• slurp@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is openly misleading. This sucks, sure, but it doesn’t ban e2ee as the title suggests.

    • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      and as a last resort develop technology to scan encrypted messages, it has said

      Right there in the article, my guy.

      If you can scan encrypted messages then you’ve no longer got e2ee

      • mrmojo@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        1 line below, you can read

        Tech companies have said scanning messages and end-to-end encryption are fundamentally incompatible. Earlier this month, junior minister Stephen Parkinson appeared to concede ground, saying in parliament’s upper chamber that Ofcom would only require them to scan content where “technically feasible”. Donelan said in response to questions about Parkinson’s statement that further work to develop the technology was needed but government-funded research had shown it was possible.

        In practice, I doubt this will have any consequence on encryption, as the title of this post suggests.

        • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Backdoors make it “technically feasible” to scan “e2ee”. See, it’s all a matter of perspective.

          • zelet@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Fucking doublespeak (not you). If you can scan it then it isn’t e2ee. Words mean things. E2ee means that the two parties are the only two who can read the message. If there is a way to do any analysis on the message at all then it isn’t e2ee.

            • Teppic@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              While I largely agree with you, technically it is still E2EE even if the encryption is very poor (e.g. hey look I shifted every character by one along the ASCII table).
              Poor encryption could then be broken by a party in the middle.

              All of that said this is a bit irrelevant, if the encryption is so poor the provider can break it at will, so can bad actors. We don’t use broken (bad) encryption for a reason.

              • XTL@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Companies also advertise e2ee while they generate and store the encryption keys on their server. So, it is encrypted all the way, but still easy enough to decrypt when needed. Very technically feasible and still strong against third parties.

      • slurp@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The title here said E2EE is made impossible, I was simply saying that is untrue. Clarity matters. It says in the article they removed the bit about banning encryption or requiring back doors to it before it passed.

        The rest sucks, as I acknowledged, and they want to make it easier to scan devices that would include messages that have been decrypted upon arrival. There’s already spyware they does exactly that. However, that doesn’t make it so that E2EE is impossible.