EU: These are scary times – let's backdoor encryption!

Comments

• Pirata@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  There really should be a law where the EU gets fined everytime they waste time bringing up the same proposal that has already been shut down multiple times.

  source

  • FooBarrington@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Not fined, just banned.

    source

    • Valmond@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Porke nos los dos? (Or something, my Spanish is rusty)

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• heavydust@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I almost forgot the monthly “let’s make encryption illegal” from the EU.

  source

  • Pirata@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    “let’s make encryption illegal”*

    *for the peasantry, of course.

    They love the idea of giving the political class an exception.

    source
  • Tryenjer@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It’s sad and against our supposed values. Who proposed this this time? Was it the same MP?

    source

    • kilgore_trout@feddit.it ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      This comes from the Commission, not Parliament.

      source
• jim3692@discuss.online ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  My question is: even if EU manages to apply laws for backdooring encryption, wouldn’t cybercriminals just use different tools? They may force Signal to backdoor its encryption, but what about Briar? Will they backdoor the Tor network? Will they ban it entirely? What about Matrix? They can’t prevent offshore encrypted instances.

  source

  • tfm@europe.pub ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Bingo! It’s simply surveillance of the masses.

    source
  • Geodad@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Signal said they will jist pull out of any country that demands a back door.

    Back doors don’t work. Just ask American telecom companies to talk about how easy it was to get Salt Typhoon out of their back door.

    source

    • pulsewidth@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Yeah, means Signal would just not have a presence eg an office or local routing/CDN servers in the countries that demand backdoors.

      It would mean slower service for anyone in such countries, but the service would not stop working or become less secure.

      It’s negative either way, as it chips away at the legitimacy of private E2E chat, and legislators the world over seemed determined not to learn that there’s no such think as “backdoors, but just for the good guys”. You either have a resilient end-to-end zero trust encrypted system or you don’t.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• UpperBroccoli@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  She claimed that in “85 percent” of police cases, law enforcement couldn’t access the data it needed. The proposal is to amend the existing Cybersecurity Act to allow these changes. You can watch the response below.

  That is complete and utter bullshit. And everyone knows it.

  source
• Cpo@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  As long as there is opensource, good luck with that. Remember the export-restricted pgp?

  source

  • pineapplepizza@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    No but I recall GnuPG

    source

    • Cpo@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Exactly my point

      source
• BlaueHeiligenBlume@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I D I O T S. ANY backdoor WILL be exploited. Just a matter of time.

  source