Hacker News Reader

Comment by 1337shadow | Hacker News Reader

That's exactly why the law was not outlawing encryption at all:

> the proposed passage that would have forced companies to decrypt encrypted data upon request by the authorities got removed from the draft law.

I guess the article is pretty confusing.

View on HN

This disproportionately affects all encrypted data.

Also, I imagine a lot of non-nefarious encryption is done to hide data from the same entities that would be in control of the proposed back-door.

It is outlawing end-to-end encryption instead.

What makes you think that?

This: "> the proposed passage that would have forced companies to decrypt encrypted data upon request by the authorities"

This is not against encryption, this is about decryption of encrypted data upon request by the authorities.

I never said that it was against encryption in general. Only that it was against end-to-end encryption.

This is not what I read.

Here is the Wikipedia article. The answer is in the very short intro.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_encryption

You're very active in this thread and making quite strongly opinionated statements. Probably worth a quick read.

> End-to-end encryption is a system of communication where the only people who can read the messages are the people communicating.

That is not a technical explanation.

We can still have encryption on both ends of a communication, and at the same time have suspects using two keys instead of one to encrypt. We can encrypt a message for multiple users with GPG, why couldn't we here? As far as I understand E2EE still works, except that users suspected of a felony would also have the state key in their encryption, that doesn't mean removing other keys!! Which we should definitely not do because we do not want to compromise the privacy of innocent people!!

"That is not a technical explanation."

Technical or not it does not matter. It is clear and specific. If you encrypt the messages for someone else too (or if you leak the keys) it is not end-to-end encrypted.

"and at the same time have suspects using two keys instead of one to encrypt"

And regular citizens.

"except that users suspected of a felony would also have the state key in their encryption"

And regular citizens :)

Anyway, in that case it is not end-to-end encrypted because the state is not one of the people communicating.

"that doesn't mean removing other keys!!"

This is not what was claimed.

Technical matters to me.

Maybe that's not what was claim, I beg to interpret this law differently, and anyway I disagree with the response that has been given here.

And ... I'm not the only one who interprets the law in question this way:

https://www.nextinpact.com/lebrief/48261/chiffrement-bout-en...

https://www.rtbf.be/info/belgique/detail_un-projet-de-loi-be...

So, you've been under the influence of fake news.

Sorry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com