The head of the Signal app has criticized plans in the EU to allow messengers to have backdoors to enable automatic searches for criminal content. Signal is considered one of the most secure messengers.
I don’t understand how this “threat” is supposed to work. If the law passes won’t any and all chat encryption be affected? In that case it doesn’t matter how you get the app, or if you manage to get it in europe. Its encryption will be broken/unavailable.
Laws don’t magically break encryption. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.
They’re trying to force Signal to weaken the application, Signal says they won’t do it.
They can ban Signal for not complying, but you know how difficult it is to ban a digital application? It might make it more popular since it’ll be one of very few actually secure messaging apps out there.
I imagined the law would be enforced by a deal with google and some global android state approved keylogger/backdoor completely bypassing all apps including Signal. But yeah, I’m having trouble wrapping my brain around this.
Recently Google announced they were going to restrict certified Android devices to only allowing apps approved by Google. An F-Droid member found references to “blocked developers” in the new verification code. It’s not unreasonable to assume that this developer blocklist could be region-dependent and Google could use this ability to block Signal from being installed in EU.
Yes they are based in america but they have to comply with regional laws since they operate internationally. the apps available in these stores, and the laws that apply to them, differ per country.
If I understood correctly “they” here means Google and Apple because they are corporations that sell products, advertisement brokerage, SaaS, physical devices, etc in the EU. They have to comply otherwise they wouldn’t be able to make money if one of the most profitable markets. They solely chose to comply because it puts their baseline at risk, not solely because of regional laws.
I don’t understand how this “threat” is supposed to work. If the law passes won’t any and all chat encryption be affected? In that case it doesn’t matter how you get the app, or if you manage to get it in europe. Its encryption will be broken/unavailable.
Laws don’t magically break encryption. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.
They’re trying to force Signal to weaken the application, Signal says they won’t do it.
They can ban Signal for not complying, but you know how difficult it is to ban a digital application? It might make it more popular since it’ll be one of very few actually secure messaging apps out there.
I imagined the law would be enforced by a deal with google and some global android state approved keylogger/backdoor completely bypassing all apps including Signal. But yeah, I’m having trouble wrapping my brain around this.
Recently Google announced they were going to restrict certified Android devices to only allowing apps approved by Google. An F-Droid member found references to “blocked developers” in the new verification code. It’s not unreasonable to assume that this developer blocklist could be region-dependent and Google could use this ability to block Signal from being installed in EU.
Encryption isn’t magically broken because a legislature says it is.
They have to apply teeth to a market they control. Not everything is within their control. Though, signal is.
I suspect that signal will be asked to add a backdoor to their encryption, they will refuse and subsequently banned from EU app stores.
What even is that? Aren’t the 2 app official app stores American anyway?
Yes they are based in america but they have to comply with regional laws since they operate internationally. the apps available in these stores, and the laws that apply to them, differ per country.
If I understood correctly “they” here means Google and Apple because they are corporations that sell products, advertisement brokerage, SaaS, physical devices, etc in the EU. They have to comply otherwise they wouldn’t be able to make money if one of the most profitable markets. They solely chose to comply because it puts their baseline at risk, not solely because of regional laws.