Britain's long-awaited Online Safety Bill setting tougher standards for social media platforms such as Facebook, YouTube and TikTok has been agreed by parliament and will soon become law, the government said on Tuesday.
Tech companies have said scanning messages and end-to-end encryption are fundamentally incompatible.
Earlier this month, junior minister Stephen Parkinson appeared to concede ground, saying in parliament’s upper chamber that Ofcom would only require them to scan content where “technically feasible”.
Donelan said in response to questions about Parkinson’s statement that further work to develop the technology was needed but government-funded research had shown it was possible.
In practice, I doubt this will have any consequence on encryption, as the title of this post suggests.
Fucking doublespeak (not you). If you can scan it then it isn’t e2ee. Words mean things. E2ee means that the two parties are the only two who can read the message. If there is a way to do any analysis on the message at all then it isn’t e2ee.
While I largely agree with you, technically it is still E2EE even if the encryption is very poor (e.g. hey look I shifted every character by one along the ASCII table).
Poor encryption could then be broken by a party in the middle.
All of that said this is a bit irrelevant, if the encryption is so poor the provider can break it at will, so can bad actors. We don’t use broken (bad) encryption for a reason.
Companies also advertise e2ee while they generate and store the encryption keys on their server. So, it is encrypted all the way, but still easy enough to decrypt when needed. Very technically feasible and still strong against third parties.
The title here said E2EE is made impossible, I was simply saying that is untrue. Clarity matters. It says in the article they removed the bit about banning encryption or requiring back doors to it before it passed.
The rest sucks, as I acknowledged, and they want to make it easier to scan devices that would include messages that have been decrypted upon arrival. There’s already spyware they does exactly that. However, that doesn’t make it so that E2EE is impossible.
This is openly misleading. This sucks, sure, but it doesn’t ban e2ee as the title suggests.
Right there in the article, my guy.
If you can scan encrypted messages then you’ve no longer got e2ee
Removed by mod
1 line below, you can read
In practice, I doubt this will have any consequence on encryption, as the title of this post suggests.
Backdoors make it “technically feasible” to scan “e2ee”. See, it’s all a matter of perspective.
Fucking doublespeak (not you). If you can scan it then it isn’t e2ee. Words mean things. E2ee means that the two parties are the only two who can read the message. If there is a way to do any analysis on the message at all then it isn’t e2ee.
While I largely agree with you, technically it is still E2EE even if the encryption is very poor (e.g. hey look I shifted every character by one along the ASCII table).
Poor encryption could then be broken by a party in the middle.
All of that said this is a bit irrelevant, if the encryption is so poor the provider can break it at will, so can bad actors. We don’t use broken (bad) encryption for a reason.
Companies also advertise e2ee while they generate and store the encryption keys on their server. So, it is encrypted all the way, but still easy enough to decrypt when needed. Very technically feasible and still strong against third parties.
But they’re not mandating such backdoors it seems.
The title here said E2EE is made impossible, I was simply saying that is untrue. Clarity matters. It says in the article they removed the bit about banning encryption or requiring back doors to it before it passed.
The rest sucks, as I acknowledged, and they want to make it easier to scan devices that would include messages that have been decrypted upon arrival. There’s already spyware they does exactly that. However, that doesn’t make it so that E2EE is impossible.