Mastodawn

Electronic Frontier Foundation

The EU is pushing a plan to give police "lawful access" to encrypted messages. But there’s no such thing—without breaking the encryption. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/eus-encryption-roadmap-makes-everyone-less-safe

The EU’s “Encryption Roadmap” Makes Everyone Less Safe

EFF has joined more than 80 civil society organizations, companies, and cybersecurity experts in signing a letter urging the European Commission to change course on its recently announced “Technology Roadmap on Encryption.” The roadmap, part of the EU’s ProtectEU strategy, discusses new ways for...

Electronic Frontier Foundation

@eff oh well, at least Brexit means we won't be subject to this repressive law! Oh wait...

✨ Xucaen ☮️💚🌠Jun 2

What they mean by encryption is "I want nobody else to see it but me" 👀

arosano 🇩🇰🇮🇱Jun 2

@eff Looking at the above link, two prominent links are seen, one to #X and one to #facebook. Does that reinforce the trustworthiness you, we, need when fighting for the right to safe encryption?

@eff #ChatControl

SpaceLifeForm Jun 2

They do not understand how math works.

They want access to fake encryption where the user thinks it is safe to use.

Security is Hard. Most people have no idea how difficult it is to do properly.

#Encryption #Security #Theatre

contrasocial Jun 2

Europe, you have one advantage over the US where we failed in this fight; you can hold us up as an example and talking point for normal people, to make them understand why they should care about this.

Trump is the prime example as to why it's never safe or ok to build a surveillance state, even if you think you're relatively democratic and politically safe at the moment.

@eff lol stop open source 😆

@Lydie @eff They might try to convince ISPs to block IPs of services that won't break e2ee. But even then we can self host servers that implements the Matrix Protocol.

@vax_ @eff Yup. They can't win. They're wasting their time

Richard Wonka Jun 3

@eff at what point will they hire someone who understands encryption?

Simon Zerafa Jun 3

@richardwonka @eff

The point isn't breaking encryption but being able to bypass it at will.

This is by mandating MITM interceprion or simply banning encryption t when need, or requiring service providers to provide plain text after E2E has done it's job.

Asking service providers to not store decrypted data or run legal reprocussions if they refuse is asking too much from for-profit organisations.

Richard Wonka Jun 4

Mind you, my question assumes ignorance instead of malice in their decision making.

@richardwonka and that's where you're wrong, kiddo.

Richard Wonka Jun 4

@Laird_Dave oh, babe. You don’t know the half of it.

But seriously, “kiddo” is not appropriate. Might want to check your implied superiority complex.

@richardwonka naja, wenn jemand mehrfach von Expert*innen und Gerichten erklärt kriegt dass was ne Scheißidee ist und es immer wieder versucht - wie soll ich das anders interpretieren als Bösartigkeit?

@richardwonka it's a meme.

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/thats-where-youre-wrong-kiddo

That's Where You're Wrong Kiddo | Know Your Meme

"That’s Where You’re Wrong Kiddo," also known as "You’re Wrong Kiddo," refers to an image of a crudely drawn stick figure character making a finger gun ges

Know Your Meme

@eff we have to say no to this so many times, but only yes once. It will be pushed again and again - having mass surveillance is so much easier than preventing crime in other ways.

MidgePhoto Jun 3

@eff
Strictly there is, under the UK RIPA law police, with a court order or express authority, could demand a plain text version of an encrypted message.

That's similar to having access to the contents of your unbreakable Iron box.

What you are reasonably objecting to is secret access to _all_ messages, and that's a very bad idea.

@midgephoto @eff I don't understand. How would you get the plain text if something is end to end encrypted? You could only do it if you had access to the sender or recipients devicd

MidgePhoto Jun 3

@crmsnbleyd @eff
Um ... you ask, presenting a search warrant/court order.

The secrecy is the objectionable thing. And ubiquity, and absence of warrant, but they derived from the secrecy.

@midgephoto and what if the person in question has deleted the message?

MidgePhoto Jun 3

@crmsnbleyd Amazing. Nobody writing the law thought of that. How easily defeated.

They are unlikely to approach you to demand you provide a plain text for an encrypted message which they don't have, don't you think?

You and the sender could, we suppose, have deleted the encryption key and decryption key since reading it, and kept no copy or note of the content.

Now cause a jury to believe that.

Oh, and you both forgot what it was about.

Facts