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."

Comments

The people

[tsa]

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).

Re:The people

[Anonymous Coward]

This has nothing to do with "companies best interest", or maybe you should argue it is in the best interest of the companies.

Strong encryption is in everyones interest, except for politicians with a appetite for totalitarianism. Backdoors etc would be a complete disaster, as amply demonstrated by Intel quite recently.

Re:Children

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Some of us are thinking of the children. We don't think any child should grow up in an authoritarian regime, afraid of their own government, hesitant about having an open mind and communicating honestly with their peers.

Re:What?

[Jack Malmostoso]

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.

Actual relevant draft

[Anonymous Coward]

The providers of electronic communications services shall ensure that there is sufficient protection in place against unauthorised access or alterations to the electronic communications data, and that the confidentiality and safety of the transmission are also guaranteed by the nature of the means of transmission used or by state-of-the-art end-to-end encryption of the electronic communications data. Furthermore, when encryption of electronic communications data is used, decryption, reverse engineering or monitoring of such communications shall be prohibited. Member States shall not impose any obligations on electronic communications service providers that would result in the weakening of the security and encryption of their networks and services.

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!

Misleading Article

[Notabadguy]

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.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.