Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Europe's privacy body has reiterated its pro-privacy, anti-backdoor stance.
The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) Giovanni Buttarelli has long expressed the view that “privacy versus security” is a false dichotomy. In 2015, he told a conference in Brussels that “the objective of cyber-security may be misused to justify measures which weaken protection of [data protection] rights”.
He's now issued a much longer dissertation on the topic, the Preliminary EDPS Opinion on the review of the ePrivacy Directive, here (PDF).
The ePrivacy framework needs to be extended, the opinion states, it needs to be clarified, and it needs better enforcement.
The document also says the emergence of new services since the directive was first issued means it needs a thorough update. For example, Buttarelli's document states that there's a danger that new services erode privacy protections even though they're “functionally equivalent” to existing services.
For example, he writes, VoIP services should afford users the same privacy protection as traditional phone services, as should mobile messaging apps.
Likewise, he highlights the risk that the Internet of Things erodes privacy because the directive doesn't pay enough attention to machine-to-machine communications.
On encryption, Buttarelli is unequivocal:
The prohibition on backdoors would be universal, the EDPS writes: encryption providers, communication service providers, and “all other organisations (at all levels of the supply chain)” should be prohibited from “allowing or facilitating” backdoors.
Related Stories
The Independent quotes France's interior minister, Bernard Cazeneuve, as saying
Exchanges carried out via applications like Telegram must be identified and used in the course of judicial proceedings.
[...] We propose that the EU Commission studies the possibility of a legislative act introducing rights and obligations for operators to force them to remove illicit content or decrypt messages as part of investigations, whether or not they are based in Europe.
Similar intentions have been announced by the UK government in the past. Those are still up for debate but were walked back at least slightly in the face of an angry reaction from campaigners and activists.
The same article says that Germany will make the same request.
Previously:
European Privacy Body Slams Shut Backdoors Everywhere
(Score: 2, Funny) by Dunbal on Wednesday July 27 2016, @03:26PM
The prohibition on backdoors would be universal, the EDPS writes: encryption providers, communication service providers, and “all other organisations (at all levels of the supply chain)” should be prohibited from “allowing or facilitating” backdoors.
Even between consenting adults? That's a bit harsh.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @03:27PM
Doesn't sound much like "slams shut".
At least, that's my opinion . . .
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday July 27 2016, @05:15PM
> should be prohibited from “allowing or facilitating” backdoors
You say backdoor, I say zero-day...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @09:55PM
"should be" and "preliminary" and "opinion". These are not strong words. This looks to be like a strong statement without teeth and not a "slams shut" type of thing at all.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday July 27 2016, @04:06PM
What's their position on all the spyware baked into Windows 10, along with the new revelation that Cortana will not be able to be disabled?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @04:12PM
Microsoft will get sued for Windows 10, with a judgement delivered 5 years later, at which point they'll release a Windows 10 N which will languish in obscurity.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Wednesday July 27 2016, @05:03PM
France has already ordered Microsoft to fix they spying in Windows 10 within 3 months. [windowscentral.com]
So relax, ok? We all know how brutal a taunting from France can be.
Hamsters. Elderberries. Ouch.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @06:40PM
1) So you prefer that nobody do anything in regard to Windows 10 and the pervasive spying it does?
2) Didn't Microsoft get fined pretty a few billion dollars from anti-trust regulators in Europe in the past? As such I imagine they are a wary.
3) I expect that many European Union countries have similar data protection laws. I'm sure Microsoft could be willing to write off France (albeit with much regret and pain), but would they be willing to write off half of Europe if other countries find that they agree with France?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday July 27 2016, @09:22PM
I'd like to see Microsoft tell France to shove it, and their fines too, and remotely disable all their government IT systems running on Windows when France complains. Microsoft is being way too nice.
These governments were all dumb enough to make themselves dependent on MS for all their computing systems, so why they think they can now tell that company how to run those systems, I have no idea. Never make yourself completely dependent on someone you don't trust.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28 2016, @12:02AM
True. Governments should not be using proprietary software at all; they should be using Free Software. That way, they are not dependent upon a company and can hire whoever they please to work on the software if need be.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28 2016, @06:49AM