In other words, “encryption” needs to be listed there as a right, to remove any room for interpretation. Or explicitly listed as an example of a more general right, like the right to private speech (or whatever you want to call it).
And considering the retrieval would certainly be breaking at least a few laws, the people who are going to pull it off are going to be
- nation states
- APTs
- large criminal organizations
- large corporations (corporate espionage)
So you arguably defeat the entire purpose of having encrypted data streams. Sure, the barrier of going and "stealing the keys" is still there, but given the track record large governments have at not leaking data, it is safe to say there would be little barrier aside from legal ramifications if caught.
It’s the same basic idea as an envelope, as in you need to open it to see what’s inside. However, opening it up inherently breaks the object so if you have it unbroken then it’s obvious that nobody has done so. XRay’s being an obvious risk.
That's true, you have to rely on Sony executives to tweet them out instead. https://m.slashdot.org/story/147470
"really locked" is using a wholy misused modifier. Neither are we talking about royal priviliges, nor the distinction to virtualized fantasy. The necessary capability of encryptian is effectivity. The effectivity of regular locks is indeed a matter of concern in the security industry to begin with, as lock picking sessions at Defcon make clear. But, if the fireman's axe shreds the frontdoor, at least there will be no denying that you have been literally hacked.
Now digitally, that's not true. You can keep collecting data without anyone knowing at an unprecedented scale.
But still what? The logic is perfectly correct; ~(a | b) = (~a & ~b)
The courts may not view the police, with a warrant, wanting to see your texts because they believe you're doing something illegal as a form of 'arbitrary' interference.
This new proposal sounds nutty to me, but I think that our various constitutions provide for the possibility of government access to private stuff given legitimacy, proportionality etc.
E2e encryption that is "safe from courts" isn't protected.
They can't do that to the entire public at once because it's not economical, but that's the point.
If cell phones had e2e encryptoions so the normal court-order landline eavesdropping disappeared from law enforcements' toolboxes - there is zero chance they would ever have been allowed in the hands of the public.
But they haven't. They can physically install a listening device at the location in the warrant and thereby record any conversations you make from there. That gives them the same capability they historically had with landlines.
For every phone, you can just slip an antenna under the case (or in the phone's body) and pick up the LCD switching interference – faint though it may be – and figure out what's on the screen from there. Or, you know, CCTV.
Encryption-for-the-masses merely protects from mass surveillance; anyone protecting themselves from targeted surveillance isn't going to suffer from an encryption ban.
Also, so long as metadata is available from cell towers, you can still use the most useful piece of data: that someone's phone was at a crime scene, even if the communication itself was encrypted. That will always be the case (unfortunately also in authoritarian regimes).
Counterpoint: yes it is.
The long story is that encrypted files alone are no use to anyone, so the courts have no more right to it than anyone else. The decrypted text is a different matter. It's supposed to be protected. So you are saying, eventually, if I may interpret it that way, that speech which is protected from the authorities including the courts is not in fact protected from the courts.
Oh, ok, that's not even illogic, just paradox.
Problematicly, if you consider the abstract danger of a key cypher pair a threat, the same goes for the legislatator court partnership. The courts aren't a threat as long as there's no legislation that opens them up to it. So, clearly, the legislation is key to the infringement. This means that legislation has to act in accordance with legislation, which is as difficult to understand for regular joe as function pointer semantics in C++. So it appears to say, simply, that legislation has to act...
That's you and me. Actually though, the law is accordingly a huge tower of abstraction. The moment you try to dereference "the law" it blows up into your face, a group of skilled experts has to drop into debugging mode and, eventually, has to decide if they want to have their access limited even in debugging mode. Well, the system was designed for the hypervisor kernel to access all areas, this seems to be a problem of the virtual OS handling the capabilities for userspace incorrectly.
Bug closed: won't fix.
> Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
unfortunately it also has exemptions for anything a government could reasonably use as justification to restrict this right:
> There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Imagine that some unnamed corrupt government treats your telegram messages as correspondence, but not encryption keys. It then orders Telegram to release said keys (pinky promising not to do anything nefarious with them) because they aren't considered correspondence.
It so happens that there's no point in taking out a warrant against the man-in-the-middle, because he has no access to begin with.
You'll have to get a warrant against one of the ends.
What these proposals would end up doing is to force people to weaken protocols and start spying as a man-in-the-middle, just so that they can be targeted by a warrant.
This is just a little bit silly, I feel; and doesn't really help anyone. I don't think that authorities realize that that is what they're asking for. Usually when it gets explained to them, sooner or later they relent. And then a few years later someone replaces them, and it happens all over again.
So how decides when an attempt is just? Did the British think the American revolutionaries were just in declaring independence?
> No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
I mean wearing my programmer goggles it doesn't state privacy AND correspondence but OR, but still. Not having your personal conversations get intercepted is not too much to ask for, is it?
I mean I get it, if they have a reasonable suspicion they CAN intercept your communications (listening devices, intercepting the phone conversations), but this is not a right they can claim on anyone, and they shouldn't be able to force companies to allow them to listen in. Not arbitrarily anyway (see: Snowden revelations, where it was proven that the NSA just hoovers up anything and retroactively checks if there's anything wrong in there)