Europol Chief Says Big Tech Has 'Responsibility' To Unlock Encrypted Messages (ft.com) 67
Technology giants must do more to co-operate with law enforcement on encryption or they risk threatening European democracy, according to the head of Europol, as the agency gears up to renew pressure on companies at the World Economic Forum in Davos this week. From a report:
Catherine De Bolle told the Financial Times she will meet Big Tech groups in the Swiss mountain resort to discuss the matter, claiming that companies had a "social responsibility" to give the police access to encrypted messages that are used by criminals to remain anonymous. "Anonymity is not a fundamental right," said the EU law enforcement agency's executive director.
"When we have a search warrant and we are in front of a house and the door is locked, and you know that the criminal is inside of the house, the population will not accept that you cannot enter." In a digital environment, the police needed to be able to decode these messages to fight crime, she added. "You will not be able to enforce democracy [without it]."
"When we have a search warrant and we are in front of a house and the door is locked, and you know that the criminal is inside of the house, the population will not accept that you cannot enter." In a digital environment, the police needed to be able to decode these messages to fight crime, she added. "You will not be able to enforce democracy [without it]."
well if apple does something for china they better (Score:2)
well if apple does something for china they better do the same in the EU and USA if ordered by an court
Re:well if apple does something for china they bet (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? Laws, and citizens rights are different in each country. Just because China can demand it doesn't mean it is legal to demand in another country.
Responsibility (Score:2)
Doesn't Europol have a responsibility to solve cold cases?
What, that's not possible? Sounds like a them problem.
"Enforce democracy". These people are so evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Lord Acton as dead on when he said “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exerci
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't Europol have a responsibility to solve cold cases?
Technically not. Europol isn't a police force in the sense of officers with Europol badges solving cases. It is a cooperation agency, it focuses on intelligence and information exchange. Hence them lobbying for an improved information access for other police forces is exactly their main mission (which does not mean I agree with them about encryption).
Europol's main objective is to enhance the effectiveness and cooperation between the law enforcement agencies of the EU member states. To achieve this, Europol facilitates the exchange of information and intelligence, provides analytical support, and offers specialized training and expertise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I agree "enforcing democracy" is a weird. They mean "enforcing the law" but they try to formulate in what they think is a more positive way but it confuses mor
And here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
They will never learn.
The US telecoms US required backdoor has now been totally and utterly compromised by hostile foreign state actors and the US is talking about years to regain full control and kick them all out.
This is something that was supposed to be only accessible to the security services.
Do people really think it's not going to happen again?
Re:And here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
"Forced weakness, even with the best of intentions, places everyone in danger. The nature of a keyhole is to be cracked, and the nature of the Internet is to bring demons to the door. No matter how much we might wish it, there is no way to build a digital lock that only angels can open and demons cannot. Anyone saying otherwise is either ignorant of the mathematics, or less of an angel than they appear."
That video is eight years old, and still manages to succinctly hit the nail on the head.
Anonymity is not a fundamental right? (Score:1, Flamebait)
Granted, we're alr
Re: (Score:3)
I would say we are at the point that anything on a shared networked service can't be anonymous anymore simply because past behavior shows it will be abused. Don't use it expecting anonymity. Don't like it? Use another method to be 'free', because the smarter 'bad guys' already have.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Anonymity is not a fundamental right? (Score:5, Insightful)
We never had anonymity, but we did have privacy. They are looking to take away our privacy and they're calling it anonymity to make it seem scary.
Cops can get warrants and tap endpoints. Being able to decrypt everything is only necessary to spy on everyone, always.
Re: (Score:2)
Phone calls have never been private, just look up the origin of the term 'wire tap.'
People are asking too much of the internet, which is just a magnifier for all the real life crap that used to be less visible.
Re: (Score:2)
We never had anonymity, but we did have privacy. They are looking to take away our privacy and they're calling it anonymity to make it seem scary.
Cops can get warrants and tap endpoints. Being able to decrypt everything is only necessary to spy on everyone, always.
You're absolutely correct. And their example scenario is devised to evade that fact.
A locked house containing a (presumed) criminal is a place. A conversation is a thing-I-know.
If the officers execute the warrant and invade the home incorrectly the worst that has happened is they have trespassed. (This disregards the non-zero cases where someone gets killed.)
If officers execute a "communications-decryption warrant" incorrectly the worst that has happened is they have permanently learned things that
Re: (Score:2)
But, if a service is no longer anonymous the people that don't like it will just find another method to communicate, even a non-criminal such as yourself.
Not if communicating anonymously - or privately - is made illegal. Which is effectively what this policeman is effectively advocating.
