Slashdot Mirror
European Parliament Committee Endorses End-To-End Encryption (tomshardware.com)
The civil liberties committee of the European Parliament has released a draft proposal "in direct contrast to the increasingly loud voices around the world to introduce regulations or weaken encryption," according to an anonymous Slashdot reader. Tom's Hardware reports:
The draft recommends a regulation that will enforce end-to-end encryption on all communications to protect European Union citizens' fundamental privacy rights. The committee also recommended a ban on backdoors. Article 7 of the E.U.'s Charter of Fundamental Rights says that E.U. citizens have a right to personal privacy, as well as privacy in their family life and at home. According to the EP committee, the privacy of communications between individuals is also an important dimension of this right...
We've lately seen some EU member states push for increased surveillance and even backdoors in encrypted communications, so there seems to be some conflict here between what the European Parliament institutional bodies may want and what some member states do. However, if this proposal for the new Regulation on Privacy and Electronic Communications passes, it should significantly increase the privacy of E.U. citizens' communications, and it won't be so easy to roll back the changes to add backdoors in the future.
Security researcher Lukasz Olejnik says "the fact that policy is seriously considering these kind of aspects is unprecedented."
We've lately seen some EU member states push for increased surveillance and even backdoors in encrypted communications, so there seems to be some conflict here between what the European Parliament institutional bodies may want and what some member states do. However, if this proposal for the new Regulation on Privacy and Electronic Communications passes, it should significantly increase the privacy of E.U. citizens' communications, and it won't be so easy to roll back the changes to add backdoors in the future.
Security researcher Lukasz Olejnik says "the fact that policy is seriously considering these kind of aspects is unprecedented."
Obviously they didn't think of the children though. My next proposal with be called "Think of the Children" and will require full Internet histories of everyone to be collected and stored in perpetuity.
Isn't it amazing how the EU time and time again installs regulation that benefits the people who live there, even if that means going against companies best interests? And still many inhabitants of the EU think they don't benefit from it (although those numbers are going down thanks to Brexit).
-- Cheers!
Seems that while the UK is pushing to become little America and America is spying on everyone + their dog the EU is pressing ahead with bettering the lives of its citizens.
All the weak encryption and spying in the world di not prevent trucks and cars being driven over people or the Boston Marathn bombing. Heck even when they have the intelligence they are hard pressed to do something meaningful about it. - bulk surveillance is not a terrorism preventative measure.
As an aside, a moron called Nigel Farage called the EU "a failed social experiement" - one only needs to look at Nigel's social life to realise what failure is.
The fact that the UK is out of the EU now, is probably the reason this could happen.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Hey, it's only meant to protect E.U. citizens. They didn't say anything about the smelly sand people that aren't true Europeans to begin with.
(beware of sarcasm)
Mrs. May? Could we have your statement on this matter?
Mrs May's statement: "Strong and stable leadership..."
The UK isn't out of the EU yet. It will most likely remain a member for about two more years.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
They're too busy getting out to stop it.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
"We're installing this mandatory door on your house that only the government and the government only can open we swear."
Yes, Mrs. May, that's something Britain lacks, but that was not the topic now.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
One very important point: The European Union is not responsible for the security or defence of the people in the European Union. That's a responsibility for the individual countries.
The hardest part of these regulations is balancing out security and privacy, and for the EU it's simple -- they're not responsible for security. So this is largely meaningless.
True, but right now even if the UK were to complain about this resolution they would be ignored.
They are not out yet, but they have lost their voice already.
Close the N.S.A.'s Back Doors. (New York Times, Sept. 21, 2013)
NSA's own Hardware Backdoors May Still Be a "Problem from Hell". (MIT Technology Review, Oct. 8, 2013)
This 'Demonically Clever' Backdoor Hides In a Tiny Slice of a Computer Chip. (Wired.com, June 1, 2016)
Expert Says NSA Have Backdoors Built Into Intel And AMD Processors. (Eteknix, 2014)
When spyware is detected, that particular vulnerability is fixed:
Red alert! Intel patches remote execution hole that's been hidden in chips since 2010. (The Register, May 1, 2017)
Intel Active Management Technology, Intel Small Business Technology, and Intel Standard Manageability Escalation of Privilege (Intel Corporation, May 5, 2017 ) Quote: "Severity rating: Critical"
This may sound good on the surface on it, but it may have unintended consequences.
