Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by raxxorrax 2077 days ago
As long as these practices are normal, encryption services need to be expanded and cooperation with sate actors should be minimized, preferably use platforms outside the EU.

The only defense against surveillance of communication channels is to make it technically impossible. Respecting privacy may be a misnomer here, they just have to adhere to EU law, which probably leaves room to let state actors continue exactly as before.

edit: "no mass surveillance without limits" titles techcrunch. As if the "limits" could make mass surveillance acceptable. This article is "fake news" in the original sense, because they actually reduced barriers for mass surveillance.
2 comments
DanBC 2077 days ago
> The only defense against surveillance of communication channels is to make it technically impossible.

The UK has key disclosure requirements in RIPA. There's a 2 year prison sentence (5 years if it's a national security or child indecency case).

Key disclosure: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/part/III

Failure to comply with a notice: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/53

link
Cantbekhan 2077 days ago
Such cases have yet to be ruled upon by the ECHR tho (to which the UK still adheres to this date).

Same issue as the US where the Supreme Court should still rule about this whole right to not incriminate yourself / remain silent by not revealing a password.

No such cases have reached those jurisdiction yet as far as I know?

link
Cantbekhan 2077 days ago
Exactly as I commented too. This ruling could basically make mass surveillance legal in the whole of EU and UK as long as the states set some unspecified limits themselves on how long they keep the data.
link
DanBC 2077 days ago
> This ruling could basically make mass surveillance legal

What makes you think it's not already legal?

link
Cantbekhan 2077 days ago
Well it wasn't completely clear before this ruling (see this analysis from a Belgian Law Faculty which lists the previous cases (https://www.law.kuleuven.be/citip/blog/mass-surveillance-and...).

And some member states never really ruled on the matter clearly.

Now it's pretty clear and I have to agree and re-reading this ruling entirely that this is in fact making mass surveillance legal under an apparent cover of limiting it. Making your initial ending remark completely true.

link