cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/18581354
Privacy measures apparently helping criminals evade capture
I hear cars also get used a lot by criminals. Time to ban this shit.
Absolutely. Please do.
No, no. You have to also please the corporate interests. Besides, most cars the days double as surveillance tools
I am not the least bit surprised coming from the authors of the “E2EE must be banned” and the main promoters of the ever lurking chat control law. One thing we have to hand it to europol, they are very transparent in their desire for a police state.
Yes. It’s basically about a ban or circumvention of E2EE, as usual. And as usual, this is not an option. Do not throw away your rights to strong, working encryption. Never.
Computers are hard, can everyone go back to unobfuscated telephone calls and handwritten letters?
- Cops everywhere
hand-writes a pgp-encrypted message
Makes me wonder if there are any cyphers that are easy enough that human meat could implement it but hard enough that it would take some serious GPU time to crack?
One-time pads require no machines and are unbreakable in theory, though in reality they’re a pain to set up and use so people reuse keys out of laziness, making it possible to analyze and decipher encrypted messages.
Security is only as good as its weakest link, and people are morons.
I see you Ted Kaczinsky
Base32 is easy to write down. So there’s that for binary data.
“Easy”
The much more interesting thing this points at is the fact that conversations between people should be privileged and not usable in criminal investigations as long as not one party willfully submits it as evidence.
The mere idea of eavesdropping on people and/or using their data for other purposes than it was intended to is horrendous.
Meaning: if I call a friend or even send them a postcard and ask them for 100 kilos of cocaine, this should not be admissible in court. I dont care if organized crime is a problem. Go pose as a buyer and start rolling up the net from the bottom. Do the footwork.
Otherwise its not europol but more like eustasi. (Reference to the stasi, the former east-german „state security“ which was infamous for picking you up ar night if you as much as said you didnt love the government)
We will have to come to grips with the fact that europol (and for the germans reading this, the german state police) are still the fascism enablers they always have been.
Call interception, retro and all methods of investigation relying on télécommunications are, and need to remain, a tool available for police forces when the crimes they are investigating are greatly impacting society. Having a prosecutor request those within acceptable limits is a net positive. Not the same as having dragnets spying on everyone in the hope of hitting keywords mind.
But criminality is using more and more complex tools at their disposition and there’s just no way of policing like in medieval times anymore.
I call bullshit on this one.
Don’t hesitate to develop…
Some things are so bad that it’s just not worth your time.
Lemme be the judge of that… grow a bit and put your argument on the table.
I am also interested in their argument.
Yeah, I dont think so. I have not heard an argument here, just a statement. The “limits” arent real, never have been. This stuff needs to be outlawed as a whole so that “criminal” behavior can be again investigated in a way that is understandable and controllable. We dont need all powerful cops that have the best tools on their hands just to catch someone selling illegal stuff. It has also been proven time and again that the whole terrorism shtick has never been as much of a threat as it was made out to be.
SIGINT isn’t even a good tool for them
Your examples are clear indication that you know jack shit about actual police work. Admittedly in civilised countries where there are checks and due process. Cops aren’t getting access freely to comms. A magistrate can depending on circumstances. And there’s plenty of red tape everywhere. Even telco operators will refuse to respond to a request if not absolutely justified. And typically that’s not when timmy sold some shit to his neighbour. Organised crime, murders, rapts… instances of those with actual victims are not threats, they are shits that happen and needs to be sorted.
Yeah. Your tone indicates that it’s a great idea to have meaningful discussions with you. /s good bye
If it was up to the police, they would make us badge in and out everytime we leave our homes.
And places of worship, cars, stores and offices. We also would be banned from having pockets and not using Apple and Google
get gud
Europol can eat 💩, they aren’t taking away my E2E Encryption!
* eat primes
I bet petty crime is the least of EU’s problems.
I bet EU has the same level of problems US does with elite deviance, the white-collar guys who want all the marbles, and will start wars, hook eveyone on toxic drugs and wreck the habitat just to own it all and swim in their vault like Scrooge McDuck.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Europol published a position paper today highlighting its concerns around SMS home routing – the technology that allows telcos to continue offering their services when customers visit another country.
If a crime is committed by a Brit in Germany, for example, then German police couldn’t issue a request for unencrypted data as they could with a domestic operator such as Deutsche Telekom.
Under home routing, the current investigatory powers of public authorities should be retained and a solution must be found that enables lawful interception of suspects within their territory," reads Europol’s paper.
Two possible solutions were suggested, but the wording of the paper clearly favored a legal ban on PETs (service-level encryption) in home routing over making it possible for one EU member state to request the comms from another country.
There is one that was developed for EIOs but cops are concerned this could lead to scenarios where law enforcement efforts are dependent on foreign service providers, which isn’t ideal.
“With this position paper, Europol wishes to open the debate on this technical issue, which at present is severely hampering law enforcement’s ability to access crucial evidence,” it said.
The original article contains 811 words, the summary contains 191 words. Saved 76%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Yes the internet is helping people evade the law, let’s ban that.
deleted by creator