For example, can you still offer unencrypted web sites at all under this regulation? If you can't, doesn't that mean that every web site may have to register with a certificate authority?
Conversely, in order to comply simultaneously with this regulation and hate speech and libel laws, wouldn't web sites have to require more identification and authentication?
And what's the need for such a regulation anyway? All governments need to do is not to refrain from making cryptography illegal. Mandating cryptography seems as much of an unwise overreach as prohibiting it.
Mrs. May's statement: "Good encryption costs too much."
Like good building practices.
And the Tories wonder why Labour kicked their asses.
--
BMO
Isn't that akin to making burglary illegal?
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
I don't understand why the summary is saying that the parliament demands end-to-end encryption be "enforced" while the title says "endorsed". This draft bill basically says that when you are not already providing communication over a secure channel, you should protect the users by encryption at their ends, using a sufficiently up-to-date method. Of course this is very vague on the technical requirements (hence enforceability), and I expect a lot resistance from the businesses if this part is going into the final act as it is now.
The real gem, though, is the provision against Member States deliberately weakening security. This is not legislative meddling in tech (which is problematic even if good-intentioned), but a direct legislative safeguard against the crazy state of political atmosphere that is on the verge of cyberauthoritarian dystopia, as it stands now.
Hear hear, honourable members!
You make an interesting point, but the fact that security isn't the primary responsibility of the EU doesn't mean the EU can ignore it in setting rules.
The European Convention on Human Rights is part of EU law, so EU explicitly must protect individual rights. But it goes without saying that it also has to take into account the governments' ability to provide security and law enforcement. This is why law requires specially trained experts, who even so still get things wrong a lot of the time.
Effective governance requires a comprehensive view of all the conflicting duties and goals. You can make rules that simply ignore security, but as soon as people feel threatened they'll simply work around the rules. So you can't effectively protect individual rights by pretending that security just isn't a concern.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
For US Citizens, the gravity of this situation would be translated thusly:
The House subcommittee on Civil Liberties has accepted a proposal written by the ACLU and EFF advocating End-to-End Encryption.
That's it.
It hasn't been submitted to the house as a bill, it isn't making the rounds to garner legislative support, it simply exists as a proposal, and in doing so has made the news.
There is a current trend in some EU countries that want to violate the basic rights granted by their their respective constitutions or bill of rights. Rights that are supposed to apply to all humans or natural persons and not only to citizens. So I found the wording to be peculiar, because in fact the paper refers at one point not to "everyone" or "all individuals" but to "citizens" in the text proposed by the commission. In the amendment part however the citizens part is replaced with all individuals. You can look it up in this source on page 34.
Isn't the EU there to unify the rules (of which privacy is a part, not that this would pass), to facilitate trade amongst its members? It's more of an interstate commerce commission that suffers from mission creep. Goes with the territory.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The convention on human rights is a European Council convention. The European Council is a body separate from the European Union. The European Council has more than 40 members, many of which are not EU members.
I do agree that the EU is responsible for many regulations that push for increased protection of citizens' privacy though.
They didn't. The Tories still have the most votes, the most seats and aren't a million miles short of an overall majority.
I bet the first thing Maggie II thought when she heard was that it was lucky it didn't happen a couple of weeks earlier.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The UK isn't out of the EU yet. It will most likely remain a member for about two more years.
They will certainly remain a member for almost two more years.
Former EU Commissioner Karel De Gucht doubts that the UK will be able to get their Brexit together, and estimates there is "a serious chance" Britain will eventually remain in the European Union.
The effects are starting to be felt, and parts of the government are already hinting about the damage of leaving the EU. Hell, they've even admitted that an extremely good deal is needed otherwise the NHS is screwed. The EU provides support to some of the poorest areas of the UK, ironically the same ones that had the heaviest Leave votes. We're already seeing a backlash now people realise they're going to be out of pocket if we leave - the anti-EU Democratic Unionist Party is already scrounging for cash to replace lost EU funding a part of its deal to keep the Conservatives in power.
