Since this spring, thanks to Belgium and the EU, a proposal has been on the table to introduce mass surveillance via smartphone, disguised as a harmless measure against child abuse. Signal is fed up with the lack of respect for mathematical reality.

The EU governments are not opposed to this think of the childrenAlways argue and use it in a new form to put an end to online privacy. Signal raises the alarm and warns about recurring bills that are effectively ingrained mass surveillance via smartphone. After all, these attempts to undermine the privacy of all of us are still relevant.

Last year, the European Parliament rejected a proposal that would weaken end-to-end encryption in the name of security and surveillance. Signal points out that there is no way to have “any” end-to-end encryption. The technology that ensures online privacy in your messages and guarantees that no one can see your WhatsApp (or Signal) conversations is based on mathematical principles that either hold true or they don’t.

Rhetorical games

Mededith Whittaker, president of Signal, points out that all experts agree on this mathematical fact. Any attempts to intercept encrypted messages sometimes endanger everyone’s privacy. “Instead of undermining this basic mathematical reality, some European countries continue to play rhetorical games,” she notes.

Proposal under Belgian rule

Under the Belgian Presidency, the Council of the European Union has presented a new proposal that once again attempts to enable mass surveillance. Article 10a makes no secret of this.

Literally: “In order to implement this regulation, providers of interpersonal communications services must install and use technologies to detect the dissemination of known child pornography material or new child pornography material before it is transmitted.” This proposed approach is given a euphemism Upload moderation along.

“Old wine, new bottles”

“They keep coming to the table with the same idea, packaged with a new label. Replace the previous term Client-side scanningthey are talking about that now Upload moderation” says Whittaker. Both terms refer to the same practice of scanning all your messages on your device before you can send them. The transmission is still encrypted, but that is of course beside the point. When sending by post, consider a certain level of secrecy, assuming the government is allowed to read your letter before you put it in the envelope.

“Some say that Upload moderation undermines encryption because it happens before your message or video is encrypted,” Whittaker continues. “That’s not true. We can call it a back door, a front door, Upload moderation or call it something else, but whatever the name, all of these approaches create a vulnerability that can be exploited by hackers and hostile nation states. They remove the protection of unbreakable mathematics and replace it with a very valuable vulnerability.”

A tricky but quickly pointed argument

The recurring attempts to undermine end-to-end encryption have some recurring themes. Here’s how they use it think of the childrenArgumentation in which the invasion of privacy is presented as a way to protect children, for example from child pornography.

That sounds plausible, but only to those who don’t think it through. Mikko Hyppönen, CRO at WithSecure and popular security evangelist, did the thought exercise during the WithSecure conference last month. “To catch criminals, end-to-end encryption must be used,” he says. “So encryption becomes illegal. So everyone uses a legal app, without encryption. However, there are some people who rely on illegal apps. Especially… criminals.”

The result of the measures proposed in the EU and denounced by Signal is thus de facto mass surveillance of the law-abiding population, while criminals have to invest three minutes of time to install an alternative app. Upload moderation In such a case, child pornography will still not be stopped, but a photo of a baby in the bathtub sent by a popular father to a working mother will.

Catastrophic idea

Signal and Whittakker are fed up with the same attempt to undermine basic privacy. “We demand that people stop playing with words and accept what experts have made clear many times. End-to-end encryption either protects everyone and ensures privacy and security, or it’s a disaster for everyone. And destroying end-to-end encryption is a disastrous idea, especially in a geopolitically turbulent time.”