Hacker News Reader

Comment by stracer | Hacker News Reader

If this passes, I expect disobedience and even more calls for leaving the EU.

EU: Company, this looks like you're facilitating breaking the EU law. Encryption we can't break is forbidden, except when we use it.

Company: Prove it. Maybe we're just sending random bytes to test the network.

View on HN

One of the intricacies of this kind of policy is that it is implicitly reversing the burden of proof: prove that you're transparent, prove that your random test bytes are not another layer of encryption, prove that you're not withholding access.

I wish. I doubt these corporations will choose leaving the market over selling out their users.

Didn't Whatsapp and few others threaten to do just that in UK? I'm not saying they would necessarily put their money where their mouth is if push comes to shove but implications were made that should encryption laws pass, bye bye Briton.

They sure as hell didn't threaten to leave my country when our supreme court started slapping them with arbitrary fines for campaigning against internet censorship on their own websites. I find it difficult to believe they'd leave a country with a much stronger economy.

There's a difference between accepting a country's (inane) laws restricting your own speech, and breaking a fundamental feature of your service.

Wait, which country supreme court did that???

Proving it will be very easy. Use the service, take a subsciption, send messaged or data, monitor traffic.

The realistic scenario is company does not advertise strong encryption services, just messaging services. Then the onus is on the government to prove the message went strong encrypted. But just government not being able to see their test message in the traffic they captured on servers controlled by government does not constitute a proof.

A proof would require government gets their black boxes in almost every switch/router. Which I suppose is the end game.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com