19 ms·
Leaked government document shows Spain wants to ban end-to-end encryption
- clintfred 3y agoEvery government wants to ban E2E encryption, but most know that it isn't feasible to do so.
- barbariangrunge 3y agoMaybe what we need is for a first world nation to finally do it, so the rest of the world can see what a catastrophe it turns out to be?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- 1827163 3y agoThe article says the majority of EU countries want to scan peoples' messages for illegal content. If this ends up being implemented, then it has crossed the line and we are now living in an authoritarian state. A watershed moment indeed.
- mokkol 3y agoI see those things as a big slap in the face for freedom. Can you imagine? We forbid locks in your homes. You have nothing to hide (but a lot to lose). I hate the argument 'You have nothing to hide'. It is so untrue for every single person in the world. It is such a weak argument. You have nothing to hide and we forbid to use any form of encryption. Alright, lets AI call your grandmother with all the information hackers got on you. Lets see if you really had nothing to hide.
- quectophoton 3y agoHow does one even look out for these things? There are elections this year, yes. But other than that, how does one even notice these proposals, and how can one help to prevent them from passing? Or even, how to help change the people representing the country in these things?
- pas 3y agopolitics has patterns, it has some procedural and bureaucratic parts, those are very visible (legibility! see also "Seeing like a state") but in general there's the separation of powers (branches of government), the opposition parties, the checks and balances, and the media. to answer your question directly, the bigger the government the more separate agencies it has, the more people you need to watch them, the more people are needed to simply raise their voices, give their faces as the opposition, and then more people to keep track of what-the-hell are they doing. that's how you got special interest groups. single issue parties. (and if such a party manages to raise the salience of their issue to the "national level" then this basically forces other parties and actors to reveal their preference regarding that issue.)
- Cyber_Explorer 3y agoI'm curious. Why are European Governments from the UK to Spain suddenly trying to ban end-to-end encryption. I mean I would be extremely surprised if agencies such as the GCHQ were unable to crack or completely circumvent end-to-end encrypted messages (and any well-funded signals intelligence agency that claims it's unable to do so, should be required to give an accounting of what it spends it's budget on), so why the sudden desire to ban it? Wouldn't it be better to give the bad guys a false sense of security to lull them into using seemingly secure end-to-end encrypted messaging apps, and then quietly gather evidence against them?
- lost_tourist 3y agoThey are taking an authoritarian bent, this is what happens when you think government can solve all your problems.
- pvaldes 3y agoAfraid people votes conservative and the election is the next Sunday. The more confused and afraid get the voters, the more will search protection in the angry and vicious candidate that promises stability. For the PP all is a flaming hell, for the Socialists all is unicorn glittering wonderful. All are wrong and they know it. The truth is in the middle. I would just assume that everything said in this week is fake or incorrect. This is simply typical FUD to catch some late votes in minor groups of citizens.
- pvaldes 3y agoAnd if is a public document, why do they call it "leaked"?
- uda 3y agoAm I the only one to wonder what will happen to DRM streaming in the EU if this passes?
- chemmail 3y agoWhy don't we just ban alcohol too.
- lost_tourist 3y agoI would be surprised if all governments didn't want to ban e2e encryption except for their own usage.
- lapufifarre668 3y ago[flagged]
- rgmmm 3y agoHermano Grande
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoHermano Largo, at any rate.
- czscout 3y agoThis seems similar to the ridiculous questions members of the US Congress asked Google and Facebook employees a few years ago. Law makers (particularly the older, less technologically inclined) tend to view things through the worst possible lens because they lack the knowledge required to understand the inherent value of technologies such as encryption.
- mistrial9 3y agoI think you misunderstand the display put on by most senior members. They have staff that can get details. However, playing dumb or obstinate is a negotiating tactic. The authority hierarchy at play is more important that the details of the tech, viewed a certain way. Let's be blunt, more than half of all representatives in both parties work on behalf of local, state, Federal and international security.
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y agoAnd many of them - on behalf of foreign nations.
- judge2020 3y agoIt's not just lack of knowledge, but lack of willingness to learn and apply it. Their priorities are set on the power plays that happen in government chambers, the government and corporate interests that ask them to change laws for some purpose, and performing actions that will keep them elected (in that order). Banning encryption is something that satisfy the second group, where government organizations would love to make their jobs easier by having a key to encrypted communications. The fact that the entire internet is built on encryption is only a barrier to these governmental powers telling lawmakers to "pull the trigger" on banning encryption, since the compromises will hit corporations the most (since corporations actually do need perfect encryption without the government spying on them).
