- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
- technology@lemmy.world
- hackernews@derp.foo
- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
- technology@lemmy.world
- hackernews@derp.foo
You must log in or register to comment.
Maybe they finally researched enough to understand that it was impossible to backdoor messaging encryption without compromising its security permanently, like everyone who knows enough about it was already telling them.
And when you say “was already telling them” what you really mean is “has been constantly telling them since the first time this came up in politics in the 90s”. This is not ignorance, this is deliberate.
Parliament firmly rejected rules which would force companies to scan huge volumes of people’s private messages – instead now requiring there to be reasonable suspicion
One of the main concerns was that end-to-end encryption would be effectively prohibited, not just “undermined.” With respect to that, there is no difference between mass scanning of people’s private messages and selective scanning of people’s private messages based on suspicion. If you have strong end-to-end encryption both are equally impossible.
That this is so often misunderstood or neglected in statements like this one is worrying. According to Patrick Breyer’s comments though, “End-to-end encrypted messengers are exempted.”
Thank god!
Praise the lord!
Halleluja!
You’re supposed to capitalize LORD, you infidel!
deleted by creator
Phew… didn’t expect that though
I did. The European Parliament has its faults, but they usually make sensible decisions in the interest of the EU citizens.
Right. It’s often the European commission that comes up with insane ideas which are then reported as “it will probably happen”, before the parliament votes it down.
För now. Elections are next year and I’ve read that it could result in a massive shift to the right. I fully expect more lobbyism from companies to be more succesful… We’ll see I guess.
Decision was probably based on the fear of having their own corruptive actions found?
/jk
