3 ms·

> Encryption for end users is de facto legal almost everywhere except for UK. Encryption is legal in the UK. But if the government turns up asking for your de

> Encryption for end users is de facto legal almost everywhere except for UK. Encryption is legal in the UK. But if the government turns up asking for your decryption keys, "you can't have them" is not an option unless you wish to enjoy the luxurious surrounds of a prison cell until you change your mind. Which, to be fair, is basically the case worldwide, as per the famous XKCD cartoon[1]. [1] https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/

actionfromafar 2y ago
That’s a huge simplification. If you don’t have they keys, you can’t hand them over, for one thing. Also, the wrench treatment is extremely unlikely in most democracies. Now, deplatforming such as seizure of DNS names and such, is another matter and varies, often orthogonally to the risk of wrench treatment.
- traceroute66 2y ago
  > the wrench treatment is extremely unlikely in most democracies If you prefer ... substitute "wrench treatment" for the democratic wording: "jail time and the associated criminal prosecution process"
  - actionfromafar 2y ago
    Where has this happened? For using encryption? Or what are we talking about here?
    - fc417fc802 2y ago
      > what are we talking about here? We're talking about "if the government turns up asking for your decryption keys, ...". > Where has this happened? Pretty much everywhere. Even in the US you can only avoid it if you're careful; if you admit to knowing the keys then you can't. Either way you're dealing with the "criminal prosecution process" as GP pointed out.
woctordho 2y ago
There's deniable encryption to counter the wrench attack
- traceroute66 2y ago
  > There's deniable encryption to counter the wrench attack The trouble with deniable encryption is its viable use-case is very narrow. It is, for example, not viable to use deniable encryption when exchanging messages with others. If the authorities, through whatever means, get the a copy of an encrypted message you sent, and they have done sufficient metadata homework to link it back to you, find your address and come knock on your door, then you are going to seriously struggle with a deniable encryption defence.

actionfromafar 2y ago

That’s a huge simplification. If you don’t have they keys, you can’t hand them over, for one thing. Also, the wrench treatment is extremely unlikely in most democracies. Now, deplatforming such as seizure of DNS names and such, is another matter and varies, often orthogonally to the risk of wrench treatment.

traceroute66 2y ago
> the wrench treatment is extremely unlikely in most democracies If you prefer ... substitute "wrench treatment" for the democratic wording: "jail time and the associated criminal prosecution process"
- actionfromafar 2y ago
  Where has this happened? For using encryption? Or what are we talking about here?
  - fc417fc802 2y ago
    > what are we talking about here? We're talking about "if the government turns up asking for your decryption keys, ...". > Where has this happened? Pretty much everywhere. Even in the US you can only avoid it if you're careful; if you admit to knowing the keys then you can't. Either way you're dealing with the "criminal prosecution process" as GP pointed out.

woctordho 2y ago

There's deniable encryption to counter the wrench attack

traceroute66 2y ago
> There's deniable encryption to counter the wrench attack The trouble with deniable encryption is its viable use-case is very narrow. It is, for example, not viable to use deniable encryption when exchanging messages with others. If the authorities, through whatever means, get the a copy of an encrypted message you sent, and they have done sufficient metadata homework to link it back to you, find your address and come knock on your door, then you are going to seriously struggle with a deniable encryption defence.