•  mrmojo   ( @mrmojo@beehaw.org ) 
    link
    fedilink
    11
    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.

      •  zelet   ( @Zelet@beehaw.org ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        111 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.

        • 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   ( @XTL@sopuli.xyz ) 
            link
            fedilink
            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.