I give things until the end of the year, before Brexit collapses and we can hopefully go back to tackling the real issues that affect the UK. I was out canvassing during the election, and it was incredible how many people voted to leave and now regret it. The surge in support for Labour came from those people.
Lets face it, if we do leave then the UK population is going to quickly discover that the government and media are the cause of most of our social and economic problems, not the EU.
And from those lying though their teeth. Otherwise there would be no need for "loud voices", as convincing arguments would be available. For a ban on secure encryption, no convincing arguments exist, and such a ban would be excessively destructive to a modern economy.
My guess is this committee asked some actual experts, unlike fundamentally stupid and power-hungry people like May, Trump, etc. like to do.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
We didn't just backdoor all your crypto willy-nilly! NO way citizen, we had a discussion about it, don't you remember? It was you, the citizens, that had decided that this was a good idea, and we've just been enforcing the will of the people. Now, remove that unauthorized encryption, and provide all your private keys immediately. Like in the deal.
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
They will certainly remain a member for almost two more years.
There's nothing certain about it, in either direction. Neither an abrupt early exit under the current UK administration nor an effective extension through some sort of transition arrangement if negotiations are going well for all concerned but not yet concluded by the original deadline is out of the question at this point.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
People have been claiming a backlash is build now that others have seen the light since about 24 June 2016. It's like the year of Linux on the desktop or the release of Half-Life 3.
In reality, there is very little evidence of "bregret" on the Leave side, and increasing evidence that about half of the people who voted Remain are now "re-leavers" who think the government should respect the result of the referendum and leave even though it isn't what they personally wanted.
Given that the Labour policy at the election was also to leave, while other major parties campaigned on a much more pro-EU position and didn't do particularly well this time, I think your argument that the surge in Labour support came from regretful Leave voters is unrealistic.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Why do pro-European advocates always talk about the amount of money Regions in the UK receive from the European bodies ? Heads-up : It's the UK's money so start with. We are a net contributor to the EU so we pay in more than comes out. Switch out the funding source from Europe to the UK. As for some of the poorest areas voting leave it's those poorest areas who getting hammered hardest by free movement and businesses relocating to cheap plants in Eastern Europe. As for people voting leaving and regretting- bullshit. All polls show the vote to be higher now - people want it done. Oh since you are obviously a labour party activist [Momentum ?] please square your pro-Eu standpoint with your Leaders avowed wish to get out. Both the Labour and Conservative parties support Brexit in their manifestos, the only difference is the end state. p.s. Labour still lost the election.
The UK population is going to quickly discover that the government and media are the cause of most of our social and economic problems, not the EU.
The areas of the country that were solid Labour areas for decades swung to the pro-Brexit camp for the exact reason that the European model has seen their jobs evaporate to Eastern Europe and the population rocketing due to immigration from Eastern Europe. That response may have a racial tinge; it may be wrong but it's there and putting your head in the sand and going "La La La" wont' change it.
The Pro-European campaign before the Referendum treated the population like mugs and the establishment and the Government got hammered for it. We even had the wonderful sight of a multi-millionaire Irish Citizen [Bob Geldof] sitting on the private yacht belonging to a Global Financial Firm flicking the V to a group of Fisherman who wanted out of Europe - a group whose livelihood has been destroyed by EU Fishery policy [hint : The huge factory ships that haul in everything that swims in the Sea aren't British]. That for me summed up the Pro-European movement : "Shut up peasents and do what you are told".
Labour didn't "kick their asses". Labour didn't win enough seats for a First Past the Post system. Even if you add in the SNP fruitcakes, the Libs, the Greens and those ardent warriors for peace Sinn Fein it's not enough.
The Tories need the Unionists for a coalition.
If Corbyn had the numbers with Sinn Fein included he would be talking to them trying to get them to take their seats although I would suggest that large combination would be as stable as a one-legged stool.
Mind you according to Momentum Corbyn has won Government and Diane Abbott thinks they have a majority of 12 million.
But Westminster won't fund those programmes, and the EU did, so your argument falls incredibly flat.
