101–110 of 656 posts
What would prevent me from writing my own program to do something simple like sending encrypted messages? Or just emails...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As shown on the other side of Atlantic that is worthless when no one upholds the constitution.
I think of constitution as a contract between the citizens and the state and the (judiciary?) Like, constitution both defines the rights of citizens and the limits of those rights and the same goes for the states. I feel as if the creators of constitutions think that it is a set of checks and balances... Just as if how a citizen violates something written in the constitution, the state can punish it. In the same mann…
Its hard because everytime this gets defeated all the EUSSR people just wait a year and try again…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The accepted solution is to have a constitution that says otherwise. Which is a bit complicated here, as the EU has no real constitution and this 'law' (really a regulation) is a blatant violation of the constitutions of countries that did choose to establish secrecy of correspondence.
EU has the Charter of Fundamental rights which is a part of the Treaty of Lisbon which is the constitutional basis of EU: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Right... In the charter, the protection of personal data and privacy is a recognized right. So chat control is also probably against the EU law.
The right to private communications was modified by the ECHR to give an exemption for prevention of crime/protection of morals/etc.[1] and the right to protection of personal data exempts any legitimate basis laid down by law[2].
I imagine they'd be able to figure out some form of Chat Control that passed legal muster. Perhaps a reduced version of Chat Control, say, demanding secret key escrow, but only demanding data access/scans of those suspected of a crime rather than everyone.
Legal rulings also seem to indicate that general scanning could be permitted if there was a serious threat to national security, so once a system to allow breaking encryption and scanning is in place, then it could be extended to what they want with the right excuse.
[1] https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/article/7-respect-privat...
[2] https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/article/8-protection-per...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> prevent them from being pushed over and over Solve the problem it's trying to solve, then it won't be proposed again.
The problem it's trying to solve is mass surveillance...
I wonder where platforms like slack would land in all of this, and how would they go about akeeping people from just using their own encryption e.g. pgp over unencrypted channels? Is public key cryptography too weak to matter?