953
Under British and UK Legislation anyone using or developing end-to-end encryption is now a “hostile actor” (lemmy.ml)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
168 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Surveillance strategies in the UK and Israel often go global

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 88 points 5 months ago (3 children)

So literally everyone in the UK using any website that uses TLS is now a hostile actor?

Essentially everyone's a criminal which is a huge boon for the government. They can now get rid of anyone they want at any time, legally.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago

    That is longstanding, the US and the UK both have been writing laws broadly enough for them to take down anyone for them, or at least charge, we all just trust it won't be abused, but as we've seen with the uk and their bad faith terror designations, that trust is misplaced, and the mask is coming off society. They aren't pretending anymore, and cynically think "democracy" such as it is, is already dead in all but name, it's only the citizenry that doesn't know it yet, and or is contesting it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    TLS is not typically considered end-to-end encryption. It's transport encryption.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I don’t get it. E2ee is about encryption in transit not encryption at rest. TLS sounds exactly like e2ee

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    E2E is about the sender encrypting, and only the intended receiver decrypting, with nothing in the middle able to read the data.

    TLS is not designed for that, as the server you connect to is not necessarily the intended receiver, yet it can see everything.

    With E2E, you can send data to a server, which is not the intended receiver, and it won't be able to read it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    Your explanation assumes that scope and scale are part of the definition which it is not.

    If you keep zooming in or zooming out the definition of E2E keeps changing under your statement.

    If the only knowledge a system has is between a sender and a receiver (Which satisfies even your definition of "intended recipient") then TLS is E2E encrypted.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    The definition of E2EE has evolved since the concept surfaced. You seem to be stuck with the original meaning.

    TLS does not fit the modern definition.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    Yes the technical term has evolved but did the term evolve in the legislation definition of it?

    If not, then the technically correct usage doesn't matter which is a point I've made in another comment as well.

    And in my previous comment, I am pointing out the logical inconsistencies. Not that I agree or disagree with the technical terminology. You seem to be conflating a logical explanation/call-out of logic holes for my opinion, which it is not

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Do they strictly define end to end encryption in this bill?

    If not, then yes, TLS is "end to end" as the sender encrypts the message, and the receiver decrypts it. Each "end" to each "end" is encrypted, satisfying the semantics of the term.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent