Comment on Encryption versus Child Safety: Westminster Blinks
fushuan@lemm.ee 1 year agoThey might be referring only to instant messaging, but in a technical sense your communications with your bank are encrypted e2e, where one end is the bank and the other one is you. there is no intermediary. The important part in what you said is the recipient, there user recipient in my communications with the bank is the bank itself.
Anyway, if this bill is only about instant messaging, disregard my message, but I hope messaging apps just stop working.
Buckshot@programming.dev 1 year ago
Yeah totally agree in the technical sense but if they want to spy on your banking they can go to your bank. If they want to spy on your instant messaging they can’t.
The bill doesn’t mention encryption at all, it only creates the ability to compel service providers to grant them access on request. Breaking the encryption is the only way they could do that. The law isn’t telling them not encrypt traffic directly.
Up until the last decade, law enforcement could access pretty much any communications with that appropriate warrants. They could intercept mail, tap phones, get access to emails. E2E being so widespread is fairly new and I vaguely remember messaging platforms implementing it to avoid all the potential legal problems with law enforcement around the world and and international user base. I have no source for that though.
I can imagine it’s a potential minefield that they don’t want deal with so removing their own access solved that problem.
Don’t get me wrong, I believe people should have access to private communications and I think all the rhetoric about protecting children is BS. It’s just an easy way to quiet the dissenters then they expand those powers later on.