Privacy

32191 readers

735 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

Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
Don't promote proprietary software
Try to keep things on topic
If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
Be nice :)

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

264

UK passes "online safety" bill making end-to-end encryption impossible (www.reuters.com)

submitted 1 year ago by El_Dorado@beehaw.org to c/privacy@lemmy.ml

93 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] 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.