Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

European Court of Human Rights bans weakening of secure end-to-end encryption

eureporter.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 273 posts

Re: European Court of Human Rights bans weakening of secure end-to-end encryption

#121

Post by arethuza »

glitchc wrote: post #98
seanw444 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's worth noting that UK courts can't overturn Acts of Parliament. Interesting. I didn't know this, and as an American, it seems quite odd. Decisions by the parliament are treated as immutable there? Here, if a bill passed by Congress is deemed unconstitutional, it can be struck down by the Supreme Court.

Yup, that's because the UK doesn't have a constitution.

It doesn't have a codified constitution in the US sense but it does have a constitution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin...

Edit: I would certainly agree that having constitution in this form isn't a great idea...

Re: European Court of Human Rights bans weakening of secure end-to-end encryption

#122

Post by smnrchrds »

light_hue_1 wrote: post #109
denton-scratch wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only constitution that the UK has consists of Acts of Parliament. So I don't know why it should seem odd; the US courts can't strike clauses of the US Constitution, and the UK courts can't strike Acts. Amusingly, the UK government is currently trying to pass an Act to the effect that black is equivalent to white, i.e. that Rwanda is a safe country to which asylum seekers can be sent. This is analogous to the Stat…

It's definitely odd! That's not a reason for UK courts not to strike down acts, or more properly, to have judicial review. Take Canada. Canada has a Supreme Court and no written constitution. The formal divorce between Canada and the UK was not long ago so we inherited the same legal framework (modulo Quebec but it doesn't play a role here). Yet the Canadian Supreme Court can and does strike down federal laws! Actual…

Canada's constitution has written and unwritten parts. The Constitution Act of 1982 (which includes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms), for example, is a written part of Canada's constitution. Changing the charter would require the procedure for constitutional change, which is rather difficult. It's not something that can be amended like a normal act of the parliament.

Re: European Court of Human Rights bans weakening of secure end-to-end encryption

#123

Post by JumpCrisscross »

aftbit wrote: post #91
denton-scratch wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only constitution that the UK has consists of Acts of Parliament. So I don't know why it should seem odd; the US courts can't strike clauses of the US Constitution, and the UK courts can't strike Acts. Amusingly, the UK government is currently trying to pass an Act to the effect that black is equivalent to white, i.e. that Rwanda is a safe country to which asylum seekers can be sent. This is analogous to the Stat…

In the US, it's quite hard to change the constitution. It requires agreement from 2/3rds of Congress followed by ratification by the individual legislatures of 3/4ths of the states. Such a thing has not been done since 1992, and not on a politically charged question since 1971.

> Such a thing has not been done since 1992

We’re a 235-year old republic. Changing the firmware once every 10 to 15% of the time seems fine.

> and not on a politically charged question since 1971

This is a feature. If a question is charged it should be resolved first federally, through the states, and then politically, via the legislature. Only once there is consensus should it be elevated to Constitutional status. That is the only way to get a Constitution Americans believe in with intergenerational force.

Re: European Court of Human Rights bans weakening of secure end-to-end encryption

#124

Post by [deleted] »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #14
AJ007 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "e2e" concept that most are familiar with is basically fake: the provider is responsible for the client that does the encryption and decryption. Of course they can break it if forced. Software exploits are a separate matter and also easier to deal with when the end user isn't truly in control of the encryption (or easier if they don't know what they are doing.)

If the client is properly developed and secured, they cannot break it without shipping an update to that client to change its behavior - which then affects everyone.

[deleted]

Re: European Court of Human Rights bans weakening of secure end-to-end encryption

#125

Post by idontpost »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #123
aftbit wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, it's quite hard to change the constitution. It requires agreement from 2/3rds of Congress followed by ratification by the individual legislatures of 3/4ths of the states. Such a thing has not been done since 1992, and not on a politically charged question since 1971.

