat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EncroChat

Of course they don't, but if it's illegal then things get removed from app stores and the like, making it hard to actually install. Obviously on Android there's sideloading, even on iOS to a lesser extent, but I think the idea is that if there's any technical hurdle required to overcome this limitation, then the bad people will be less likely to use the workarounds. Obviously some percentage of criminals will do these workarounds, and I suspect the lawmakers even know that, but I think the idea is that any percentage reduction of criminals being able hide stuff is positive. To be 100% clear, I think this is a very bad proposal; I think E2E encryption is important and should be protected, not threatened, I'm just saying that the rationale isn't completely incompetent.

zirgs 3y ago
If the app is not illegal elsewhere then sideloading it is trivial. The UK can't force app stores in other countries to take down e2e communication apps. Repos like F-Droid will keep hosting them.
- effie 3y ago
  "Sideloading" is the likely next target. "We have to protect our people from dangerous Russian hackers spying on people, so we will make sure only clean and safe applications from $CORPSTORE are used".
  - zirgs 3y ago
    That means that custom Android roms should be banned. Oh and desktop PCs too, because you can "sideload" anything there. Banning sideloading is unrealistic.
    - effie 3y ago
      "It wouldn't work 100%, so they won't do it." Most naive argument ever.
  - jodrellblank 3y ago
    You say that like it's a bad thing. We actually do protect our people from dangerous products (lead water pipes, asbestos insulation), dangerous medications (Thalidomide and friends), dangerous food additives, dangerous environmental toxins (Zoning regulations, environmental and industrial waste regulations), physical dangers (OHSA, hard hats, fencing, car and pedestrian infrastructure design). And from informational dangers (VBScript email attachments, et al). Why not from this also?
    - effie 3y ago
      Government measures protecting country from attacks are fine as long as they don't erode individual liberties. When they do, the official rationale becomes suspicious. Forbidding installing apps from non-official sources is obviously bad and I don't think most people want it.
nerdbert 3y ago
You can offer end-to-end encrypted chats in a website. No app stores involved.

Hamcha 3y ago

They don't get caught when using SMS of all things, I don't think they worry about encryption at all at this point

tgv 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EncroChat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EncroChat