The European Court of Human Rights made a ruling in a long-running case involving Telegram's encrypted messaging.

The fight to protect end-to-end encryption is a never-ending one, and it’s seen some setbacks in recent months, most notably the passage in the U.K. of the Online Safety Act, which (theoretically, for now) empowers the government there to order communications providers like Signal or WhatsApp to bypass the strong encryption on their messages.

Well, here’s some good news for those who are keen on protecting their messages from prying eyes. The European Court of Human Rights said today that, while security services may want to decrypt some people’s communications to fight crime, weakening encryption for some people means weakening it for all—and that would violate human rights law (specifically, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to privacy).

[…]

  • punlex@lemy.lolEnglish
    248·
    9 months ago

    This is not true, Telegram agreed to cooperate with Russian authorities, Durov met with Russian authorities on this issue, also Russian laws oblige everyone to give out encryption keys, who does not give out will be blocked forever, like Tutanota or Proton, what Telegram did was a PR campaign, Durov is cooperating with Russia.

      • punlex@lemy.lolEnglish
        55·
        9 months ago

        What proof? Do you want me to give you links to Russian laws that oblige all distributors of information to register in a special registry and provide encryption keys to the FSB? These laws can’t be circumvented, how did Telegram suddenly stop being blocked in Russia if it didn’t provide encryption keys? I live in Russia and I know all the laws, the ECHR ruling will not change anything, Durov is still leaking correspondence to the FSB.

        • Haven5341@feddit.deOPEnglish
          122·
          9 months ago

          Do you want me to give you links to Russian laws that

          This article is not about the Russian law. It is about a judgement by the ECHR (33696/19). You are telling us, that the article is “fake-news” and I asked you to proof your claim. I did my part and delivered the judgement itself. Now it’s your time to proof, that this judgement never happened.

          Edit:

          BTW. this article and the judgement is not about Telegram vs. Russian Federation. It is about Anton Valeryevich Podchasov vs. the Russian Federation with Mr. Podchasov being a Telegram user. That is my current understanding.

          • punlex@lemy.lolEnglish
            66·
            9 months ago

            These claims mislead users by making Telegram look like a champion of user privacy at its best

            • Haven5341@feddit.deOPEnglish
              72·
              9 months ago

              These claims mislead users by making Telegram look like a champion of user privacy at its best

              So what? This is not the topic of this thread. This thread is about a ECHR ruling / privacy and I would like to keep the discussion on topic. I do not care how evil Telegram is.

            • geissi@feddit.deEnglish
              4·
              9 months ago

              That is not what the article claims.
              At best it is your own personal perception of the topic.

            • Microw@lemm.eeEnglish
              41·
              9 months ago

              No, only users who have as bad of a reading comprehension as you would be misled

          • punlex@lemy.lolEnglish
            67·
            9 months ago

            I read this article and there is a lot of untruths, for example that Telegram was able to defeat the Russian government by simply changing the IP address, that Telegram is operating outside the law, not following Russian laws, not giving out encryption keys and not cooperating with the state

            • Haven5341@feddit.deOPEnglish
              92·
              9 months ago

              for example that Telegram was able to defeat the Russian government by simply changing the IP address

              Nowhere in the article is “defeat” mentioned. The article reads:

              But all the while, Telegram’s lawyers tried to fight the original give-up-your-keys order in the courts. It had no luck in Russia itself, which is how the case ended up at the European Court of Human Rights.

              Edit:

              This is my last comment. You succeeded in derailing the thread. Congratulations.