Grass,

Fucking liars don’t give a shit about the kids. Not their well being anyways.

Facebones,

Basically nothing being done “for the children” is ever actually “for the children.” It’s just an emotional life hack to do whatever you want and call anybody who calls you on it a pedo.

I know I’m mostly preaching to the choir here but oh well.

XTL,

Any sane country should make a “for the children” or other bs justifications in law or policy proposals immediately punishable.

Donjuanme,

No, there’s no such thing as breaking encryption, they’re trying to outlaw, or require back doors for strong encryption. Outside of a quantum computing miracle expansion, there’s no breaking strong encryption.

moody,

require back doors for strong encryption

That’s what the headline implies. Encryption is useless if a third party can decrypt it.

sudoshakes, (edited )

His point, which seems pedantic, but isn’t, is to illustrate the specific attack vector.

Breaking encryption would mean that the cryptographic process is something that an attacker can directly exploit. This is as close to impossible as it gets in that line of work.

While you can compromise the effectiveness of encryption by subverting it using other attack vectors like man in the middle or phishing or the good old fashioned physical device access, these don’t break the algorithm used in a way that it makes it vulnerable to decrypting other data.

None of those mean an algorithm used like say the ole Two fish encryption is “broken”.

Blowfish Triple DES Twofish RC4 Etc. All are fine and not currently broken. All however cannot protect your data if some other attack vector companies you or your site’s security.

echodot,

This is their stated intention, but there are a bunch of idiots, and even they know it won’t work.

So this will probably end up getting quietly walked back to avoid yet another embarrassing scandal of governmental uselessness, and you’ll never hear about it again. They are currently getting absolutely rinsed in the enquiry, so hopefully they’re feeling a little bit humble at the moment.

zzzzz,

Maybe it’ll be used like “no loitering” laws. Often not enforced, but useful when you don’t like something and can call it illegal.

drwho,
@drwho@beehaw.org avatar

ref, USian “pretext laws.” Trying to pay for something with defaced currency comes immediately to mind.

folkrav,

deleted_by_author

  • Loading...
  • sarchar,

    The owner these companies are apparently liable for correctly policing content on their platform. If they fail, they face jail time. That’s certainly not a risk I’d be comfortable with, so I sure as hell would gtfo too.

    Pasta4u,

    Only an issue for that person if they plan to go to Europe

    m_r_butts,

    deleted_by_author

  • Loading...
  • drwho,
    @drwho@beehaw.org avatar

    It absolutely can be. It would be very easy to do with a little creative BGP routing.

    smeg,
    DirigibleProtein,

    Why are Ofcom and UK Parliament still using https:// ? They should set an example, and stop using illegal end to end encryption!

    Zastyion345,

    I think the MI6 has to do the same on all of their communications too :)

    Redjard,
    @Redjard@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    *MI5

    echodot,

    What? Do not think the MI6 exists? James Bond works for MI6 not MI5

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • privacy@lemmy.ml
  • ethstaker
  • thenastyranch
  • GTA5RPClips
  • everett
  • Durango
  • rosin
  • InstantRegret
  • DreamBathrooms
  • magazineikmin
  • Youngstown
  • mdbf
  • slotface
  • cisconetworking
  • kavyap
  • JUstTest
  • normalnudes
  • modclub
  • cubers
  • ngwrru68w68
  • khanakhh
  • tacticalgear
  • tester
  • provamag3
  • Leos
  • osvaldo12
  • anitta
  • megavids
  • lostlight
  • All magazines