The fight to protect end-to-end encryption is a never-ending one, and it’s seen some setbacks in recent months, most notably the passage in the U.K. of the Online Safety Act, which (theoretically, for now) empowers the government there to order communications providers like Signal or WhatsApp to bypass the strong encryption on their messages.

Well, here’s some good news for those who are keen on protecting their messages from prying eyes. The European Court of Human Rights said today that, while security services may want to decrypt some people’s communications to fight crime, weakening encryption for some people means weakening it for all—and that would violate human rights law (specifically, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to privacy).

[…]

  • punlex@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    5 months ago

    This is not true, Telegram agreed to cooperate with Russian authorities, Durov met with Russian authorities on this issue, also Russian laws oblige everyone to give out encryption keys, who does not give out will be blocked forever, like Tutanota or Proton, what Telegram did was a PR campaign, Durov is cooperating with Russia.

      • punlex@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        What proof? Do you want me to give you links to Russian laws that oblige all distributors of information to register in a special registry and provide encryption keys to the FSB? These laws can’t be circumvented, how did Telegram suddenly stop being blocked in Russia if it didn’t provide encryption keys? I live in Russia and I know all the laws, the ECHR ruling will not change anything, Durov is still leaking correspondence to the FSB.

        • Haven5341@feddit.deOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Do you want me to give you links to Russian laws that

          This article is not about the Russian law. It is about a judgement by the ECHR (33696/19). You are telling us, that the article is “fake-news” and I asked you to proof your claim. I did my part and delivered the judgement itself. Now it’s your time to proof, that this judgement never happened.

          Edit:

          BTW. this article and the judgement is not about Telegram vs. Russian Federation. It is about Anton Valeryevich Podchasov vs. the Russian Federation with Mr. Podchasov being a Telegram user. That is my current understanding.

          • punlex@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            5 months ago

            These claims mislead users by making Telegram look like a champion of user privacy at its best

            • Haven5341@feddit.deOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              These claims mislead users by making Telegram look like a champion of user privacy at its best

              So what? This is not the topic of this thread. This thread is about a ECHR ruling / privacy and I would like to keep the discussion on topic. I do not care how evil Telegram is.

            • geissi@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              5 months ago

              That is not what the article claims.
              At best it is your own personal perception of the topic.

            • Microw@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              No, only users who have as bad of a reading comprehension as you would be misled

          • punlex@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            5 months ago

            I read this article and there is a lot of untruths, for example that Telegram was able to defeat the Russian government by simply changing the IP address, that Telegram is operating outside the law, not following Russian laws, not giving out encryption keys and not cooperating with the state

            • Haven5341@feddit.deOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              for example that Telegram was able to defeat the Russian government by simply changing the IP address

              Nowhere in the article is “defeat” mentioned. The article reads:

              But all the while, Telegram’s lawyers tried to fight the original give-up-your-keys order in the courts. It had no luck in Russia itself, which is how the case ended up at the European Court of Human Rights.

              Edit:

              This is my last comment. You succeeded in derailing the thread. Congratulations.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    “In so far as this legislation permits the public authorities to have access, on a generalized basis and without sufficient safeguards, to the content of electronic communications, it impairs the very essence of the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the Convention,” the court concluded.

    But the ruling also sings the praises of end-to-end encryption, noting that it protects freedom of expression and “appears to help citizens and businesses to defend themselves against abuses of information technologies, such as hacking, identity and personal data theft, fraud and the improper disclosure of confidential information.” A law obliging a communications provider to decrypt communications “risks amounting to a requirement that providers of such services weaken the encryption mechanism for all users.”

    Same goes for the EU, where the European Commission was recently trying to do the same thing with a proposal aimed at fighting child sexual abuse material—EU lawmakers pushed back, leading to an ongoing deadlock, but again, the war over encryption seems destined to go on forever.

    The European Commission has decided that Apple’s iMessage is not a “gatekeeper,” meaning it doesn’t have to abide by the strictest rules under the new Digital Markets Act—rules that include interoperability with rivals.

    —The increase in Masayoshi Son’s net worth this year, according to Bloomberg, which attributes the SoftBank CEO’s wealth boost to Arm’s soaring stock price (which surged 90% since Wednesday last week, before falling 14% this morning).

    Exclusive: Ex-Salesforce co-CEO Bret Taylor and longtime Googler Clay Bavor raised $110 million to bring AI ‘agents’ to business, by Kylie Robison


    The original article contains 1,182 words, the summary contains 261 words. Saved 78%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!