6 ms·

Crypto Wars: Hungarian Presidency continues fight against encryption

59 points by layer8 2y ago

BLKNSLVR 2y ago
It's only possible to target services that have a central point of contact / administration. I don't want to invoke 'web 3.0' specifically, but the essentially headless decentralisation of encrypted communications services would be like trying to catch 'all the gas in the room' in your hand with a single clap, wouldn't it? It feels like, even if they win this battle in the crypto wars, the real battleground has actually moved on anyway. As an aside, that recent "Ghost Chat" infiltration[0][1] that apparently took down a few international crime gangs, wouldn't a Matrix / Synapse server and clients be a better option for encrypted communications than a custom phone/app? [0]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-17/afp-raids-ghost-app-founder-charged-proceeds-crime/104362678 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-17/afp-raids-ghost-app-f... [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41566948 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41566948
- __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
  Most ISP's have a central point of contact / administration, and can be compelled to only forward encrypted traffic if it's explicitly permitted. I think that covers most everything, besides the chattering of a few ham radio operators here and there.
  - BLKNSLVR 2y ago
    That feels like a large escalation from where we're currently at though. That would put a dagger through a majority of self-hosters.
    - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
      They can apply for an approved key if they need to, that way that key can be revoked if they misbehave. I know it sounds drastic but imagine the kind of person who would try to prevent encryption in the first place. We should expect drastic steps from them.
  - pb1729 2y ago
    It wouldn't cover steganography. What looks like an unencrypted video file may have an encrypted message hidden in the noise.
    - idontwantthis 2y ago
      Also wouldn’t cover encrypted messages sent in the clear. Exchange keys ahead of time and you’re just sending noise to each other. I guess you could still target users sending random noise under the assumption they are using encryption.
      - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
        Do you think they'd be trying to take encryption away if they weren't already inspecting the packets deeply enough to notice the difference between natural language and encryption noise? One has to imagine that the whole point is to read the underlying message, right?
        rysertio 2y ago
        It's extremely costly to deeply inspect terabytes of traffic.
    - RcouF1uZ4gsC 2y ago
      It doesn't have to be absolute. Just cross some threshold of inconvenience.
    - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
      Assuming the compression is lossless. As it is you have to go looking for places on the web that will even host a bit-for-bit copy of an image you've uploaded. Though I suppose there will always be options. But if they become too much of a hassle they'll become the domain of people who have something to hide, which would be a significant downgrade. I myself have nothing to hide, but I want to provide cover in case you do.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - rysertio 2y ago
    > Most ISP's have a central point of contact / administration, and can be compelled to only forward encrypted traffic if it's explicitly permitted. We standardized https. So it should be a lot harder than usual techniques.
aussieguy1234 2y ago
Let me guess, its the usual justifications. CSAM, terrorism? Well, if you give the government too much power, sooner or later they will become the child abusers and terrorists. And at that point, there will be no police you can really call, since those in power will be able to act with absolute power and absolute impunity.
- worstspotgain 2y ago
  Hungary's is one of Putin's puppet regimes, so it's really about Russian-style repression of the opposition.
  - rdm_blackhole 2y ago
    You obviously have not read about this piece of legislation otherwise you would not have posted this comment. The law in question also dubbed "chat control" has been on the table for the last 3 years now. It's been rejected each time so far but it comes back every 6 months without fail. The reason Hungary is associated with "Chat control" this time is because Hungary holds the current presidency of the EU. This presidency changes every 6 months. Before Hungary, it was Belgium which was in charge and they too tried to get this law passed. This is what a country with the EU presidency does, they set their goals and then try to reach a consensus with the other countries. "Chat control" is one of these goals just like it was one of the goals of the Belgium presidency. So to come out and say the Hungary is pushing for this because they are Putin's puppet is not accurate at all. The EU commission, which I am pretty sure no one can accuse of being a puppet of Putin is the one who keep bringing this law not Hungary or a specific country in particular. Now, I am not saying that Hungary is not happy about this, in fact they may well be very glad that this law is being discussed (as it would allow them to enable a state of total surveillance on their citizens) but please let's remember that even Sweden and Spain are amongst the many countries in the EU that are actually supporting this law. To me that is the bigger problem, how can the EU be so supportive of personal privacy then come out with shit like this?
    - worstspotgain 2y ago