Re:Anonymity is not a fundamental right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Anonymity is not a fundamental right, no, it's an absolute right, which has been routinely upheld as something you can't violate. Big Tech has to let law enforcement forcible digitally molest innocent people because some people do bad things? When would that logic ever hold up in court? Keep in mind, what they're talking about is removing any form of privacy, across the board, not just WhatsApp or Telegram, any place or form security / privacy could take, will be completely violated. Granted, we're already violated constantly. For kids to go to school, parents have to sign away any form of digital respect, decency, or moral / ethical functioning. When you go to work, lube up for Daddy Microsoft because he's going in regardless whether you're dry or not. Uncles Google, Amazon, and Facebook aren't any better. Instead of Europol wanting more violation, why not aim for more privacy? I guess because Grandpa Government, wants the last deep thrust and bust?
I think at some point we have to accept the fact that government agencies view *EVERYONE* as already guilty. There are no innocent parties. The assumption is, if you want privacy of any kind, you *ARE* doing something wrong. This is why policing forces and government folks constantly prattle on about the *need* for backdoors. Privacy is for criminal intent in their minds. They don't understand why anyone wouldn't want all communications to be open and public if they aren't doing anything wrong. Or at least that's the persona they are projection when they scream about needing backdoors into every form of communication.
I suppose it's only a matter of time before they say we are legally required to have always on mics and cameras in every room in our home. I mean, if we're doing nothing wrong, why wouldn't we?
Re: (Score:2)
Big Brother is Watching You.
We can only save democracy by killing freedom! (Score:4, Informative)
Democracy as we know it will cease to exist. Our governments, supposedly democratically elected, will see to it. They keep claiming that the *ONLY* way to save democracy is by eliminating freedom. Freedom is apparently the enemy of democracy. And I'm sorry, but encryption can *NOT* have a back door. Any back door is an instant security hole through the encryption, and we've seen time and again that the back doors *WILL* be used by actors outside the government goon squads demanding access to all communication, even "secure" communication.
This call for backdoors into secure communication always ends up being a security hole through which actual enemy actors access the communications. Why do these government good squads think they should have carte blanche access to the entire universe of information? Do we want to preemptively plant bugs in every private residence as well? I mean, people could be talking about actions against the government. Like voting for the opposition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Similarly, unregulated "free" markets lead to monopolies. So it's a paradox, like this one. [wikipedia.org]
But optimal freedom doesn't require decryption when you can instead infiltrate crime networks, like we used to do before somebody got the idea to install encryption backdoors.
Re: (Score:2)
Similarly, unregulated "free" markets lead to monopolies. So it's a paradox, like this one. [wikipedia.org]
But optimal freedom doesn't require decryption when you can instead infiltrate crime networks, like we used to do before somebody got the idea to install encryption backdoors.
Settle down, now. That sounds suspiciously like policework. And as we all know, police forces are no longer interested in the "work" part of the job. Technology exists to do that part for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Like ChatGPT for students and your "average" profession, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit on the free markets. We don't have free markets. Copyright isn't free market. IP isn't free market. These are monopolies provided by the government. All regulations act as a barrier to entry.
If we were truly "unregulated" then I could steal your shit and sell it myself and nothing could be done. If we truly had a free market, you could have competing ISPs instead of the bullshit most of us have to deal with.
This doesn't mean regulations for markets are bad but it's disingenuous to pretend we have a
Tit for tat. (Score:3)
I'm actually fine with this as long as it also applies to financial institutions, governments and the military.
What's that? They're all exempt? Why, I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you!
Enforce Democracy?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Declaring a need to "enforce democracy" is fundamentally flawed.
It's been studied by all kinds of academics, it isn't possible to impose democracy on people who don't or won't choose it.
Democracy is, rather tautologically, something chosen by the people. Democracy in the US looks different from democracy in Japan, or Israel, or Germany, because the people choose to abide by different rules. Democracy only works as long as sufficient people are willing to abide by those rules. It is impossible to have independence and self-determination forced on you, that's the exact opposite of what they are and how they work.
Instead of trying to declare that provable mathematics needs to bend to fit political whims, far better to teach people how to behave broadly and allow people to govern themselves. If a criminals actions can completely be hidden by their own encryption, I'd question just how much harm they are doing. Victims will have plenty of other evidence, the scars of the crime, that can be tied to the criminals. It's certainly easier for law enforcement if they can peek at all hidden secrets, but that isn't possible.
Liberty is the mother not the daughter of order. Is liberty only possible if order is first established by force or does order arise best from an atmosphere of liberty, from free people developing their own interpersonal agreements, arrangements, and accommodations to starve off disorder? -- Benjamin Tucker, 1885
Encryption that can be unlocked is pointless (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Encryption that can be unlocked is pointless (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe but you are not duty bound to have all your curtains open so the police can peep in at any time so they look in just in case.
