Hungarian government briefly proposes to criminalize encrypted services
mappingmediafreedom.org
mappingmediafreedom.org
However, it appears that after some consultation with people that had a clue - of which Hungary actually has a large number - the government has decided that would be a Bad Idea and has tabled the plans.
Source: Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (http://tasz.hu/en/news/hungarian-government-plans-enforce-en...).
This is actually very typical of Fidesz (Orbán Viktor's ruling party). They love making abrupt and sweeping changes to the law, then leaving everybody else to pick up the pieces. Occasionally, cooler heads prevail before the law is actually broken, but normally there's just a mess.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/table
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/table
Interestingly it seems that the example usages provided in all the dictionaries would serve both meanings of the word.
The enjoyment of a common language was of course a supreme advantage in all British and American discussions. The delays and often partial misunderstandings which occur when interpreters are used were avoided. There were however differences of expression, which in the early days led to an amusing incident. The British Staff prepared a paper which they wished to raise as a matter of urgency, and informed their American colleagues that they wished to "table it." To the American Staff "tabling" a paper meant putting it away in a drawer and forgetting it. A long and even acrimonious argument ensued before both parties realized that they were agreed on the merits and wanted the same thing.
You'll see that in the 3rd paragraph on this page: https://books.google.com/books?id=zVdux2KfenoC&lpg=PP1&dq=wi...
1: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/16285/what-is-the...
"let's put it all on the table" - I would like for you and I to be completely honest with each other, even if I don't like what you are about to say.
"let's table that" - I would like for you to remember what you wanted to say, but please don't say it now. Also, talk to me later in a separate discussion if what you wanted to say is still relevant.
"it's off the table" - That particular item/thought is no longer relevant to the discussion, please ignore it.
"clear the table" - Please get ready to discuss something entirely new of a higher priority. Or, I would like to start the same discussion over, but this time I have a better understanding of what I would like to communicate.
For me tabling has both meanings, depending on context, could mean schedule or postpone, depending on the context of the discussion.
For instance, my local paper might report that 'discussion on the proposed ordinance was tabled after hours of heated debate at City Council'. If we've been talking about a point for too long without reaching a conclusion at work, somebody might suggest we table it.
I first encountered the 'present for discussion' meaning in Model U.N., which I found very confusing. The BBC World Service uses that meaning, which is extremely confusing when they are reporting on American politics.
(BTW: what's the British counterpart to Robert's Rules?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_(parliamentary_procedure...
"Let's table this until later."
As always.
Originally there was a plan to put encryption app users in jail for up to two years.
But not all communication apps would be treated equal: mainstream applications already using encryption, such as Skype or Viber, would be perfectly okay. Only using those applications specifically written to encrypt communication, primarily CryptTalk, would have been punishable.
Edit: Our speculation is that this is the same strategy seen with the internet tax. Spreading FUD and stealing state wealth while everybody runs in circles.
Edit 2: They did ban using CryptTalk and similar products (all communication services with encryption as their main selling point). No information on how they plan to enforce this decision: their only tool is to ask mobile app stores nicely to hide these apps from plain sight.
Microsoft left everyone to believe that it's still secure even after it centralized its nodes and would constantly refuse to respond to questions about whether Skype can be intercepted. I remember at one point about 50 civil liberties groups sent an open letter to Microsoft about it, and it refused to answer it then, too.
I also remember that some people were noticing that their https links would get blocked on Skype, which also meant Microsoft can MITM the Skype chats between users and it was no longer P2P (if I remember correctly Microsoft also tried to hide the fact that Skype was no longer P2P for quite a while, again leaving people to believe their chats could not be intercepted).
Microsoft also killed TOM-Skype in China, which was specifically designed to allow interception and censorship that bypassed Skype's P2P architecture. At the time, everyone who was paying attention knew that this meant Skype could now be intercepted everywhere, otherwise Microsoft wouldn't have deprecated TOM-Skype for China.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/01/24/skype_urg...
https://en.greatfire.org/blog/2013/nov/tom-skype-dead-long-l...
Even when it was P2P, it was assumed it was hard to eavesdrop, it was never proven to be.
But Fidesz does this with everything. I mean, look at the tobacco sales permit thing. It's just that threatening the Internet threatens one of the few industries where Hungary is actually making good money, so there's some pushback.
http://budapestbeacon.com/economics/crypttalk-given-innovati...
This is in effect the same as the Burr-Feinstein encryption bill, one penalizes users, the other service providers. The bottom line is there is a lot of posturing about privacy but little commitment. All governments without exception are obsessed with your communications and data. It is unsettling and creepy.