59 points by layer8 2y ago

It's only possible to target services that have a central point of contact / administration. I don't want to invoke 'web 3.0' specifically, but the essentially headless decentralisation of encrypted communications services would be like trying to catch 'all the gas in the room' in your hand with a single clap, wouldn't it? It feels like, even if they win this battle in the crypto wars, the real battleground has actually moved on anyway. As an aside, that recent "Ghost Chat" infiltration[0][1] that apparently took down a few international crime gangs, wouldn't a Matrix / Synapse server and clients be a better option for encrypted communications than a custom phone/app? [0]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-17/afp-raids-ghost-app-founder-charged-proceeds-crime/104362678 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-17/afp-raids-ghost-app-f... [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41566948 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41566948

__MatrixMan__ 2y ago
Most ISP's have a central point of contact / administration, and can be compelled to only forward encrypted traffic if it's explicitly permitted. I think that covers most everything, besides the chattering of a few ham radio operators here and there.
- BLKNSLVR 2y ago
  That feels like a large escalation from where we're currently at though. That would put a dagger through a majority of self-hosters.
  - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
    They can apply for an approved key if they need to, that way that key can be revoked if they misbehave. I know it sounds drastic but imagine the kind of person who would try to prevent encryption in the first place. We should expect drastic steps from them.
- pb1729 2y ago
  It wouldn't cover steganography. What looks like an unencrypted video file may have an encrypted message hidden in the noise.
  - idontwantthis 2y ago
    Also wouldn’t cover encrypted messages sent in the clear. Exchange keys ahead of time and you’re just sending noise to each other. I guess you could still target users sending random noise under the assumption they are using encryption.
    - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
      Do you think they'd be trying to take encryption away if they weren't already inspecting the packets deeply enough to notice the difference between natural language and encryption noise? One has to imagine that the whole point is to read the underlying message, right?
      - rysertio 2y ago
        It's extremely costly to deeply inspect terabytes of traffic.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 2y ago
    It doesn't have to be absolute. Just cross some threshold of inconvenience.
  - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
    Assuming the compression is lossless. As it is you have to go looking for places on the web that will even host a bit-for-bit copy of an image you've uploaded. Though I suppose there will always be options. But if they become too much of a hassle they'll become the domain of people who have something to hide, which would be a significant downgrade. I myself have nothing to hide, but I want to provide cover in case you do.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- rysertio 2y ago
  > Most ISP's have a central point of contact / administration, and can be compelled to only forward encrypted traffic if it's explicitly permitted. We standardized https. So it should be a lot harder than usual techniques.

aussieguy1234 2y ago

Let me guess, its the usual justifications. CSAM, terrorism? Well, if you give the government too much power, sooner or later they will become the child abusers and terrorists. And at that point, there will be no police you can really call, since those in power will be able to act with absolute power and absolute impunity.

worstspotgain 2y ago
Hungary's is one of Putin's puppet regimes, so it's really about Russian-style repression of the opposition.
- rdm_blackhole 2y ago
  You obviously have not read about this piece of legislation otherwise you would not have posted this comment. The law in question also dubbed "chat control" has been on the table for the last 3 years now. It's been rejected each time so far but it comes back every 6 months without fail. The reason Hungary is associated with "Chat control" this time is because Hungary holds the current presidency of the EU. This presidency changes every 6 months. Before Hungary, it was Belgium which was in charge and they too tried to get this law passed. This is what a country with the EU presidency does, they set their goals and then try to reach a consensus with the other countries. "Chat control" is one of these goals just like it was one of the goals of the Belgium presidency. So to come out and say the Hungary is pushing for this because they are Putin's puppet is not accurate at all. The EU commission, which I am pretty sure no one can accuse of being a puppet of Putin is the one who keep bringing this law not Hungary or a specific country in particular. Now, I am not saying that Hungary is not happy about this, in fact they may well be very glad that this law is being discussed (as it would allow them to enable a state of total surveillance on their citizens) but please let's remember that even Sweden and Spain are amongst the many countries in the EU that are actually supporting this law. To me that is the bigger problem, how can the EU be so supportive of personal privacy then come out with shit like this?
  - worstspotgain 2y ago