The fight to protect end-to-end encryption is a never-ending one, and it’s seen some setbacks in recent months, most notably the passage in the U.K. of the Online Safety Act, which (theoretically, for now) empowers the government there to order communications providers like Signal or WhatsApp to bypass the strong encryption on their messages.
Well, here’s some good news for those who are keen on protecting their messages from prying eyes. The European Court of Human Rights said today that, while security services may want to decrypt some people’s communications to fight crime, weakening encryption for some people means weakening it for all—and that would violate human rights law (specifically, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to privacy).
[…]
Take that Achsel Voss!
Oh, a fellow bot!
Anyway, Axel Voss ist so 1 Pimmel.
Anyway, Axel Voss ist so 1 Pimmel SEK, open up !
Liar!
The SEK wouldn’t ask me to open up, they open up by themselves!
Oh yes he is!
This is not true, Telegram agreed to cooperate with Russian authorities, Durov met with Russian authorities on this issue, also Russian laws oblige everyone to give out encryption keys, who does not give out will be blocked forever, like Tutanota or Proton, what Telegram did was a PR campaign, Durov is cooperating with Russia.
This is not true,
If this isn’t true, than why is there a judgment from the ECHR on this case? Do you have any proof for your claim?
I too am interested in seeing corroboration of their claim.
Quick googling reveals that it’s unfounded propaganda by the Signal founder: https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2022/03/07/telegrams-billionaire-founder-says-hes-never-provided-ukrainians-data-to-russia/
What proof? Do you want me to give you links to Russian laws that oblige all distributors of information to register in a special registry and provide encryption keys to the FSB? These laws can’t be circumvented, how did Telegram suddenly stop being blocked in Russia if it didn’t provide encryption keys? I live in Russia and I know all the laws, the ECHR ruling will not change anything, Durov is still leaking correspondence to the FSB.
Do you want me to give you links to Russian laws that
This article is not about the Russian law. It is about a judgement by the ECHR (33696/19). You are telling us, that the article is “fake-news” and I asked you to proof your claim. I did my part and delivered the judgement itself. Now it’s your time to proof, that this judgement never happened.
Edit:
BTW. this article and the judgement is not about Telegram vs. Russian Federation. It is about Anton Valeryevich Podchasov vs. the Russian Federation with Mr. Podchasov being a Telegram user. That is my current understanding.
deleted by creator
These claims mislead users by making Telegram look like a champion of user privacy at its best
These claims mislead users by making Telegram look like a champion of user privacy at its best
So what? This is not the topic of this thread. This thread is about a ECHR ruling / privacy and I would like to keep the discussion on topic. I do not care how evil Telegram is.
That is not what the article claims.
At best it is your own personal perception of the topic.No, only users who have as bad of a reading comprehension as you would be misled
I read this article and there is a lot of untruths, for example that Telegram was able to defeat the Russian government by simply changing the IP address, that Telegram is operating outside the law, not following Russian laws, not giving out encryption keys and not cooperating with the state
for example that Telegram was able to defeat the Russian government by simply changing the IP address
Nowhere in the article is “defeat” mentioned. The article reads:
But all the while, Telegram’s lawyers tried to fight the original give-up-your-keys order in the courts. It had no luck in Russia itself, which is how the case ended up at the European Court of Human Rights.
Edit:
This is my last comment. You succeeded in derailing the thread. Congratulations.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
“In so far as this legislation permits the public authorities to have access, on a generalized basis and without sufficient safeguards, to the content of electronic communications, it impairs the very essence of the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the Convention,” the court concluded.
But the ruling also sings the praises of end-to-end encryption, noting that it protects freedom of expression and “appears to help citizens and businesses to defend themselves against abuses of information technologies, such as hacking, identity and personal data theft, fraud and the improper disclosure of confidential information.” A law obliging a communications provider to decrypt communications “risks amounting to a requirement that providers of such services weaken the encryption mechanism for all users.”
Same goes for the EU, where the European Commission was recently trying to do the same thing with a proposal aimed at fighting child sexual abuse material—EU lawmakers pushed back, leading to an ongoing deadlock, but again, the war over encryption seems destined to go on forever.
The European Commission has decided that Apple’s iMessage is not a “gatekeeper,” meaning it doesn’t have to abide by the strictest rules under the new Digital Markets Act—rules that include interoperability with rivals.
—The increase in Masayoshi Son’s net worth this year, according to Bloomberg, which attributes the SoftBank CEO’s wealth boost to Arm’s soaring stock price (which surged 90% since Wednesday last week, before falling 14% this morning).
Exclusive: Ex-Salesforce co-CEO Bret Taylor and longtime Googler Clay Bavor raised $110 million to bring AI ‘agents’ to business, by Kylie Robison
The original article contains 1,182 words, the summary contains 261 words. Saved 78%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
