EU Commissioner does not understand how encryption works, yet proposes a law about it

[tridy]

Summary

Ylva Johansson – the EU Commissioner in charge for the Chat Control Bill proposal basically does not understand how encryption works, when introducing the law for scanning the content of the encrypted communication for child sex material. 

 

Quotes

Quote

It’s obvious during the interviews that Ylva Johansson does not understand her own bill and what consequences it would have. She constantly repeats misleading and incorrect arguments. Above all, she continues to claim that it’s possible to scan end-to-end encrypted communication without breaking the encryption. It’s remarkable that the responsible EU Commissioner gets away with this, without tremendous criticism from media and members of the EU Parliament (we know, there are some speaking up, but it’s not enough).

 

My thoughts

Well she has been into family and schools for a long time and maybe she meant good [The road to hell is paved with good intentions]. I think she sees encryption as something that only criminals use and has a bad attitude towards it. She does not understand how it works, or at least did not fully understand it when someone explained to her. Even if she knew how it works, such a law will not solve the problem. And why was only Signal attacked? Does it mean that Meta and Skype are already scanning? What will stop the people from sending password-protected zip files through any messengers? So wrong on so many levels. I do see it as another try to implement the total "surveillance for the masses".

 

Sources

the proposal: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2022%3A209%3AFIN

article (SE): https://www.svd.se/a/wAVRkM/eu-s-chat-control-massovervakning-eller-trygghetsatgard

comments: https://mullvad.net/en/blog/2023/3/28/the-european-commission-does-not-understand-what-is-written-in-its-own-chat-control-bill/

Louis Rossmann reaction: 

 

[will0hlep]

tbh, I'm not surprised the critism is minimal. 1) the appitite for dealing with the types of criminals who are using encryption is high and 2) understanding of encryption across the general populas is really low. Add that together and this is what you get.

 

(For anyone wanting to get an understanding of encryption or learn some really cool history, I highly recommend Simon Sighn's "The Code Book: The Secret History of Codes and Code-breaking". It covers everything important from ancient egypt to the modern asymetric encryption)

(I also recommend Randall Monroe's "What If?: Serious Scientific Answer to Absurd Hypothetical Questions", it's not about cryptography, i just find it funny and think more people should read it)

[Sauron]

Law proposals are some of the least consequential news possible, by the time this is seriously considered for approval there may have been so many changes to the text that it's unrecognizable. I even question the utility of reporting on them at all.

[will0hlep]

11 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Law proposals are some of the least consequential news possible, by the time this is seriously considered for approval there may have been so many changes to the text that it's unrecognizable. I even question the utility of reporting on them at all.

While I agree the law will change alot before getting anywhere near being passed, encryption is an topic/issue that needs promoting and discussing. Too many people understand nothing about how it works, while it plays a super important role in more than half the worlds daily lives. (that being said, maybe there is a better thread to put it in or something).  

[mr moose]

24 minutes ago, will0hlep said:

While I agree the law will change alot before getting anywhere near being passed, encryption is an topic/issue that needs promoting and discussing. Too many people understand nothing about how it works, while it plays a super important role in more than half the worlds daily lives. (that being said, maybe there is a better thread to put it in or something).  

The problem is tech people understand encryption but not the gravity of it's effects in certain activities.  Law enforcement/politicians understand the effects of it, but lack the ethical compass in proposing a solution and journalists can be either but lack the accuracy/honesty in their reporting.

 

[Doobeedoo]

Nothing new people not fully understanding the spectrum of some tech and implications.

[Lightwreather]

I may be wrong, but hasn't this been proposed by the EU already at some point in the past?