- throw_a_grenade 3y agohttps://archive.is/3rqpB https://archive.is/3rqpB
- DrThunder 3y agoEvery single government on Earth does. This is why you limit their power.
- gsdofthewoods 3y agoApparently Germany is an exception. From the story: > Representatives from Germany—a country that has staunchly opposed the proposal—said the draft law needs to explicitly state that no technologies will be used that disrupt, circumvent, or modify encryption. “This means that the draft text must be revised before Germany can accept it,” the country said.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ajsnigrutin 3y agoWe (the citizens) need access to all the politicians communication, just in case if they do anything illegal... 24/7 microphones, digital communication tracker, etc. Let's start with that, and then move on to "normal people", if politicians still believe in no privacy.
- dylkil 3y agoIn the uk politicians were allowed to opt out https://www.digit.fyi/data-protection-political-parties/ https://www.digit.fyi/data-protection-political-parties/
- kelseyfrog 3y agoMore responsibility demands more scrutiny.
- nordsieck 3y agoAs a first step, I'd settle for 1 party consent for recording everywhere. And no more unrecorded votes.
- josephcsible 3y agoCan someone steelman the argument against one-party consent? I literally can't think of any reason anyone would want it, other than wanting to be able to lie about what they said later. It doesn't even help people who are saying things that might be dangerous if they leak, since illegal != impossible.
- reaperman 3y agoIt probably felt right around the time when recording devices were first invented.
- dabluecaboose 3y ago> Can someone steelman the argument against one-party consent? I literally can't think of any reason anyone would want it, other than wanting to be able to lie about what they said later. Are you actually asking hackernews, in a thread about banning encryption, why "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" is not a good justification for being monitored without your consent?
- snehk 3y agoIt is so ridiculous that the exact same discussion has to be repeated again and again. The arguments haven't changed. "Bad thing is happening and we need this to ensure it doesn't anymore". The bad thing changes to what's currently the most popular threat although protecting children is obviously an all-time favorite. I think the next angle will be that it's needed to prevent hate speech. Any other ideas?
- soraminazuki 3y agoThere needs to be an international human rights treaty that enshrines the right to end-to-end encryption. Law enforcement all over the world already has more than enough power to do their jobs. If they cared about protecting people, they should be embracing the wide availability of strong encryption with open arms. It's time politicians spent time increasing accountability and preventing abuse before they even think about granting more power to law enforcement.
- fsflover 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...
- ok_dad 3y ago[flagged]
- dylan604 3y agothe separation of church and state is very inconvenient for them, and they have done every thing they can to blur those lines to be forgotten about by the masses.
- soupbowl 3y agoBanning from where? If you are talking about what is happening around the country at school board meanings then you are framing things pretty poorly.
- 3y ago
- olliej 3y agoI'd have more sympathy to the "we need to be able to read every one's message, and open up everyone's communication to criminals to stop crime" story if there was any evidence it would actually do anything. There is no evidence that the reason terrorist attacks (the common go to) would be stopped by removing encryption from people, because we know that existing attacks have occurred even when law enforcement is already aware (take the Manchester bombing: multiple friends and family had reported him to the police on multiple occasions). We do have a huge amount of evidence that any such attack on privacy will immediately be abused. In the UK those laws that were passed to "stop terrorism", etc are used to catch people not picking up dog poop, not paying TV licensing, etc. In the US we had wide spread warrantless surveillance of literally everyone, courtesy of AT&T. My opinion is that any law that proponents proclaim will only be used to stop X should contain terms along the line of "any use of this legislation for any purpose other than X invalidates this law, any evidence acquired must be destroyed, and any convictions derived from such evidence are no longer valid". I would give good odds that any attempt to add such text would result in push back by the people saying the law is only needed to stop X.
- deepspace 3y agoWe had a recent example in Canada of how any attempt at restricting such a law would go. - The government proposes a law to regulate content on the internet, ostensibly targeted at Netflix and similar services. - Critics point out that the law would apply to small-time content creators too, and could destroy their ability to compete. - The government pinky-swears that they would never apply the law to individuals. - A member of the opposition proposes an amendment to explicitly exclude individuals from the law. - The government rejects the proposal and passes the bill as originally drafted.
- drexlspivey 3y agoCrazy that we need big corporations to protect us from the government. It was supposed to be the other way around.
- fsflover 3y agoThey don't really protect from the government. NGOs like https://eff.org https://eff.org, https://edri.org https://edri.org do.