I really think some users will have to take 'secure communications' into their own hands depending on the level of need and address metadata exposures. If its remotely life threatening or impacting it would be foolish to depend on any service provider or technology.
You can't win an encryption 'arms race' against state level actors with near endless resources, capabilities and the will. And the law and willingness to arm twist service providers and projects with secret courts, orders, intimidation, harassment.
One can't help feeling current technologies however committed fall way short and are only lulling us into a false sense of privacy and complacency. A solution that does not acknowledge a state actors sheer range of capabilities and clearly articulate how it is addressed is not a solution. Perhaps something that completely randomizes metadata and makes it too expensive to break per user.
The pattern typically goes like this:
1. Create an inane law that no-one obeys
2. Do not enforce the law
3. People forget the law, and behave as they've always done
4. Now, to jail anyone you don't like, just set a police to watch over them and observe any number of the every day tasks declared illegal
5. Congratulations, you now have a seemingly legal mechanism to jail anyone you don't like. Good job!
Lot's of legislation end up stupid because people are not perfect, but since silly all-encompassing laws have been used historically as a tool for oppression one should have as little as possible charity in the interpretation when a silly law is observed.
It seems that, given enough time, governments will find ways to implement enough contradictory laws that everyone is a criminal.
So then they'd need to force Govt browsers on people while also trying to censor browsers from the rest of the world.
None of the above is viable in the short, medium or long term.
I have seen a lot of Orban-bashing because he wants does not accept the uncontrolled immigration policies of EU (of people from outside EU, particularly Middle East) but there the "borders are closed" is for outsiders coming in, not for Hungarians leaving (which would actually make the country a jail). Two very different things.
Right to emigrate out of a country is a fundamental human right, right to immigrate in to a particular country is not. People who advocate for the latter tend to (intentionally) confuse it with the former.
> Right to emigrate out of a country is a fundamental human right
Not if you're in jail.
However, which do you mean, that others should lock Hungarians in a country-wide jail as a retaliation for having elected a leader you don't like, or that Hungarians themselves should do it for some reason even if they don't want to?
It's a joke.
Remember, lawyers have tried asserting that copying to RAM is copyright infringement.
http://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2008/08/20/ram-copying-an-i...
The International Phonetic Alphabet is encryption for human voices
Language is encryption for ideas
I suppose the irony here is that Hungarian, as a language, is intricately encrypted
The same thing happens in France from time to time.
NKM is not ignorant in technology. IMHO, she is evil.
The title suggest that it will run afoul of a thousand EU regulations.
But it is hard to be alive in Europe and not run afoul of any EU regulation - but that is another topic.
So now they also tried to say something big and bold like those ideas they read about in the newspapers. These politicians are mostly old people, most of whom studied law (or economics). They have no idea about technology. The prime minister is a digital illiterate. He doesn't use computers in his work, he writes pen on paper and reads everything printed. In 2007, he didn't even have a mobile phone. (He has one since he's prime minister again, a Nokia dumbphone)
They truly didn't have a clue, when they proposed this. We are a small country and we have some incompetent politicians. It's not comparable to the US government stating something like this.
They also tried to introduce an Internet tax based on gigabytes of traffic. They like to throw in ideas like this so the press has some bullshit to dwelve on. Then they back off.
So news about what the Hungarian government plans to do should not be taken too seriously, because they like to drop topics around.
I doubt they are serious, but it would be potentially used against the enemies of the state or it's perfect to distract the media so they could carry on stealing.
> The providers would be obliged to ensure access to the content of the encrypted messages
I am not sure if users can be punished. I could only confirm that providers have obligation to provide data under penalty.
European countries are pretty benevolent to end users, for example in some it is legal to download copyright protected music and videos for personal use. And providers already have obligation (by EU law) to provide information and archive it for some time.
But the general question is this: would companies rather exit from such country and protect some values, or provide a non-encrypted version of their services to secure their userbase?
When will they realise, that there is no way to detect, whether a message is encrypted or not-encrypted, and there may be multiple levels of "tunneling". It is not possible to find out the original form or the source (app) of information.
Monitoring online communication is in not any simpler, than monitoring verbal communication between every 2 people.
This law in Hungary appears to be based on a wish list. Otherwise they would have known what is practical and what isn't. So, DO governments spend all day spying on us? Only the ones that have the budget and technical means to make it real. The rest are just authoritarian wankers.