11–20 of 273 posts
Also, here's a better article: https://fortune.com/2024/02/13/end-to-end-encryption-russia-...
Is there an exception for emergency purposes?
When there is an emergency to break into a house, the police needs to get a mandate from a judge.
It was used many times during the pandemic: when they suspected you were having too many people over at home, they acted. Unconstitutionally, mind you.
The EU is not the utopia many think it is.
Is there an exception for emergency purposes?
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.
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.)
Better read the decision.
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng/#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-230854...}
CASE OF PODCHASOV v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 33696/19)
Is there an exception for emergency purposes?
There’s a quote from some party member who doesn’t seem directly involved, and almost no information about the actual case / ruling.
I am a bit confused. The article seems fairly political, quoting some promotional text by the pirate party and not describing what case was brought in front of a judge and what the ruling bans specifically, so I clicked through to the actual court case linked at the bottom. It has nothing to do with the pirate party or chatcontrol or any such thing. The court case was one person against the Russian government for fin…
The article is semi-garbage (politics aside it is a badly written/biased article). Better read the decision. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng/#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-230854... } CASE OF PODCHASOV v. RUSSIA (Application no. 33696/19)
And the actual decision is quite readable; on a quick skim it seemed to agree with what the article said.
The article is semi-garbage (politics aside it is a badly written/biased article). Better read the decision. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng/#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-230854... } CASE OF PODCHASOV v. RUSSIA (Application no. 33696/19)