- thatguy0900 3y agoThe corporations just want to stake their claim of keeping our data to themselves away from other corporations. Crazy were in a situation where corporations and governments are at war over who gets the looting rights.
- sneak 3y agoCorporations serve at the pleasure of the government. Big corporations serve as single chokepoints for extortion or blackmail (via threats to business, legal via regulation or otherwise) to put in backdoors. All power structures are your enemy. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive/exclusive-apple-dropped-plan-for-encrypting-backups-after-fbi-complained-sources-idUSKBN1ZK1CT https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv... For the purposes of privacy and human rights, corporations and the state are integrated in almost all large industrialized nations. Businesses are too busy being businesses to fight city hall.
- FredPret 3y agoNot everything is a “power structure”. Some people actually like to get shit done and organizations are a means to that end.
- sneak 3y agoIf you get a million people together, you'll get a million different ways to "get shit done". Deciding which ways to do things and who does what is a power structure. Add in billions of dollars in quarterly revenue, and you have a power structure that will willingly integrate itself with the state to preserve those cash flows. This is why iMessage is backdoored and isn't really e2ee.
- acuozzo 3y agoI just don't understand how they think they can do so. It's not even the "why?". I get the "why?" even though I obviously don't agree. It's the "how?".
- ska 3y agoThe how probably isn't so hard if you are a state actor. You won't be 100% effective, but if you make it a felony to possess systems that can do it, to use systems that can do it, to possess any data that can be tied to such a system, etc., etc. it's quite likely that usage would drop to nearly nothing.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- gnulinux 3y agoHow do you ban cocaine? How do you ban special parts in guns that make them automatic? How do you enforce any law that's not practical to enforce? You just make it a felony with a penalty of decades of imprisonment. Then, all the businesses stop doing it and you selectively enforce the law in order to make an example out of people. The idea is never to enforce it fully. If encryption is a felony, your average business will stop using it, which is pretty much the desired effect. They don't care so much about your personal website or data store using encryption. They'll just make it a fringe technique.
- reportgunner 3y agoOk but banning encryption seems akin to banning combustion.
- gnulinux 3y agoGovernment can ban combustion too. So that next time it's revealed in a court of law that you caused combustion, you'll be locked up. It's not about preventing combustion, it's about if they find evidence that you combusted, you getting a criminal sentence.
- belter 3y agoMuch like certain segments of American society prioritize gun regulation as the paramount factor influencing their electoral choices, I aspire that citizens might accord an equivalent level of importance to the prohibition of end-to-end encryption in shaping their voting decisions.
- dylan604 3y agopersonally, i doubt this to be true. the voting masses are by and large not that smart on issues like this. granting access to personal data in order to receive promotional information has been accepted and liked by a large percentage of the masses. if not liked, then tolerated. if not tolerated, then willfully ignored. if the argument is to get discounts on retail products/services, then of course the "think of the children" or "but terrorists" will work on them as well. putting that much decision making in the hands of the voting public is always a scary idea, and never a sure thing.
- balderdash 3y agoYeah - I’m constantly floored by the number of people that trust Clear at the airport, to save a couple of minutes in line…
- balderdash 3y agoOff the wall idea - given that encryption was classified as a munition in the U.S. from an export control standpoint, does that mean it’s protected under the second amendment?
- hospitalhusband 3y agoThat's not an off the wall idea at all. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=encryption+2nd+amendment+protection&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=encryption+2nd+amendment+protectio...
- avgcorrection 3y agoBoth are fantastical and naive. Billions are used on shaping voting decisions in plain sight/text.
- gmerc 3y agoLLMs make it possible to scan every message, every phone call, every communication and classify it for intent. Ba Without E2E we are screwed.
- xkcd-sucks 3y agotbf communications are now classified by ridiculously broad criteria like degree-of-separation (my Doordash driver who called me donated money to "terrorists" so now my communications are fair game), keywords (I venmoed my friend for tickets to ISIS-the-band's last show) and geography (I live within 100 miles of the US border) so LLMs don't seem necessarily worse
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- TheRealDunkirk 3y agoEvery country wants to ban end-to-end encryption. It's this one, common desire that gives me comfort that it actually works.
- SV_BubbleTime 3y agoFair point. We always hear about the NSA has this or that. The calls to ban encryption are lower in the US, so I wonder if NSA has something they just won’t share with Europe?
