Re:The Belgian government has removed ‘backdoor requirement’...
by 1337shadow on Wednesday December 22, 2021 @03:55AM
(#29646991)
Technical matters to me.
Maybe that's not what was claim, I beg to interpret this law differently, and anyway I disagree with the response that has been given here.
And ... I'm not the only one who interprets the law in question this way:
https://www.nextinpact.com/lebrief/48261/chiffrement-bout-en...
https://www.rtbf.be/info/belgique/detail_un-projet-de-loi-be...
So, you've been under the influence of fake news.
Sorry.
Technical or not it does not matter. It is clear and specific. If you encrypt the messages for someone else too (or if you leak the keys) it is not end-to-end encrypted.
"and at the same time have suspects using two keys instead of one to encrypt"
And regular citizens.
"except that users suspected of a felony would also have the state key in their encryption"
And regular citizens :)
Anyway, in that case it is not end-to-end encrypted because the state is not one of the people communicating.
"that doesn't mean removing other keys!!"
This is not what was claimed.