Once encrypted messaging apps are forbidden, what stops criminals from simply implementing encryption at the edges on top of any other messaging platform? This is pointless.
Well, I imagine if they can snoop the messages and what they see "gibberish", that'll be an arrestable offence of "using encryption".
I imagine the Chinese chat apps have this. The above law might not be written anywhere, but if they see chats that are just "noise", they can pay you a visit. Or put you under surveillance.
I guess then one would have to invent coded languages.
Is the title misleading? This looks like a response to the minister of justice in Denmark stating he wants encrypted messaging blocked, not an actual policy.
What are they going to do ban math? That's all encryption is. Just because you block a few services isn't going to prevent anything from being encrypted. I can do end-to-end with just a couple of certificates. Are they going to ban PGP or TLS next? Is everyone going to have to install a Danish root cert, so the gov't can spy on everything?
According to the article they want to ban encrypted chat services. This is of course the dumbest implementation, as (as the article points out), everyone who uses encrypted messaging for illegal purposes will just switch to another lesser known service.
They have different meanings, but that doesn't make them false cognates. The example at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognate is: "Cognates need not have the same meaning, as they may have undergone semantic change as the languages developed independently. For example English starve and Dutch sterven 'to die' or German sterben 'to die' all descend from the same Proto-Germanic verb, *sterbaną 'to die'."
It's the same as what's going on worldwide. With more and more of our interactions moving to the internet, it's become harder for law enforcement to track what's going on. Where they could in the past for example intercept someone's mail and with a warrant potentially open it, that's now not really possible any more. They want that ability again, but now online. With E2E that's of course not possible.
At the same time law enforcement agencies across the world are salivating at the idea of being able to automatically detect crime at scale. To do so they need massive amounts of personal information. This would mean a massive invasion of privacy, but they argue that it's worth it to prevent crime.
Personally I completely disagree with that point of view, as I believe there are better ways to detect crime without having to go through everyone's laundry, but there you have it.
Readit News
I imagine the Chinese chat apps have this. The above law might not be written anywhere, but if they see chats that are just "noise", they can pay you a visit. Or put you under surveillance.
I guess then one would have to invent coded languages.
Haven't we all received a password-protected file and password in the same email?
The minister wants to shut down the service, not will shut them down.
They have different meanings, but that doesn't make them false cognates. The example at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognate is: "Cognates need not have the same meaning, as they may have undergone semantic change as the languages developed independently. For example English starve and Dutch sterven 'to die' or German sterben 'to die' all descend from the same Proto-Germanic verb, *sterbaną 'to die'."
At the same time law enforcement agencies across the world are salivating at the idea of being able to automatically detect crime at scale. To do so they need massive amounts of personal information. This would mean a massive invasion of privacy, but they argue that it's worth it to prevent crime.
Personally I completely disagree with that point of view, as I believe there are better ways to detect crime without having to go through everyone's laundry, but there you have it.