- chrisco255 3y agoIt's a non-starter in the U.S. Legal battles were waged in the 90s over encryption and it was ruled that software is speech: https://archive.epic.org/crypto/export_controls/bernstein_decision_9_cir.html https://archive.epic.org/crypto/export_controls/bernstein_de...
- hamilyon2 3y agoYes. And continue thinking in the same vein, not once, not even single time there was a talk about banning https.
- TheRealDunkirk 3y agoOh... oh, shit.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- stonecactus 3y ago> imperative that we have access to the data What makes electronic messages be different to other forms of private communication that they need to be provided to the government automatically? And in the case of Spain in particular, there are reports of Pegasus being used to spy on Catalan politicians [1][2]. [1] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/05/spain-pegasus-spyware-scandal-reveals-risk-of-intelligence-services-acting-with-total-impunity/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/05/spain-pegasus... [2] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/04/spain-pegasus-spyware-catalans-targeted/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/04/spain-pegasus...
- mercacona 3y agoSpain's politicians don't understand what this ban means. In their eyes, it's like allowing a policeman to open suspicious mail at the post office; and no, it's like getting your mail in transparent envelopes, or receiving all your online shopping in crystal boxes. However, nobody will convince them since someone has sold them the other idea: the same people who sell ultra-expensive software to government that causes nothing but problems.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- EGreg 3y agoThe global view to put it into context: https://community.qbix.com/t/the-coming-war-on-end-to-end-encryption/214 https://community.qbix.com/t/the-coming-war-on-end-to-end-en...
- cookiengineer 3y agoThe issue with governments is that they don't see the risk it creates for themselves. Even if everybody _inside_ your country plays by the rules... Everyone _outside_ of it does not. And let's face it, foreign intelligence services will have a feast over this.
- tpmx 3y agoReminder that France actually did this in the 90s, because why wouldn't such an exceptional country with glorious leaders do that? Clearly they knew was was best. https://www.theregister.com/1999/01/15/france_to_end_severe_encryption/ https://www.theregister.com/1999/01/15/france_to_end_severe_... > Until 1996 anyone wishing to encrypt any document had to first receive an official sanction or risk fines from F6000 to F500,000 ($1000 to $89,300) and a 2-6 month jail term. This news item from 1999 is about France finally making it legal to use toy ciphers to encrypt documents in France. Let that sink in. Trivial toy ciphers were actually illegal to use in france for 3+ years. This (I think '97) was when I realized that France is not your typical western democracy style country. Nothing about France is typical. (And, yes, the it was that Dominique Strauss-Kahn.)
- jupp0r 3y agoI don't understand how this is proposed all over again when it has zero chance to be effective. Criminals will not use apps that compromise security. They will still use apps that are end-to-end encrypted. These people are breaking the law already, why would they make an exception for one that would compromise their opsec?
- iLoveOncall 3y agoSpoiler alert: They don't care about the criminals.
- Dma54rhs 3y agoIt's a far-left government that believes the state has answers to everything. They also want to ban porn, prostitution, etc.
- lowbloodsugar 3y agoOh sweet summer child. It's a government. This one may be "far-left". The UK wants to do the same and is "far-right". The far-right in the USA want to ban porn, prostitution and burn books. Governments are made of psychopaths. It doesn't matter what kind of politics the psychopaths are pretending to have in order to get into power. The reason that politicians even have parties is so that there is always someone else to blame, not them: you blame "the far-left" and not the psychopaths in power. The problem is always "woke people", "fascists", "lefties", "racists", you name it. No the problem is psychopaths.
- eointierney 3y agoThe problem is not that they want to ban encryption but that they can't. It's like banning poetry
- FredPret 3y agoOr randomness itself. What if I want to publish a sequence of meaningless blips?
- mrfinn 3y agoAs a Spaniard, genuinely curious about why they are so worried. I mean, the real reason. My first bet is Catalonia, but wouldn't be surprised they are actually worried about their own security.
- i-use-nixos-btw 3y agoAnyone with any insight as to why this topic is suddenly in the limelight in so many places at the same time? I find it remarkable that, even though the UK government is desperate to demonstrate any form of tangible benefit to Brexit, and talks about independence and sovereignty etc, it is moving in exactly the same direction as EU nations on this, ignoring all advice to the contrary. To be honest I’m kind of feeling left out. My messages are boring. Perhaps if this nonsense goes ahead I’ll start communicating dinner plans with my wife through our own custom key pairs, just to mess with them.