From Arizona???
They are not out yet, but they have lost their voice already.
Let us hope.
Lets face it, if we do leave then the UK population is going to quickly discover that the government and media are the cause of most of our social and economic problems, not the EU.
The London government has pretty much always been an enemy of the people at large in the modern era.
My guess is the surge of Labour voters came more from the realization that May tries to be like Thatcher, and a lot of Brits do actually remember those times.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
There's also suddenly a lot less public appetite for throwing away a load of regulations after a tower block burned down killing a load of people because the UK allows the use of an insulating material that Germany and the US have banned as having a too-high fire risk.
Amusing fact if you were canvasing for Labour: of all of the key policies in their manifesto, leaving the EU had the lowest approval rating (though apparently there's a mandate for that, but not for properly funding the NHS or nationalising the railways, for example).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Why do pro-European advocates always talk about the amount of money Regions in the UK receive from the European bodies ? Heads-up : It's the UK's money so start with. We are a net contributor to the EU so we pay in more than comes out.
So you'd rather trust the London government to invest that money in the poorer regions? The reason that people bring it up is that, between Brussels and London, Brussels has a far better track record of investing in the poorer areas of the UK.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Everyone EXCEPT Remoaners realises that the UK can issues the same grants without the expensive middle-man taking his cut.
Take a look at your tax statement this year (you do pay tax in the UK, right?). It will have a breakdown of the amount that you're paying into the EU. Notice how tiny a percentage of the total tax revenue that is. Notice how it's far less than you're paying in council tax (assuming that you're not a student or otherwise exempt from council tax). Now, compare the proportion of that money that is spent improving the quality of poorer regions in the UK and investing in UK infrastructure than the proportion of the remainder. Now tell me who you'd rather have spending your taxes.
Or, if you don't want to do this on a purely financial basis, compare the EU data protection office with the actions of the UK's regulator ('oh, you just gave loads of medical records to Google / Deep Mind without consent of the patients? I'm sure that's fine') and tell me which you'd prefer having control over privacy. Or compare Theresa 'Encryption bad, must backdoor everything' May's attitude with TFA and tell me who you'd prefer.
The problem with the leave arguments is that almost all of the negative things about the EU (concentrating power in the Commission rather than the Parliament, pushing pro-corporation trade treaties, and so on) were pushed hard by the UK government's representatives in the Council of Ministers and over the objection of other EU countries. You don't like these things, so you'd rather give more power to the people responsible for them.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I give things until the end of the year, before Brexit collapses and we can hopefully go back to tackling the real issues that affect the UK.
I really hope you are right. I think a lot of people are deeply frustrated with being governed by a group of people, whose only qualification is that they feel entitled to tell others what to do. And it isn't just in government we see this - I think anyone who has had a highly skilled job, like an engineer, software developer, medical doctor etc, recognises this: you are ruled by incompetent managers, who happened to have the right connections and feel they have the right to rule; they boast of their great successes, when they actually just had an easy ride, and then they fail spectacularly and take the company down with them, even though it could have been avoided, had they just been competent.
I don't know if Corbyn's promises can hold - I think it is possible, but it will not be as easy as their manifesto claims. And I know that we can't go on being ruled by incompetent fools, and he at least seems to be genuine. A guy who grows his own vegetables has to have his feet on the ground, I would have thought ;-)
The UK isn't out of the EU yet. It will most likely remain a member for about two more years.
And likely never will be. In the recent election, the only parties still campaigning for a hard Brexit got 0 seats. T-May and the Conservatives shrewdly changed tack from hard to soft Brexit half way thought the campaign, this cost them a few votes from the extreme right, but it gave them a lot more votes from the moderate right. In retrospect, the backflip paid off for them and is probably the only reason they still have enough numbers to form a government.
Europe will never offer us a good deal on Brexit, So everyone is just looking for a graceful way out that saves face.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Take a look at your tax statement this year (you do pay tax in the UK, right?). It will have a breakdown of the amount that you're paying into the EU.
