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

131–140 of 273 posts

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

#131

Post by dukeyukey »

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.

Parliament is sovereign. Basically, as long as Parliament says so, it can do what it wants, although it can be slowed down by institutions like the Supreme Court or the royal family. There is no real separation powers.

Which _sounds_ bad, but the UK has an extremely long history of relative stability compared to basically anywhere else on the planet, so something must be going right.

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

#132

Post by bemusedthrow75 »

arethuza wrote: post #121
glitchc wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

A written constitution doesn't really seem to work out better, though, does it?

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

#133

Post by ko27 »

miohtama wrote: post #96
rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #67

Man, Europe is really setting an example lately for how it's possible to roll out sensible technology regulations.

This decision was needed because the EU was about to ban end-to-end encryption. It’s not the EU commission, but a judge that ruled. AFAIK Commission can still ignore this.

You have it the other way around. Majority of EU member countries wanted to to ban E2E, but the EU institutions prevented that.

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

#134

Post by denton-scratch »

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…

> or more properly, to have judicial review.

I think that in the UK, judicial review doesn't apply to Acts of Parliament. It applies to administrative decisions, so things like employment tribunals, benefits decisions, medical decisions and so on. Judges aren't supposed to be able to reverse legislation (although, in practice, they can fatally undermine it).

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

#135

Post by amarant »

pb7 wrote: post #117
IlikeMadison wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they already do

Do they? Examples?

Spotify, King, DICE and Mojang are some commercial software successes. All from Sweden.

If you don't think the entertainment industry counts for much, I might remind you Linux was originally made in Finland. (Linus Torvalds is half Swede half Finn iirc)

That's just from the top of my head.

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

#136

Post by nadermx »

They also ruled a while ago on site blocking, which has at least been tested in the Mexican supreme court[0]

translated via google "As the United Nations Human Rights Council has stated, blocking an Internet page implies any measure taken to prevent certain online content from reaching an end user. In this regard, it must be taken into account that restrictions on the human right of freedom of expression should not be excessively broad, on the contrary, they should refer to specific content; Hence, generic prohibitions on the operation of certain websites and web systems, such as blocking, are incompatible with the human right of freedom of expression, except in truly exceptional situations, which could arise when the contents of an Internet page are translate into prohibited expressions, that is, classified as crimes in accordance with international criminal law, among which the following stand out: (I) incitement to terrorism; (II) the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence - dissemination of "hate speech" on the Internet; (III) direct and public incitement to commit genocide; and (IV) child pornography. Likewise, the exceptional situation regarding the prohibition of generic restrictions on the right of expression could also be generated when the entire contents of a web page are illegal, which logically could lead to its blocking, as it is limited only to hosting expressions that are not permissible by law. the legal framework."

[0] https://vlex.com.mx/vid/tesis-aisladas-683012725

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

#137

Post by [deleted] »

AJ007 wrote: post #13
nottorp wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's done right, it can't be subverted in case of "emergency" can it? If it's full of bugs, it simply doesn't matter.

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.)

[deleted]

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

#138

Post by simonh »

arethuza wrote: post #121
glitchc wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Frankly, the US system isn't exactly a resounding vindication of written constitutions either. Arguably the UK system has displayed considerably greater flexibility. For example the US president is still basically an elected George III.

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

#139

Post by rmbyrro »

Aachen wrote: post #25
tokai wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its a judgement that will provide precedence. A Pirate Party member of the European Parliament comments because its a core issue to the party. Why would there be anything about the Pirate Party in the ruling?

Why would you include "We Pirates will now fight even harder for our digital privacy of correspondence!" (and then continuing to link their website as a source of truth on the matter) in a non-promotional piece? This is an advertisement, not a news article One which I agree with, to be clear. I'm not opposed to the pirate party's views on digital matters. This party's goals/narrative just has no place in a piece abou…

C'mon, let's let people write pationately about issues they hold in their hearts.

I can totally understand why they're so passionate about this topic in particular. We don't have much left of democracy in the world. If electronic privacy is destroyed like some EU leaders want, there will be close to nothing left.

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

#140

Post by etothepii »

bluGill wrote: post #104
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.

There is also a convention of the states that can change the constitution. It has been talked about by various groups from time to time, but has never happened.

Are you sure? Isn't that how the ban on alcohol was lifted?
Post reply on HN