A law like this would violate the rights of all EU citizens. The courts would (should!) strike this law down immediately

1: "... and then we'll be able to stop terrorist attacks. Simple".

2: “ok but if you put a back door into encryption, won't others be able to find it?"

1: "no we'll be the only ones with the key. Great huh?“

2: "and you don't think the key will be leaked or be hacked?"

1: "I said we'll be the only ones with the key."

2: "so what's your plan to make sure the key stays secure"

1: "..."

2: "what's your contingency plan if the key *is * hacked or leaked?"

1:"..."

1: "I SAID WE'LL BE THE ONLY ONES WITH THE KEY. "

2: "..."

1: "don't you want to protect our children ??"

This seems to be a general theme. Those arguing loudest for better privacy are really saying "only we should be allowed to invade your privacy". See: Google, Apple, the EU

Criminals aren't going to be using services that comply anyways. They'll have their own underground ones. This is just a violation of regular citizens rights.

This is a level of bullshit that will straight up make me vote to leave the EU.

Outlawing E2EE should just not be a thing. It just shouldn't.

iT's fOr yOuR kiDs sAfEtY!!1!1!1! As much as I like being in EU, I hate this and hope it doesn't pass.

With a little knowledge, it's not very hard to make your own messaging app and share it with those you know. And there's plenty projects online that give you what you need without having to write the code yourself. Alternatively, there's just plenty dark web and under the radar apps already that won't bend to this ruling.

What it is, though, is very inconvenient and annoying to do so.

But if you're an actual criminal, then there is this solution here that can never be subject to this ruling.

So what this clearly means is that the EU will violate the privacy of all the everyday people that don't handle that inconvenience, pushing the serious criminals to dark channels.

Friendly reminder it's never about consumer rights. It's about who is in control of the data.

A question you can all ask yourself. Despite the warts in both who would you rather control your data (you have no choice here. Someone is controlling your data and it is not you)

A. Google, Amazon, Microsoft, etc.

B. Government

You'll get strong answers either way. Personally I'd rather the government strictly from an accountability perspective but that also warrants governments not electing shitheads which unfortunately the world is leaning towards with these populist right wing politicians gaining favour.

Well they can go fuck themselves. Even if they pass it and messenger or whatsapp start (as in they totally dont already) scanning your chats and snitching I wonder how they are going to force other messaging services to comply.

Here's what this bill does for children: reduces pedos from sharing images of them yay! Here's also what it does for Children: un-encrypts their chats so pedos know what they are doing, where they are, who they are with, what they like, their vulnerabilities and much much more. Trading safety for a viewing crackdown. Congratulations

We need to collect the list of names of every politican and such who has advocated for this. These humans are dangerous to society, and we need to be on the lookout regarding what are they doing next. We also need to raise awareness about them so that given the chance, they can be removed from positions of power.

i live in the EU, it makes me angry

What the actual fuck...

Learning from the "friends" on the other site of the atlantic!

Fairly fucking sure this is a nothingburger like Art. 13-17 was, and will not break E2EE messengers.

The reason:

Encryption plays an essential role in securing communications. The international human rights law test of legality, necessity and proportionality should be applied to any measures that would affect encryption. Both the UN Commissioner for Human Rights[1]and the European Data Protection Supervisor[2]have concluded that the EU’s proposal for a regulation on child sexual abuse material fails this test[3].

A recent article published by Wired[4]described a European Council survey of Member States’ views on regulating encryption. In its response to the survey, Spain stated that there should be legislation prohibiting EU-based service providers from implementing end-to-end encryption.

Requiring platforms and device manufacturers to build back doors to facilitate law enforcement access would make everyone more susceptible to malicious hacking from criminals and foreign adversaries alike[5]. Measures allowing public authorities to access the content of communications affect the essence of the right to privacy.

1.Which encryption experts did the Commission consult when preparing its proposal for a regulation on child sexual abuse material?

2.Will the Commission revise its position on encryption in view of the opinions of human rights associations and experts?

3.Given the abuse of Pegasus, how will the Commission ensure that the fundamental right to privacy is protected if a Member State, such as Spain, decides to ban encryption?

Submitted: 24.5.2023

[1] UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘The right to privacy in the digital age’, A/HRC/51/17, 4 August 2022, para. 28, https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc5117-right-privacy-digital-age.
[2] https://edps.europa.eu/press-publications/press-news/press-releases/2022/combat-child-sexual-abuse-online-presents-serious-risks-fundamental-rights_en.
[3] https://home.crin.org/readlistenwatch/stories/privacy-and-protection.
[4] https://www.wired.com/story/europe-break-encryption-leaked-document-csa-law/.
[5] https://cdt.org/area-of-focus/government-surveillance/encryption-and-government-hacking/.

Source: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2023-001661_EN.html (EUP Parliamentary question E-001661/2023)

So yeah, it is now established that forcing law enforcement on E2EE messaging services goes against human rights. glhf EUC

At least they have the courtesy to write it into law.