ORF (media) in Austria report that 5 eyes Intelligence Community have convinced EU Council to secretly resolve for a total EU backdoor on end-to-end encryption.
They’re going to steal money from the Recovery and Resilience Facility to “advance objectives” relating to cybersecurity.
How broken is that? 🧐 Do they know no shame?
The meeting of JHA Counsellors (Encryption) whatever they are also called out quantum encryption.
Does this mean
- they want to backdoor quantum encryption as well,
- pay off their academic advisors, OR
- they have no clue what they are talking about?
the bind moggles… 🤨
Oddly, they seem entirely aware that the European Court of Justice has ruled that strong protections including full encryption must be available when moving data outside the EU.
Setting up for ECJ to tell them they can’t have their cake and eat it too?
The problem with this statement - that it is essential to break encryption to fight various crimes - is that it is just not true.
The evidence that has been surfaced through court cases and the like has pointed out that encryption did not slow or hinder the investigation.
This untruth reveals that the real purpose of the breaking of encryption is for intelligence community (IC) mass surveillance. The reason we know this is that it has been the same pattern for 30 years (who remembers FBI's Louis Freeh?):
IC speaks through Justice ministries.
Section 6. Legal Framework plays the olive branch tactic of “cooperation” with industry that has so well failed in the past.
As there is no plausible solution that ensures the safety of customers, their only option is 1) legislate 2) force backdoors thus 3) Break the security.
As a simple argument - the call for a consistent framework ensures broad surveillance across EU.
Access to 30 countries’ backdoor farms by 30 “competent authorities”...
Can the EU guarantee lack of corruption in 30 police & intelligence agencies?
No. Fail.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As a term, PKI suffers the same problem as ‘identity’ - it means different things to different people. Consequently, as a sector, it’s totally unreliable as a term. It can mean...
Infrastructure around PKs to make the PK do or mean something. OR
Identity system based on PKI, implying use of private key is proof of person. Or...
@Steve_Lockstep@joerosato@csuwildcat X.509-based PKI which locks in a particular technology *and* a set of meanings/doings which don’t work *and* a set of companies that extract rents for little benefit, which extraction works a treat.
So, 1st order question is, what is this person meaning when using the term PKI?
Here is the response if the website strategic hyphen culture dot org is included in the Tweet:
Here’s the part I wanted to highlight, which is important!
💥 "The prize that America truly seeks is to seize for itself over the coming decades, all global standards in leading-edge technology, and to deny them to China.” 👈 👆
As we move closer to November, it’s somewhat non-controversial to say this USA election is the most divisive in living memory. I at least can’t recall one as divisive. 1/34
Reasons are obvious but I want to point out one reason that isn’t obvious, it’s the “NEVER TALK ABOUT…” rule.
Here’s the flaw: SAC is a flag that says signature verification and RMA (Relationship Management Application) authorisation and verification was successful.
Let me say that more clearly: SAC says verification is done. 2/
The flaw is this: the SAC isn’t the authorisation - it’s a flag saying there was an auth. Which means, in short SWIFT messages do not carry any role-based authorisations.
They might be authorised, but it’s like they slapped a sticker on to say that.
Ijiri's third entry is a derivative of two successive accounting entries, making it like momentum in physics. Therefore, he suggests, we could in effect use this 'calculus' technique on accounting records to predict the future direction of activity. 2/10
altho everyone wants to know the future, I am not comfortable with the notion that you can measure momentum by doing a 'calculus' over accounting records. As his third entry is derivative information, I suspect that its conceptual value (use) is limited by fraud / deception. 3/10
The One True Cipher Suite was born of watching projects and groups wallow in the mire of complexity, as doubt caused teams to add multiple algorithms- a complexity that easily doubled the cost of the protocol with consequent knock-on effects & costs 2/7
The One True Cipher Suite was widely ridiculed in crypto and standards circles. Developers and standards groups like the IETF just could not let go of crypto agility. This sacred cow led the TLS group to field something like 200 standard suites 3/7