- a13o 3y agoThe dirty secret of the web is that the past 2 decades of VLOPs have led to a stunning increase in CSAM and sex trafficking. Governments know this from initial good-faith participation by VLOPs to escalate abuse to authorities. They were quickly overwhelmed. We know all this because of investigative journalism done by NYT in 2019. VLOPs are interested in E2E encryption now because it lets them ignore their sexual abuse problem by making it untraceable and therefor unreportable. No normal user needs or benefits from E2E encryption on Facebook. We don't need a blanket ban of E2E encryption but we do need regulation around who can use it and when. Preventing VLOPs from smoke-screening their platform abuse is a good middle ground. Many idealistic technocrats on the web already believe E2E encryption is an absolute moral good, so it's hard to even get the conversation started. As evidenced by the extremely simplistic black & white takes in this thread. VLOPs are counting on this when they market E2E features as in their users' best interest.
- pie_flavor 3y ago> No normal user needs or benefits from E2E encryption on Facebook. Not the encryption baked into facebook chat, but most certainly the encryption baked into the HTTPS they're accessing facebook through.
- superkuh 3y agoI suppose that massive increase of cases is why the special "sex trafficking" courts the US government set up in 2018 shut down for lack of cases. This is just anothe scare like the red scare, terrorism, etc. Very little actual impact or events but huge response in terms of getting re-elected and showing eyes ads so it's blown way out of proportion in the public discourse. Basing your laws off the needs of corporate persons instead of human persons is bad policy. Authoritarianism might look good in the short term but $godwin. Will you suggest going after the post office for people mailing illegal items too? It's misplaced. The person who commits the crime commits the crime.
- HDMI_Cable 3y agoHow would this even work? Sorry in advance, since I'm not well-versed in encryption, but wouldn't HTTPS also fall under end-to-end communication? What about for military purposes? How would enforcement of this work? Like would they just require that What's App and the like not use end-to-end, or fully just block all encrypted packets on the ISP side? If not, couldn't someone just program an app to do the same, or download APKs of Signal or a similar app? This strikes me as being completely bone-headed.
- orthoxerox 3y ago> wouldn't HTTPS also fall under end-to-end communication? Not if you have to use a government-issued root certificate.
- _trampeltier 3y agoSo spain would have to make a certificate for EVERY website? How would it work, when you would visit a canadian or brasilian website?
- hashstring 3y agoTechnically still end-to-end but in that case you can’t trust one end.
- HDMI_Cable 3y agoWow, so would non-gov-signed certs be completely banned? Like if a website used Let's Encrypt, then would the government just ban people from accessing it? How would that even play out with VPNs? This seems so completely unenforceable, unless Spain decided to enact a China-style Great Firewall, and even then this would be an entirely different level.
- lstodd 3y agoThey tried to do that in Kazakhstan in 2019. Mandate a root cert installed everywhere, then MITM everything. Ofc the attempt failed.
- andrewstuart 3y agoWho is it specifically that pushes for this? It has to boil down to specific people/companies/organisations. Who, and why do they want it?
- pie_flavor 3y agoThe politicians saying they need to curb CSAM, mean exactly what they say they mean. The problem is exactly as big as they say it is. That doesn't make their desired angle of attack a good idea, but if you make predictions based on the assumption they mean something completely different and want to spy on people, or that they're being influenced by people who do, you're going to predict wrong. There's a reason many of them are fixated on trying to fingerprint CSAM content out of encrypted messages without decrypting them, something that would not enable the government spying everyone seems convinced it's really for.
- lost_tourist 3y agoAlmost all governments want this because they want more power and more control over people's lives.
- autoexec 3y agoSeems like everyone who wants to spy on and control you has a strong interest in outlawing encryption or anything else that stands in their way.
- StanislavPetrov 3y agoAnytime you see articles like this just substitute the word "math" for "encryption" to understand how absurd and authoritarian it is.
- FredPret 3y agoIn a world where encryption is banned: - will it be illegal to transmit a blast of static? - will it be a crime to transmit words that aren’t good, clear Spanish? If no, what if it’s a crazy complicated language? - will it be a crime to transmit Spanish with bad grammar? What if I transmit a billion random Spanish words?
- stiltzkin 3y ago> - will it be a crime to transmit Spanish with bad grammar? What if I transmit a billion random Spanish words? I'm open they ban anything related to Latinx. Or at least call it a different language.
