Germany Says “Hell, No” To EU Proposal To Outlaw Encryption
from the good-for-them dept
Last month, we noted that there was a new “protect the children” bill that was proposed in the EU that would effectively outlaw encryption, while simultaneously require full internet scanning of basically all activity.
As we noted in our post, it was still early in the process, and now the German government has stepped up to say that this proposed regulation is a terrible idea and would devastate basic human rights. That’s exactly right.
The German government in the past weeks repeatedly slammed the bill as an attack on privacy and fundamental rights, with its digital minister Volker Wissing warning this week that the draft law “crosses a line.”
In response, the EU Commissioner who is championing the proposal tried to insist that the proposal is much more narrow than people are making it out to be, but that’s wrong. It’s based on the faulty assumption that you can magically keep end-to-end encryption while simultaneously be able to scan messaging communications for certain content. That’s not possible.
Hopefully that puts a quick end to this proposal, but I fear it will keep popping up quite a bit over the next few years.
Filed Under: csam, encrypted messaging, encryption, germany, human rights, scanning, security
Comments on “Germany Says “Hell, No” To EU Proposal To Outlaw Encryption”
OMFGA! Will they never learn? In the UK, handguns are banned even to Olympic shooters, so when you do see one, it’s either a prop or in the possession of a criminal. Before that, alcohol was banned for nearly 14 years in the US, and all the bootlegging that resulted gave rise to the likes of Al Capone and even the current war on drugs. Seriously, when anyone tries to ban something that isn’t harmful (or is less so) in the hands of the responsible user in the name of ‘preventing crime and disorder’, guess what? It only leads to more crime and disorder.
Re:
Here is a video summarizing what firearms are legal under UK law.. The ban is not as complete as you think.
Re: Re:
Could you please go back and read what I said again? I didn’t say ‘firearms’ as you clearly believe I did, I said ‘handguns’. There is a difference, you know.
“In the UK, handguns are banned even to Olympic shooters, so when you do see one, it’s either a prop or in the possession of a criminal”
Not strictly true, exemptions and licences have been issued for such purposes, mainly around the London 2012 games and the 2014 Commonwealth games in Glasgow.
“Seriously, when anyone tries to ban something that isn’t harmful (or is less so) in the hands of the responsible user”
The trick is to define “harmful” and “responsible”. Alcohol and drugs can certainly be harmful, while a great many of the recent mass shooters in the US were responsible gun owners up until the day they decided to play for a high score. The trick is to find a balance between restricting access to irresponsible and harmful uses while allowing everyone else to carry on as normal.
I don’t think there’s a way for a sane and responsible person to state that encryption has enough harmful or irresponsible uses to outlaw its acceptable usage, however.
Re: Worrying principle
Free speech has its share of abusers and irresponsible users. The implication of the logic allowing bans should be deeply worrisome.
Re: Re:
And here’s yet another fool skim-reading the OC and putting 2+2 together for a total of five.
Re:
Alcohol and drugs can certainly be harmful, but that doesn’t excuse banning alcohol to people who drink in moderation (as in the US from early 1920 to late 1933) or cannabis to people with epilepsy where they need it to control their seizures.
Re:
Not strictly true, exemptions and licences have been issued for such purposes, mainly around the London 2012 games and the 2014 Commonwealth games in Glasgow.
Which exemptions were only for those events and not for Olympic shooters in general, who still must travel to Northern Ireland or Switzerland if they want to train in their sport in other years. So I guess your only point was to “prove Autie wrong,” at which you failed epically.
germany have learned it’s past mistakes
https://www.techdirt.com/2021/06/04/google-facebook-chaos-computer-club-join-to-fight-new-german-law-allowing-government-spies-police-to-use-trojans-against/
A 180.
Re:
That was before the election last year, when conservative CDU/CSU was senior party in power and Horst “there’s no party right of the CSU” Seehofer was minister of the interior.
Volker Wissing on the other hand is member of most liberal FDP. His defence of personal liberties is to expected.