• According to Whittaker, the bill requires the encrypted messaging app Signal to install so-called backdoors in the software.
    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      66
      ·
      13 days ago

      Half of the original article:

      The Armed Forces, on the other hand, are negative and write in a letter to the government that the proposal cannot be realized “without introducing vulnerabilities and backdoors that can be exploited by third parties”, reports SVT.

      So that’s covered.

  • HSR🏴‍☠️@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    There needs to be a messaging app which provides a backdoor for every government that requests it. Every time some dumbass legislator asks for a super-giga-secure-backdoor they promise not to misuse, they should be directed to that app.

    • oldfart@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      13 days ago

      Imagine the complexity of the encryption algo with 100 different custom made backdoors!

    • Tarogar@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      12 days ago

      That sounds like unencrypted communication with extra steps. Why not skip all of that and just give them an unencrypted service anyone can read and use. While we are at it, getting rid of those pesky passwords and unwieldy usernames is also a great idea. What could go wrong… I mean CLEARLY no one has anything to hide…

  • kbal@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    13 days ago

    The “if” to that “then” being that if they pass a law that would make Signal illegal in Sweden, then Signal will leave Sweden.

    • Mesophar@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      13 days ago

      Illegal unless they install the backdoors. They could choose to do that instead of leaving Sweden, but they are choosing to leave Sweden.

      • kbal@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        50
        ·
        13 days ago

        If they did that, Signal would no longer exist at all. Nobody anywhere in the world would want to continue using it.

        • Kichae@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          13 days ago

          I think you wildly misunderstand the average person’s motivations and how they weigh decisions.

          • kbal@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            34
            ·
            13 days ago

            The “average person” you have in mind who obviously does not care about cryptographic security also does not use Signal.

            • varyingExpertise@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              15
              ·
              13 days ago

              There are a few people in my social bubble that are not technical at all, but heard a few bad things about WhatsApp and that’s why they are using Signal. Nothing more, they do not know how it works, they do not know who provides it.

              • x00z@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                13 days ago

                And now they’ll hear something bad about Signal and move on as they did with WhatsApp, as per your example.

              • kbal@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                13 days ago

                Seems to me one of the main things that got people to move away from Whatsapp en masse a few years ago was a rumour that they’d added a backdoor to it similar to the one Sweden is thinking of demanding. If an unfounded rumour did that much, the real thing might do substantial damage to Whatsapp as well if they were to go along with it. It probably wouldn’t completely demolish it, as it would for Signal — or at least its demise might take longer.

                • groet@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  13 days ago

                  The target audience is everybody with a Smartphone.

                  The majority of people in my signal contacts are there because someone (sometimes me) pushed them to use it instead of WhatsApp.

          • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            13 days ago

            While that’s generally true, one of the main reasons why people choose apps like Signal is the privacy. People that aren’t aware and don’t care generally wouldn’t have switched to Signal in the first place.

        • Mesophar@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 days ago

          I agree that it would destroy the reason many people use it, but they aren’t outlawing Signal specifically. What they are doing is arguably worse, but this isn’t an “anti-Signal” action.

    • anon@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      13 days ago

      Mullvad has proven time and time again that they don’t log anything at all. Even if they give backdoor access, there’s nothing to record.

      • Rednax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        13 days ago

        Literally the first sentence of the article: “The government wants Signal and Whatsapp to be forced to store messages sent using the apps.”

        • anon@lemmus.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          edit-2
          13 days ago

          WireGuard protocol logs very little information by default. There is literally no way to make it log more than it does by default.

          Even then, Mullvad has no customer information. You’re given a customer number, which is intentional.

          I stand by my initial post in that there is very little, if anything, to record on a Mullvad server. If I’m not mistaken, Mullvad recently announced they are running all VPN services through a RAM only setup, therefore, there aren’t even any drives to record customer information even if they chose to.

          • LH0ezVT@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            12 days ago

            There absolutely is a way to make it log more. Simply add a function to dump the data passing through it. Just because right now there is no such function does not mean one cannot be added.

            • anon@lemmus.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              12 days ago

              Sure, add it, but good luck logging in a RAM only setup. We’re talking semantics because frankly, it doesn’t currently affect Mullvad. If it does, we’ll have to worry about it then.

  • visnae@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    13 days ago

    The Swedish politicians tried adding backdoors to encrypted apps for at least 20 years :P I don’t really understand why they still (ever) think it is a good idea

    • themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      edit-2
      13 days ago

      The problem is that politicians don’t understand cyber security, whta their asking is basically the equivalent of closing the front door of a house and leaving the backdoor open. It was already proven to be a bad idea, eternalblue is a good example.

  • cygnus@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    13 days ago

    I’m a bit surprised that the armed forces are openly opposing this, but good for them!

  • ddash@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    13 days ago

    I have to ask. If Signal “leaves” Sweden because it is deemed illegal without backdoor, how would this even work regarding enforcement? Your phone gets searched and if they find Signal you get a fee? Messaging being blocked somehow by Swedish ISPs, is that even possible?

    • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      13 days ago

      Signal will be delisted from Android/Apple store. That’ll curb the majority of Signal use in Sweden. I suspect Sweden isn’t going to after individuals. They could if they wanted to. ISP blocking, probably not, but yes ISPs can block Signal by blocking all known Signal servers. That’s why Signal supports special proxies that allow individuals to run to allow people from blocked locations to access the Signal servers.

      • varyingExpertise@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        13 days ago

        That’ll curb the majority of Signal use in Sweden.

        …unless a bunch of users plan to actually do something illegal, in which case a delisting from the app store doesn’t stop anything. Once again, it’s just to enable data collection about as many ordinary citizens as possible.

    • athairmor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      13 days ago

      The proposed law would require messaging apps to store copies of user messages.

      The law isn’t targeted at users directly. It’s targeted at the service providers. If the cops can access your phone you’re already screwed.

      Blocking Signal traffic might be theoretically feasible but it would be a game of whack-a-mole. Legally, Signal might have to stop serving IPs in Sweden but that’s Sweden’s problem and VPNs exist.

  • lemmus@szmer.info
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    13 days ago

    I don’t get how its supposed to work…they want to require messengers to include backdoors in their software? So when a program is FOSS, then you can literally just use it knowing there is no backdoor…also, what blocks you from using a server in different country? Wtf that even means…

    • Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      13 days ago

      Then politicians would simply require for “any technical measures to ensure the backdoor to be available” or something like that, meaning it would be Signals’ job to ensure the backdoor works. They don’t give a shit how something is done (IT is just too complex for most of them), only that it gets done somehow. For that very reason federal digital services are such a shitshow so often, they just don’t understand what they even ask for so professionals always have to work around politicians’ demands constantly breaking even the most basic security principles.

      • lemmus@szmer.info
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        12 days ago

        Its them just being idiots, like illegal activities will kedp going using old good pgp, and normies will get spied by political shit, as always…no privacy for honest people.

    • easily3667@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      12 days ago

      Next in line should be matrix. People say it’s hard to use but the devs have gone through like 3 app revisions since then. Main instance requires email but a lot are fully anon.

      • Prism@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 days ago

        DeltaChat makes so much more sense imho for texting. It is based on E-Mail. You can either use their e-mail service (requiring only a username) or you can use your existing imap-email account. End-End encryption is handled automatically.

        • easily3667@lemmus.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 days ago

          Did they figure out forward security and metadata yet? Last I saw they sort of handwaved it.

    • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      13 days ago

      There is no such thing as a precedent in EU law. Any court can in general disagree with any other court. Appeals still exist, but they are only valid for that one case.

      Judges don’t make laws here.

      • easily3667@lemmus.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        12 days ago

        Don’t worry we stopped that in the US too. Congress doesn’t make laws either. We are post-laws.

        • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          13 days ago

          The EU in general uses civil law, not common law. Courts in general don’t establish precedents, so it does not matter what a court rules beyond that specific case, laws are wrtitten to be super specific, and you generally can’t challenge laws in court like in the US.

          The EU works through a double process of lawmaking.

          It can create directives that are like how US laws work as they need specific interpretation, except it’s national legislatures, not courts doing the interpretation.

          And there are regulations - like the GDPR - that have to be adapted and enforced verbatim.

          This is a cornerstone of the ongoing Big Tech dispute, they thought they can forum shop by buying the Irish judiciary, but they can still get indicted, even for the same violation, in any other EU court if that court also has jurisdiction.

  • poVoq@slrpnk.netM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    13 days ago

    Nice PR move, but when do you announce leaving the US, which is the much bigger issue right now?

    • Kilgore Trout@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 days ago

      ISP blocking, probably not, but yes ISPs can block Signal by blocking all known Signal servers. That’s why Signal supports special proxies that allow individuals to run to a

      The US as of now is not threatening to kill end-to-end encryption.

  • Mio@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    12 days ago

    This law cannot go through! This is a threat to democracy in our country.

    Privacy matter. You must be able to talk to your friends without needing to worry about if the government is listening to you. This will not help to catch the bad guys as they will just change to some other protocol. But it opens up the possiblity for third party doing something that they should not even be able to do. Stop this now.

  • A_A@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    13 days ago

    i am searching their link to Sweden

    no link found yet, i will search again

    .
    https://signal.org/
    © 2013–2025 Signal, a 501c3 nonprofit. “Signal”, Signal logos, and other trademarks are trademarks or registered trademarks of Signal Technology Foundation in the United States and other countries (more info here).
    .
    https://signal.org/donate/
    Signal Technology Foundation is a nonprofit under section 501c3 of the US Internal Revenue Code.

    .

      • A_A@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        13 days ago

        Thanks, this makes a lot more sense.
        … i keep, time and again, searching for things, only to discover my “search goal” is not based in reality.

      • oldfart@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        13 days ago

        Yeah, but why do they feel forced to? I understand the EU is imposing fines on Meta and Google because they have branches in member states. But Sweden can do to Signal as much as the US could do to The Pirate Bay.