- quazar 3y agoYou're speaking as if this will help you. If you go to the prosecution/trial phase, you will be found guilty since you probably hadn't the best opsec and forensic analysis of your computer found the encryption/steganography software you used, or you left something in the system logs (e.g. timestamps of accessing files), or you left something in the thumbnail cache, or you did not rename the file before deleting it, or the timestamp analysis of e.g. you browser data and logs will show clear behavioral patterns pointing to you hiding data. If you use VMs, their ram is stored in a plaintext file unless you configure it otherwise, on your ssd it never goes away due to wear protection. Even if you had an encrypted drive you will be forced to give them the key, then they will rederive the master key and analyze parts of the disk free space to find something on you, again on ssd this is a certainty and on for example Bitlocker you can never change the master key, ensuring you going to jail. Even if all of this did not incriminate you, you're in trouble for something in the first place, since you're on trial, right? So probably other people you communicated with lead them to you. And in this case, the judge applies common sense, there is this traffic cell of 6 people and on 5 computers we have clear evidence but on 6th nothing, therefore you're still probably 95+% guilty? Judges aren't stupid. People making comments like yours annoy me since you seem to be calming people down that we could endure total strong encryption ban, while we absolutely could not.
- FredPret 3y ago
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y agoMy view on banning encryption in any way is always the same: it will disadvantage the innocent masses, and the criminals they purport to be targeting will simply continue to use it. The black hats will rejoice because now their victims are less secure by law. Good luck stopping them.
- FpUser 3y agoThey can shove this CSAM BS up their asses. We all know that this "save the children" is nothing but fig leaf used to cover total surveillance and control. Opening their communication to wide public instead as the other poster have proposed makes way more sense.
- 1827163 3y agoFascism always uses an excuse, it stokes widespread fear and panic, so that it can subject the population to authoritarian rule.
- 1827163 3y agohttps://www.versobooks.com/en-gb/blogs/news/4421-the-authoritarian-personality https://www.versobooks.com/en-gb/blogs/news/4421-the-authori... "The psyche of a fascist is “authoritarian” in the sense that it attaches itself to figures of strength and disdains those it deems weak. It tends toward conventionalism, rigidity, and stereotypical thinking; it insists on a stark contrast between in-group and out-group, and it jealously patrols the boundaries between them. It is prone to obsession over rumors of immorality and conspiracy, and it represses with self-loathing the sexual licentiousness it projects onto others. In all of these ways, fascism appears as the political manifestation of a pre-political disposition. The authoritarian personality does not always turn explicitly fascist; its politics may remain dormant, only to emerge under certain social-historical conditions."
- DiabloD3 3y agoAll I'm seeing is Spain wishes to disconnect from the rest of the world. Without encryption, you do not have banks, you do not have email, you do not have 90+% of websites, you don't have any business software sales, and now as of Win11 and its Bitlocker-by-default strategy, you don't have consumer desktops. If Spain wants to get on the fast track to a revolution by literally destroying their economy in the most efficient manner, I say let them. This is a self-solving problem.
- _ink_ 3y agoThey are fine with transport encryption. They want do ban E2E encryption. As long as the companies (and the authorities) can access your data at rest, they are fine.
- fomine3 3y agoWhat is "E2E" is a bit ambiguous. Server-Client is a sort of end-to-end in network context. Maybe nowadays people say E2E for between personal device encryption?
- DiabloD3 3y agoEncryption does not work unless everything is encrypted, even at rest. There are no secret keys that only the "correct" people can use, there are no impenetrable vaults where hard drives live and only the "correct" people have access to. It is either encrypted, 24/7/365, in all the forms it lives in, or it is not encrypted. Banning E2E is the first step on banning encryption entirely. There is no other sane way to conceptualize this.
- smashem 3y agoI don't use E2E encryption to evade my government. I use E2E encryption to protect myself from criminals and malicious actors. Oh, government == malicious actors ??
- chaseha 3y agoWould homomorphic encryption or any other privacy enhancing technologies allow for a middle ground here? Would allow you to scan the encrypted messages for incriminating or illegal content when there is reason to believe a specific account is doing something illegal (could require court approval, then a further process for full decrypted messages as part of court proceedings)
- quazar 3y agoIn one-key scheme you, the encryptor, would also have to encrypt the naughty word list, allowing you to cheat, so it will not be allowed.
- chaseha 3y agoAhh interesting. So you could not have one key encrypting the messages than a separate org-wide key encrypting the naughty word list. That makes sense. Thanks.
- quazar 3y agoI think there are some multi-key schemes but they are much more expensive and very rarely used, I don't know much about them
- skyde72 3y ago[flagged]
- Havoc 3y agoPack it up boys. Back to http