News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The Belgian government has removed ‘backdoor requirement’ from new law. Parent comment

Re:The Belgian government has removed ‘backdoor requirement’... by alpaca128 on Tuesday December 21, 2021 @09:41AM (#29637759)
Police can't even catch terrorists before an attack despite getting warnings from foreign countries and having the suspects on a list. What makes you think that they'll gain anything from an encryption ban when law enforcement is already complaining today about their inability to make sense of the surveillance data they're basically drowning in.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Belgian government has removed ‘backdoor requirement’... by 1337shadow on Tuesday December 21, 2021 @10:21AM (#29638183)
It's not even an "encryption ban law", that's fake news.

> the proposed passage that would have forced companies to decrypt encrypted data upon request by the authorities got removed from the draft law.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Belgian government has removed ‘backdoor requirement’... by piaste on Tuesday December 21, 2021 @11:36AM (#29639030)
Secure E2E encryption makes companies unable to decrypt encrypted data upon request.

Therefore, a law forcing them to decrypt encrypted data upon request necessarily makes it illegal to implement secure E2E encryption. QED.

(If the law only allowed them to share with the government data that was already decryptable by third parties, that would be a different matter. That's what happened to Tutanota in Germany: the tribunal ruled that they had to allow the police to access messages sent as cleartext, but they could not be required to put a backdoor in their E2E clients.)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Belgian government has removed ‘backdoor requirement’... by nopcode on Tuesday December 21, 2021 @11:58AM (#29639306)
"E2E encryption ban" != "encryption ban"
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Belgian government has removed ‘backdoor requirement’... by piaste on Tuesday December 21, 2021 @12:24PM (#29639644)
Semantics. E2E is necessary against a wide array of threat models and is a fundamental part of what can be considered 'pretty good privacy' by 2021 standards (pun intended).

If a government, possessing a working set of quantum computers, chose to ban post-quantum crypto algos only, by the same semantics it could be argued that it would not be a general "encryption ban" either.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Belgian government has removed ‘backdoor requirement’... by alpaca128 on Tuesday December 21, 2021 @02:22PM (#29641011)
I think it's clear we're talking about effective, secure encryption, and that means E2E. Faulty implementations are technically an exception, but I don't think you can argue with that in good faith.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Belgian government has removed ‘backdoor requirement’... by nopcode on Tuesday December 21, 2021 @12:08PM (#29639436)
This is mainly to catch drug cartels.
[ Parent | on HN ]