Europol chief calls on tech giants to unlock encrypted messages
The chief of Europol chief has urged technology companies to cooperate with law enforcement in unlocking encrypted messages. A failure to do so...
Alternate title: executive director of Europol Catherine De Bolleshit doesn't know what the hell she's talking about.
She drew an analogy between digital encryption and a locked door
And there’s the proof of someone who doesn’t understand what encryption is.
The analogy is closer to not knowing which house to go to.
Once you’ve given someone the address, you can’t stop them telling other people where the house is. And once you’ve given someone the encryption key, you can’t take it back. There is no “master key” that unlocks just for law enforcement.
"What do you mean mr computer man? I just turned on my chrome book and am watching tiktok while writting this comment. Mr computer man why cant i just unlock everything. Stop using fancy techno bable like TCIP and AES? I just want a sticky note with the master key, i also want the key to narinia and the ability to teleport. Mr techno man, please and thank you. Mr robit give me the master key like in 1995 hackers!! "
Some people speak of things they dont comprehend and try to give advice beyond there intelligence.
I wouldn't criticise the metaphor. I would ask why they ask this again and again. What has changed in the previous decade which justify that they don't change what they request.
I wouldn't criticise the analogy because it's easy to miss things. For example, the issue I have when their analogy is that because they can't open the door of one house with a search warrant, they ask for the right to open all the doors, of all the city, anywhen, and this right may be abused. Of course this is far less acceptable so.
How would this work without breaking cryptography? The whole point of a good cipher is that the algorithm can be public and widely understood, and all that's needed for it to be secure is for the private key to be private. A cipher that has some backdoor -master key- is by design insecure and no sane person should use it. Security through obscurity doesn't work, trying to keep the algorithm private won't work, someone sooner or later will break it.
It can't work without breaking cryptography. Any system with backdoors in it is fundamentally insecure.
Enough with this shit already! Even the FBI begrudgingly knows better.
This is why i use Jami and Element if i talk with people who are actually willing to use it too
Wanna see how they gonna break a zero knowledge AES-256 encryption
They would likely put a bounty on it, like they did with Monero.
(I'm only half joking)
Europol chief calls for breach of contract?
This falls under the category, Ban spoons
governments have to routinely publish this article template over and over again.
requiring us to have the same conversation over and over again.
Pay us to respond or react to this repetitive nonsense!
I feel like the next time a democracy wants to protect itself from fascism, that the "constitutional" document should dictate what members of the government can and can't do. And that the punishment for advocating for fascist policies is dismissal from the government forever.
If we took America's Bill of Rights for example, advocating for laws that are on the surface against one of the amendments should result in that representative being removed from office. If Congress passes a law (not an amendment, but a law) then when that law is declared unconstitutional, they should all be dismissed with prejudice.
The right to privacy should be enshrined and people like her should be removed from office and never given a platform again.
What do they do with their budgets?
So we went on the cryptowar to be able to have secure connection for everyone in the digital age bringing safety to citizens and now they want us to still have that security but not for them ? What about misuse ? Cuz there will be have misuse. What about hacker ? Cuz backdoors will be exploited (already are) by bad guys.
I used to be all for "keep encryption encrypted!!!!1!!!"
But recent worldly events have got me thinking a bit. So many people are so easily corrupted, that i'm beginning to see her point. But at the same time i think privacy IS a fundamental human right.
These are nasty times for all of us. And clearly there is no easy answer.
The recent events show why we need encryption. Fascism is on the rise, it won't take long until they search your messages for anything that goes against their will. That's how they get rid of opponents. Back in the days it was checking letters and depending on neighbors to rat you out either by manipulating them believing that you are the enemy and dangerous for the country or by punishing people that knew what you said against the government etc.
No matter what you believe the easiest way to decide on this is to remember that power change hands all the time. Imagine the person with the most despicable and extreme view (in your opinion) that you know. Imagine that this person holds the power to decide which “doors to unlock” also imagine the most corrupt person that you know, imagine that person with unlimited copies of such key.
Then I ask you , would giving those two people those unlimited copies of everybody keys make you feel safer?
If the answer is no, you would just be making nasty times nastier.