Re: (Score:1)
As I wrote: " the police come to my house and explain who they are looking for and why".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. And what is the connection to the question at hand? None. You do not know how encryption works, yet you shot your mouth off.
Re: (Score:1)
The bigger the pocket, the easier the coercion (Score:2)
Big tech is eventually going to comply, because they have too much to lose. It will happen.
People need to stop relying on "big" tech, and IMHO one really import thing they can/should do is free themselves from having to rely on big tech's software repositories. The two highest-profile examples of that are the Apple and Google app stores for their mobile OSes. (But desktop Linux users, you might have noticed how your situation eerily resembles the centralized distribution commonly used by mobile users.)
Nobod
Re: (Score:2)
Stop relying on big tech? How else do you think the government is going to keep tabs on us? You may as well just go turn yourself in for your thought crimes now.
They forget... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As Apple has shown, you can compartmentalize.
Just because they let the CCP decrypt the backups for any Chinese iPhone (without ADP, but no one in China should turn that on without an explicit CCP command to do so) does little to backups for iPhones from other nations.
Re: (Score:2)
Just bloody legislate (Score:2)
Legislate, don't bully. Most companies and consumers don't really give a shit about E2EE, but they can't just let Apple slurp up everyone who does. Apple won't be bullied and everyone will be forced to copy them to somewhat compete.
Unlike pretty much everyone I'm ambivalent about allowing E2EE in commercial chat services, obviously wire tapping needs to be better protected than they protect it for GSM. Equally obviously, Apple and Google can already MitM anything through their update mechanisms and that abi
Can you imagine these fools a hundred years back? (Score:2)
I disagree with Europol (Score:2)
Anonymity IS a fundamental right and it has to be that way. The nature of encryption is such that you cannot weaken it without giving rogue nations and criminals total unfettered access to the entire banking system, commerce, healthcare, and critical infastructure such as energy supplies and the water supply.
That's just how it us, and there's no way to avoid it. Your choice us a simple one - either allow people to be anonymous, or provide North Korean hacker groups like Lazarus unrestricted control over eve
The Imitation Game (Score:1)
Sounds like this is your problem (Score:2)
"When we have a search warrant and we are in front of a house and the door is locked, and you know that the criminal is inside of the house, the population will not accept that you cannot enter." In a digital environment, the police needed to be able to decode these messages to fight crime, she added. "You will not be able to enforce democracy [without it]."
You are incorrect. You will be able to fight crime without it. All it actually means is that you haven't taught your citizens mathematics. If a cr
Re: (Score:1)
Plus, if you have a search warrant, the presence or otherwise of someone is irrelevant as search warrants are for places, not people.
Former NSA and FBI boss (Score:2)
"The damage from criminals and spies reading encrypted messages would be much bigger than the benefiit from us reading their encrypted messages".
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And that is why encryption is not outlawed. Not having it or only having the backdoored version would be catastrophic. As all respectable experts have been saying for several decades now.
This will take a while (Score:2)
The sad part is that people like this Europol Chief really think you can have a safe back door to encryption. Admittedly this would be effective against a large number of lazy criminals in the short term, but at a huge cost to the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
I really do not understand how anybody that should know can still be so disconnected from reality. Must be some mental damage that comes from being a police-person. Before the first backdoors basically all experts said they cannot be secured. That has not changed.
Police want to read your mail (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Always the same crap with these people. Of course, they must never get that capability.
Mail carriers first (Score:2)
give them the encrypted messages (Score:1)
Should not even be possible (Score:2)
Apps and devices and their manufacturer should not even be able to give up your security because they should not be in control of it. Devices and apps that control your encryption can always be given up by those manufacturers and they simply should not be in control of the encryption that is used. That should always be plugin based and completely in the control of the user of the app or device.
One day to let America be the stupidest continent (Score:2)
Europe, my dudes, could you have tried for just one day not to make it look like everyone everywhere has lost their minds?
It was a golden opportunity -- a day where your friends across the pond would be the absolute and undisputed champions of idiocy.
Re: (Score:2)
Europol by like "Hold my beer"
Europol chief wants the impossible (Score:2)
What a moron. Why do these people never get the facts first?
Lazy cops versus stupid criminals (Score:2)
Even if no other criminality was profitable, the USA's war on drugs has made certain that there's plenty of money to hire talent to turn encryption algorithms into a brand new customized secure messaging platform belonging to no corporate enti
No right to understand (Score:2)
The search is the right to see, you get to see. Sorry you couldnt understand what you saw, but your search was ABSOLUTELY not impeded in any way.
If we arrange our effects in ways that are not understandable to others, that is on THEM.
I can arrange stacks of quarters on my tables to encode data. My secret on what means what.
A search allows someone to SEE that stack but I dont have to help anyone UNDERSTAND what it means.
Encryption is no different than if I created a small coin-laying-robot that takes words a