4 ms·

> With a warrant, they can install a virus on the device that will then do targeted surveillance Yeah, and that sponsors an entire malware industry! I don't r

> With a warrant, they can install a virus on the device that will then do targeted surveillance Yeah, and that sponsors an entire malware industry! I don't really know how I can make my position any clearer, but... -Malware: bad! -ChatControl (encryption backdoors): bad! -Inability to do any kind of law enforcement involving "the Internet": double-plus bad! -Enforcement of existing lawful interception laws in the face of new technology: maybe look at that?

lukan 1y ago
"I don't really know how I can make my position any clearer, but..." You could state in plain words what do you propose as an alternative. I read what you wrote, but have no idea what you propose.
- ZeroConcerns 1y ago
  > I [...] have no idea what you propose It's literally the last item in my list? But to further clarify: I would like existing lawful interception laws to be extended to services like Signal. Not in the sense that any EU country should be able to break Signal crypto (as ChatControl proposes, and which I think is an utterly ill-advised idea), but that competent law enforcement agencies should be able to demand unencrypted Signal communications from/to an identified EU party, for a limited time and purpose, upon a (reviewable) judicial order. Most, if not all, EU countries currently have similar laws applying to telegrams, snail mail, email, telephony and whatnot. If you don't like those either, that's fine, but that's the status quo, and I would like to see that extended to services like Signal, as opposed to incompetently dumb measures like ChatControl...
  - lukan 1y ago
    Ok, so you want to break Encryption by law demand. Because this is what this means. Or how exactly would it work, technically? Signal does not know the private key of the 2 parties. Signal would have to inject a infected update into the client .. which is also malware. I rather have just those on target devices with a warrant, instead of breaking all encryption. Or would you go extreme and outlaw decentraliced encrypted communication alltogether?

lukan 1y ago

"I don't really know how I can make my position any clearer, but..." You could state in plain words what do you propose as an alternative. I read what you wrote, but have no idea what you propose.

ZeroConcerns 1y ago
> I [...] have no idea what you propose It's literally the last item in my list? But to further clarify: I would like existing lawful interception laws to be extended to services like Signal. Not in the sense that any EU country should be able to break Signal crypto (as ChatControl proposes, and which I think is an utterly ill-advised idea), but that competent law enforcement agencies should be able to demand unencrypted Signal communications from/to an identified EU party, for a limited time and purpose, upon a (reviewable) judicial order. Most, if not all, EU countries currently have similar laws applying to telegrams, snail mail, email, telephony and whatnot. If you don't like those either, that's fine, but that's the status quo, and I would like to see that extended to services like Signal, as opposed to incompetently dumb measures like ChatControl...
- lukan 1y ago
  Ok, so you want to break Encryption by law demand. Because this is what this means. Or how exactly would it work, technically? Signal does not know the private key of the 2 parties. Signal would have to inject a infected update into the client .. which is also malware. I rather have just those on target devices with a warrant, instead of breaking all encryption. Or would you go extreme and outlaw decentraliced encrypted communication alltogether?