> Such a thing has not been done since 1992 We’re a 235-year old republic. Changing the firmware once every 10 to 15% of the time seems fine. > and not on a politically charged question since 1971 This is a feature. If a question is charged it should be resolved first federally, through the states, and then politically, via the legislature. Only once there is consensus should it be elevated to Constitutional status.…

[dead]

Re: European Court of Human Rights bans weakening of secure end-to-end encryption

#126

Post by dfawcus »

glitchc wrote: post #98
seanw444 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's worth noting that UK courts can't overturn Acts of Parliament. Interesting. I didn't know this, and as an American, it seems quite odd. Decisions by the parliament are treated as immutable there? Here, if a bill passed by Congress is deemed unconstitutional, it can be struck down by the Supreme Court.

Yup, that's because the UK doesn't have a constitution.

Well it does, in written bits in various places, and some as precedent.

However it is a bit more complex. England has a constitution (that collection above), Scotland has a different (and somewhat incompatible) constitution.

The incompatibility being where the seat of Sovereignty lies. In Scotland with the people, in England with the Monarch (but wrested away by Parliament).

So when the two countries formed the new state of Great Britain, and dissolved their prior states, they granted it a minimal constitution. However they couldn't grant more than they had, and the Scottish grantors did not hold sovereignty. Hence claiming that UK Parliament is sovereign is to presume that England annexed Scotland.

That continuing incompatibility is (IMO) why we've never had a single written GB/UK constitution, and probably never will. It will require addressing the fact that we're acting as if Scotland was annexed, and to put that in writing will cause its own problems.

Re: European Court of Human Rights bans weakening of secure end-to-end encryption

#127

Post by hot_gril »

guappa wrote: post #53
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the client is properly developed and secured, they cannot break it without shipping an update to that client to change its behavior - which then affects everyone.

I'm quite sure they can use the app store to push a targeted update just to some.

No need, push an update to all that only affects certain users. But if anyone ever de-obfuscates that, your reputation is gone.

Re: European Court of Human Rights bans weakening of secure end-to-end encryption

#128

Post by denton-scratch »

denton-scratch wrote: post #83

> The judgement cites using vulnerabilities in the target’s software or sending an implant to targeted devices as examples [of legitimate ways to defeat E2E encryption]. That looks like a bad judgement, to me; exploiting vulnerabilities, or using implants, is generally some kind of criminal hacking. So the court seems to be saying that's not OK, unless you're a government. I.e., governments don't have to obey the law…

> Every EU government gets to plant a judge on the ECHR bench.

Every EU Council member?

Not sure why I was downvoted, because the downvoters didn't care to comment.

Re: European Court of Human Rights bans weakening of secure end-to-end encryption

#129

Post by dfawcus »

zajio1am wrote: post #102
stranded22 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK DOES NOT WANT TO LEAVE THE ECHR. Select people in the government want to, not the whole of UK.

I think it is more correct to use 'UK' (or any other country) just for government and its institutions than for the body of its citizens.

A minor quibble. The UK is a 'state', not a 'country'.

It comprises of countries: Scotland, England, Wales, and a small chunk of Ireland.

Re: European Court of Human Rights bans weakening of secure end-to-end encryption

#130

Post by bemusedthrow75 »

seanw444 wrote: post #73
M2Ys4U wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>While a ruling on a specific case (and law), the Court seems quite skeptical towards any "requirement that providers of such services weaken the encryption mechanism for all users". If I were the UK government, I would be quite worried that the UK Online Safety Bill will be overturned by domestic courts (or the European Court) on the basis of this ruling. It's worth noting that UK courts can't overturn Acts of Parli…

> It's worth noting that UK courts can't overturn Acts of Parliament. Interesting. I didn't know this, and as an American, it seems quite odd. Decisions by the parliament are treated as immutable there? Here, if a bill passed by Congress is deemed unconstitutional, it can be struck down by the Supreme Court.

> Decisions by the parliament are treated as immutable there?

Yes, and no.

Parliament is sovereign -- it is the supreme legal authority.

But it cannot bind its successors. So any law parliament creates, any decision can be overturned by a subsequent parliament.

Post reply on HN