For those too lazy or scared to look the numbers up, the amount the UK is scheduled to pay is £17 billion, However we have an instant rebate of £4 billion, reducing the invoiced total to £13 billion. Over £4 billion of that comes back to the UK in the form of EU spending (mostly on the poorer regions of the UK and NI) so the balance is actually £8.6 billion.
This may sound like a lot, but realistically this is a tiny amount of the £730 billion collected by HMRC,
The NHS costs £116 billion in comparison, state pensions are £74 billion. What we pay to the EU is a drop in the bucket, what we'll lose by leaving the EU is a good portion of 44% of the UK's trade. If the HMRC's receipts go down by 10% (which is a very optimistic projection, realistically we're looking at losing more than 10%) that's £74 billion, that is a deficit of at least £61 billion not taking into account the cost of replacing the EU's spending in the UK.
However Brexit will never come to pass because the EU will never give us free access to the single market and the UK knows it's economic suicide to leave the single market. Right now, everyone is just looking for a way out that saves face. I know 3 people who voted leave, 2 have changed their minds having seen what has happened to the UK economy, the 3rd is almost quite literally a Nazi (seriously, he opposes the human rights accord, I understand conservatism, but he's a proper right wing nut job).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
We've seen this combination of negativity about any future deal and wishful thinking about reversing the leave decision since the day after the referendum. Please change the record, because regardless of where you stand on Remain vs. Leave, endlessly repeating this same position simply isn't constructive at this point. Your sig is ironic: it seems you are just hating without actually making much of an argument for anyone to rebut.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Which is exactly why the "United Kingdom" is no longer a useful phrase. The odds of Scotland seceding within a few years is better than evens, and the Welsh and Geordies are starting to get restive.
At this time, it's three kingdoms and a Plantation held together by centralised control and taxation. I don't see that lasting.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Of course the EU will never allow a non-EU country access to the single market without extracting significant concessions on internal law, movement of people, etc. I've spent enough time working in Norway to know that. The EU know they need to charge a hig price for access to that market, and they do.
Consequently also, the EU knows that it needs to discourage leaving. With the proverbial soft words and a big stick.
If Britain tries to back out of Brexit, I suspect that conversion to the Euro is going to be a part of the price of re-entry. IF they allow us back. Having the economic wreckage of a nation on it's coasts might be a useful deterrent to defectors - kind-of like displaying the quartered remains of traitors above the gates of a city.
What - did I hear a politician hoping to get a good deal from the Brexit negotiations?
Anyway, I've got my dual nationality, I really don't give a shit what happens to Britain.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Remember - their ability to form a government is at the behest of Sinn Fein. If they choose to back-track on their tradition of not taking their seats in parliament, then May is back to the most slender of majorities - 2 votes if you count the Speaker, and drag people into the Commons in their hospital beds (it has been done before).
Now, I understand why Sinn Fein have that policy - it dates back to the first woman elected to a parliamentary constituency - and I respect that choice. But given a sufficiently high price (e.g., a permanently open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, or the UK becoming a Republic), it must be a position they're considering. They're politicians - prices are negotiable, but do need to be paid (which is why the Liberals are not available for coalition, after the knifing they got in their previous coalition).
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Oh, we're still working to undermine the Brexit vote - after all, in THIS country of the DisUnited Kingdom, we voted to Bremain. But why waste time doing it on a site dominated by Septics?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
I have no problem with discussing the ideas or advocating your preferred outcome. In fact, I encourage everyone to do so, because constructive discussions about the pros and cons of different ways forward is exactly what we need right now. (I believe this is true regardless of which way someone voted in the referendum or why they chose to vote that way.)
But I don't see the point in just endlessly claiming the world will end after Brexit. Obviously the nature of any future relationship is important, but whatever happens, some things will be better for some people and some things will be worse for some people. That remains true even in the extreme cases of reversing the decision to leave or walking away with no deal and falling back on WTO rules for a while. When hardcore Remain voters say silly things about the world ending if we don't stay in the Single Market, or hardcore Leave voters says silly things about our society disintegrating because we let half a dozen immigrants in, they just look ill-informed and make it hard for anyone interesting in actually finding a good way forward to take them seriously.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I'm still planning to leave the UK to remain in Europe. The UK then becomes someone else's problem.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"