undefined | Better HN

0 pointslukan5mo ago0 comments

"I don't really know how I can make my position any clearer, but..."

You could state in plain words what do you propose as an alternative.

I read what you wrote, but have no idea what you propose.

0 comments

ZeroConcerns5mo ago

> I [...] have no idea what you propose

It's literally the last item in my list?

But to further clarify: I would like existing lawful interception laws to be extended to services like Signal.

Not in the sense that any EU country should be able to break Signal crypto (as ChatControl proposes, and which I think is an utterly ill-advised idea), but that competent law enforcement agencies should be able to demand unencrypted Signal communications from/to an identified EU party, for a limited time and purpose, upon a (reviewable) judicial order.

Most, if not all, EU countries currently have similar laws applying to telegrams, snail mail, email, telephony and whatnot. If you don't like those either, that's fine, but that's the status quo, and I would like to see that extended to services like Signal, as opposed to incompetently dumb measures like ChatControl...

lukanOP5mo ago

Ok, so you want to break Encryption by law demand. Because this is what this means. Or how exactly would it work, technically? Signal does not know the private key of the 2 parties. Signal would have to inject a infected update into the client .. which is also malware. I rather have just those on target devices with a warrant, instead of breaking all encryption.

Or would you go extreme and outlaw decentraliced encrypted communication alltogether?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse