this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2023
264 points (96.5% liked)

Privacy

31268 readers
528 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

Chat rooms

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] slurp@programming.dev -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is openly misleading. This sucks, sure, but it doesn't ban e2ee as the title suggests.

[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 1 year ago (3 children)

and as a last resort develop technology to scan encrypted messages, it has said

Right there in the article, my guy.

If you can scan encrypted messages then you've no longer got e2ee

[–] TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago

They actually took off the E2EE decrypting clause from the bill that got passed. Originally it was there.

[–] mrmojo@beehaw.org 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

1 line below, you can read

Tech companies have said scanning messages and end-to-end encryption are fundamentally incompatible. Earlier this month, junior minister Stephen Parkinson appeared to concede ground, saying in parliament's upper chamber that Ofcom would only require them to scan content where "technically feasible". Donelan said in response to questions about Parkinson's statement that further work to develop the technology was needed but government-funded research had shown it was possible.

In practice, I doubt this will have any consequence on encryption, as the title of this post suggests.

[–] SkyNTP@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Backdoors make it "technically feasible" to scan "e2ee". See, it's all a matter of perspective.

[–] Zelet@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fucking doublespeak (not you). If you can scan it then it isn’t e2ee. Words mean things. E2ee means that the two parties are the only two who can read the message. If there is a way to do any analysis on the message at all then it isn’t e2ee.

[–] Teppic@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

While I largely agree with you, technically it is still E2EE even if the encryption is very poor (e.g. hey look I shifted every character by one along the ASCII table).
Poor encryption could then be broken by a party in the middle.

All of that said this is a bit irrelevant, if the encryption is so poor the provider can break it at will, so can bad actors. We don't use broken (bad) encryption for a reason.

[–] XTL@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Companies also advertise e2ee while they generate and store the encryption keys on their server. So, it is encrypted all the way, but still easy enough to decrypt when needed. Very technically feasible and still strong against third parties.

[–] Bipta@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

But they're not mandating such backdoors it seems.

[–] slurp@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago

The title here said E2EE is made impossible, I was simply saying that is untrue. Clarity matters. It says in the article they removed the bit about banning encryption or requiring back doors to it before it passed.

The rest sucks, as I acknowledged, and they want to make it easier to scan devices that would include messages that have been decrypted upon arrival. There's already spyware they does exactly that. However, that doesn't make it so that E2EE is impossible.